Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MBP 1,1-10,2 Macbook Pro 2010 15 / 17 inch whats your opinion?
- Thread starter vddrnnr
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- If the GPU appears to be faulty, it’s usually this instead.
- Up to 8 GB RAM (less than the 13“).
- 15“: 1440×900 or 1680×1050.
- 17“: 1920×1200.
Adding on to @Amethyst1's list:
This meant that Apple would have had to use an Intel chipset in the 13", which they really didn't want to do as they would be forced to use Intel's integrated graphics, which as most of us know was extremely sub-par to say the least prior to Sandy Bridge. The 13" didn't have the thermal overhead to run an additional discrete GPU, so they had to stick with the older Penryn architecture until Sandy Bridge was announced.
TL;DR: If Intel's integrated graphics weren't shocking prior to Sandy Bridge and the HD 3000, then we would have seen a 2010 13" with Core-i/Nehalem CPU's.
- The 15"/17" officially only supports up to 1066MHz DDR3, however the Nehalem chipset is much more forgiving when it comes to memory speed than the older NVIDIA MCP79/89 chipset used in the 2010 13" and all other Late 2008-Mid 2009 MBP's. 1333MHz sticks should work without any issues.
- The 15" came with three display options; 1440x900 glossy, 1680x1050 glossy, and 1680x1050 antiglare. The 17" only came with a 1920x1200 display in either a glossy or antiglare config. I'd say that the 15" HR glossy is probably the rarest these days, as most people opting for the high-res screen on the 15" got the antiglare option.
- The 15"/17" used the GeForce GT 330M GPU alongside the Intel HD 2000 integrated GPU. The lower-tier 15" had 256MB of VRAM, while the higher-tier 15" and the 17" came with 512MB of VRAM.
This meant that Apple would have had to use an Intel chipset in the 13", which they really didn't want to do as they would be forced to use Intel's integrated graphics, which as most of us know was extremely sub-par to say the least prior to Sandy Bridge. The 13" didn't have the thermal overhead to run an additional discrete GPU, so they had to stick with the older Penryn architecture until Sandy Bridge was announced.
TL;DR: If Intel's integrated graphics weren't shocking prior to Sandy Bridge and the HD 3000, then we would have seen a 2010 13" with Core-i/Nehalem CPU's.
Overall, the 2010 15"/17" is around 40-50% faster than the equivalent 2009 model in Geekbench 2/3. Real world performance may vary, however a 2009 maxed out with 8GB and an SSD will of course be way faster than a 2010 with 4GB of RAM and a spinning drive.
Do note though that the 2011 15"/17", with its quad-core Sandy Bridge CPU's is around 70-80% faster than the equivalent 2010 model. There was a massive jump in performance when Apple switched to Sandy Bridge and quad-core.
I wouldn't go getting a 2011 15" or 17" though as they suffer from probably the worst GPU failure on any MacBook. A 2012 is the best option. It's a quad-core machine with a Metal GPU.
And, more importantly, 2010 MBAs with Nehalems.
And Thunderbolt, with the ability to run two external monitors in addition to the internal.Don't forget USB 3.0 as well.
Last edited:
Hi all,
Thanks for all your input.
The main reason for me asking is that I bought a 2010 17 inch this week for parts I was going to use
on my 2009 as many components like the battery, fans, etc are the same or interchangeable.
It was only 30€ with battery, charger, etc except the hd. I also bought the sellers 8gb ram sticks so in all 60€.
I then found that the laptop was working and seems like a good upgrade from my 2009.
From my quick experience I found:
1. Although temps behave a bit like the core2duo they also go down very quickly so cooler in general
2. In day to day usage the intel hd 2000 seems capable enough ( using steve schow's fork of gfxcardstatus I can
mostly keep it on the internal without switching )
3. The trackpad seems better than the 2009
4. Since temps are in general lower the fans produce much less noise
5. It's cooler to the touch on the left side compared to the 2009
6. The CPU performance as @theMarble said it performs much better even with a lower base clock and it has
hyperthreading which also helps
7. RAM although is the same as the 2009 seems speedier
8. As parts are interchangeable it good to have more options if you need to replace any
Right now I'm thinking changing the 2009 mate LCD to this one as I like non-glossy macs much more.
Best regards,
voidRunner
Thanks for all your input.
The main reason for me asking is that I bought a 2010 17 inch this week for parts I was going to use
on my 2009 as many components like the battery, fans, etc are the same or interchangeable.
It was only 30€ with battery, charger, etc except the hd. I also bought the sellers 8gb ram sticks so in all 60€.
I then found that the laptop was working and seems like a good upgrade from my 2009.
From my quick experience I found:
1. Although temps behave a bit like the core2duo they also go down very quickly so cooler in general
2. In day to day usage the intel hd 2000 seems capable enough ( using steve schow's fork of gfxcardstatus I can
mostly keep it on the internal without switching )
3. The trackpad seems better than the 2009
4. Since temps are in general lower the fans produce much less noise
5. It's cooler to the touch on the left side compared to the 2009
6. The CPU performance as @theMarble said it performs much better even with a lower base clock and it has
hyperthreading which also helps
7. RAM although is the same as the 2009 seems speedier
8. As parts are interchangeable it good to have more options if you need to replace any
Right now I'm thinking changing the 2009 mate LCD to this one as I like non-glossy macs much more.
Best regards,
voidRunner
Last edited:
I’m running a 15” 2010 base MBP as my DD and can say that once the capacitor for the graphics mux circuit is replaced it’s a real stable machine under macOS 10.9 Mavericks.
I’m running it with a 256GB SSD and 6GB of RAM.
With Opencore Legacy and Monterey I had real frustrations because the intel graphic chip is really underperforming even stuttering watching YouTube videos. So I just stay on the Nvidia 330m permanently under Monterey and can enjoy every VOD platform without problems.
I had to reinstall Monterey at least 3x times because it become really crash-happy in a short period of time and had to force shutdown a lot and that led to more problems.
With latest OCL and latest Monterey but otherwise a barebones OS install it’s working ok now again for 2 weeks.
Overall it’s a nice system if you get it for cheap but my opinion is based on that this machine is literally the most powerful Mac I have
I’m running it with a 256GB SSD and 6GB of RAM.
With Opencore Legacy and Monterey I had real frustrations because the intel graphic chip is really underperforming even stuttering watching YouTube videos. So I just stay on the Nvidia 330m permanently under Monterey and can enjoy every VOD platform without problems.
I had to reinstall Monterey at least 3x times because it become really crash-happy in a short period of time and had to force shutdown a lot and that led to more problems.
With latest OCL and latest Monterey but otherwise a barebones OS install it’s working ok now again for 2 weeks.
Overall it’s a nice system if you get it for cheap but my opinion is based on that this machine is literally the most powerful Mac I have