Macbook Pro 13" Graphics, A Contentious Issue.

I have a feeling I am about to open a can of worms in regards to the new Macbook Pros, in regards to the forever debated topics for laptops: "Portability VS Power" & "The Hybrid Laptop"

My query is in regards to the new Sandy Bridge 13" Macbook Pro. It has been my previous intention to purchase this machine upgraded to the i7 rather than the i5 for a little more grunt.

My personal requirements are quite simple, I am an engineer. I am using infoworks, CAD and a few more engineering programs in my job (and thus requiring bootcamp, but that's a separate issue). I have done a fair bit of research, spoken to a few fellow engineers about their thoughts on the computer, and the responses have varied, with some saying "make sure to get the next model up with the dedicated graphics" and others saying "I've got the one you're buying and it runs so quickly!" and thus my judgement of late has been a little skewed.

Lo and behold, Youtube.

I watched videos of people playing their high end games, and read reviews on the product (for example, COD4, which I understand uses a lot on the graphics front YouTube - Call of Duty 4: 13 Inch MacBook Pro Gaming (Early 2011) on youtube, and reviews with video benchmark tests on the Macbook Pro 13" with the i7 ( Apple MacBook Pro 13" (2011) review from TechRadar UK's expert reviews of Laptops and netbooks).

This poses the all important question for the intellectually minded laptop community in regards to what this computer offers. The resulting answer will hopefully, vastly help not just me, but many other consumers in their decision over purchasing a new Macbook Pro.

Question:
I understand that sandy-bridge technology vastly improves the efficiency of integrated graphics, as well as many other things. Will the Macbook Pro 13" (and thus the Intel 3000 HD graphics) be able to sustain my software? Or should I spend more to go up to the entry level Macbook Pro 15"? Basically, Just how good is this machines grunt?

Please refer to the bench-tests supplied by the 2nd link in this comment, your help is greatly appreciated!

 

For those of you who are unsure on the Macbook Pros in question's specifications, they are listed below:

MacBook Pro. 13"
13-inch: 2.7 GHz
2.7GHz dual-core
Intel Core i7
4GB 1333MHz
500GB 5400-rpm1
Intel HD Graphics 3000
Built-in battery (7 hours)


MacBook Pro. 15"
2.0GHz quad-core
Intel Core i7
4GB 1333MHz
500GB 5400-rpm1
Intel HD Graphics 3000
AMD Radeon HD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5
Built-in battery (7 hours)

 

Technically just going by the specs and Intel Driver Quality in 3D Games you know it is a downgrade.
If you try to find information regarding Graphics you find a lot of review avoiding doing graphics benchmarks.
But here is 1 done individually as performance drops as expected.
The gaming videos are done on low settings/resolution just like gaming on a low end Nvidia G310M, playable but the graphics is definitely horrible to me.

 

The MBP 15 is a pretty fast machine, while the MBP 13 is average. My $750 Sony Vaio beats it in everything but processor and battery(I get 5H).

If I was planning to do what your going to do, I'd get the MBP 15.

 

Hey Weinter, thanks for the comment.

A useful link you've given me here, now I should go into more detail so I can get the best advice possible.

I am not going to be gaming! However, the reason why I found the COD4 video useful is because they were actually able to RUN the game in the first place. I am pretty sure the software I am running requires decent graphics. I'm not after high detail gaming, just modelling using this software.

I will be using infoworks and CAD software, so I am trying to clarify if the 13" Macbook Pro with the Intel HD graphics has enough VRAM to sustain these programs. Or, if the 15" MBP should be my solution.

Does the HD3000 graphics do the job?

 

Unless Mac OS is required for you to do your job, it might be better to go with something like an HP Elitebook 8540w. It doesn't use a Sandy Bridge CPU, but you will get an NVIDIA Quadro GPU, which is designed for CAD and modeling.

 

Probably the conservative call. In that case, 256 graphics is enough or 1gb?


If I begin to stretch the price barrier, ks there a laptop out there that is similar but not so expensive? (I.e. Good battery life, processor, graphics card, sleek design)

 

Intel Graphics does not support 3D Acceleration in AutoCad Graphics.
You need a Nvidia Quadro Equipped System.
In fact for raw performance I don't think Macbook is a good idea because this year all laptops will get Sandy Bridge CPU and some with Quad Cores yet costing the same or cheaper than Apple's offerings.
Unless you need OS X in your work, I think a normal laptop will be cheaper and have greater processing power.

 

I would recommend MBP 15" for you because I think you'll need a bigger and higher resolution screen to do actual CAD work. 13" 1280x800 is too small for that imo.

Also, you won't have to worry about 3D performance with 15" MBP.

 

I currently have the i7 13" and run AutoCAD 2011 on it without issues. Granted, I am not doing any 3D modeling but I haven't had problems outputting to a 1080p+ monitor and using AutoCAD for multiple structures/objects.

It should be noted that you cannot compare gaming performance to that of what you would see in design programs. The ability of a GPU to run Call of Duty (or any game) is not directly correlated to 3D design performance. That is why there are different lines of GPUs. Some are made for gaming while others were made for 3D design (like the Nvidia Quadro line).

Also, as previously pointed out, unless you are head over heals for Mac OS X, a Windows notebook would be better. I went with the MBP for many reasons but the main one was my frustration with the Windows environment. Nothing really wrong with the OS, it is just that everyone is out to get it (ie virus, malware, spyware, and trojans even when visiting standard non-pron sites). I wanted to switch operating systems to something that would still work with all my hardware and allow me to run iTunes. That pretty much left me with Mac OS X. It also doesn't hurt that I really like the design of the MBP line and think highly of their build quality.

Still, you can get similarly designed notebooks from other manufacturers who use Windows for about $200-$400 less than what Apple charges. So you should really only go with a MBP if you want/need to run Mac OS X. Otherwise there are less expensive options that provide the same or better performance.

 

Abortion and fiscal spending are contentious issues, but computer selection is not. The answer to your question is that the 13" MBP may meet your needs adequately, but it won't deliver optimal performance for your money. The reason for this is that the 13" MBP is simply not designed for such usage scenarios. I'd recommend looking at the 15" machine with the high-res screen, or even the 17". Not only do you need more computing power for these resources, you will also need a larger space.

 

You'll be using CAD software so get the MBP 15 and max out the ram and other specs.