MacBook Pro Comparison Charts

See Also

Intel, Microsoft

Today, Apple announced their first Intel based laptop. This announcement provides us with some interesting data that can be used to compare the existing platform to its predecessor and to equivalent offerings from the PC world.

Comparing Apples to Apples

One of the interesting thing is that Apple did not demise its existing Powerbook G4 product line. Whether it’s a question of inventory management having gone awry or an attempt to milk more out of the G4 market, it provides an interesting way to compare Apple laptops from the G4 generation to those of the Intel one. For the purpose of this study, I took data directly on the Apple site, looking at their offerings for the Powerbook and its equivalent on the Intel side of the house, the MacBook Pro. Here’s how they stack up against each other:

So, at first look, the processor is about the same, memory is twice as fast, and other specs are roughly the same. But, when you take a second look, you realize there are a few differences. For starter, the footprint of the new laptop is slightly larger (slimer, true, but still with a wider footprint) and there seems to be a few things missing. For example, S-video and composite video seem to be gone. And so is the built-in modem (now available as an extra, sold separately) and so is a firewire 800 port. On the other hand, you get a remote and a video camera with the new laptop.

Also a little scary is the fact that Apple is not touting the battery life on this laptop (it claimed 5.5 hours on the powerbook). Considering the might of Apple marketing, I suspect this is not an oversight but that the battery time is probably lower than 5.5 hours.

Last but not least, it is interesting to see that they are pricing them at exactly the same price-point ($1999). Is Apple hedging its bets?

Comparing Apple to… not Apple

While the Apple to Apple comparison provides some insight into their own product, the fact that they are now switching to Intel Core duo provides us with a unique opportunity to do actual hardware comparisons with other systems. A quick web search yielded the TravelMate 8200, a new laptop from Acer that seemed to match the MacBook in terms of price and offer a Core Duo processor. Let’s look at how they stack against each other since one could assume that both machine could run the same software, if Apple and Microsoft let them.

This table does not seem to favor Apple. On a feature by feature basis, it seems the Acer beats. In the categories of CPU, screen resolution, memory, hard disk space, video memory, and resolution on the video camera, the Acer comes ahead. The same is true in terms of ports (S-video, TV-out, 4 USB2 (vs 2 on the MacBook), more audio ports, etc…). However, when it comes to weight and size, the Apple machine is much slicker. The MacBook offers a backlit keyboard but the Acer offers a modem. So if it’s style you’re after, the MacBook is your machine but if you’re aching for raw power, another option may beat it.

Update:

There’s a discussion going on in the comments as to the price on the Acer. Currently, different sources are quoting two different prices: $1999 and $2499. I don’t know which one is correct yet and could not find that information on the Acer site.

Comments

1. 1Kevin — Jun 19, 2006 : 8:30 pm

   Newegg has the Travelmate 8200 for slightly less than $2,000 as of 6/19/06

2. 2Anthony — Jun 21, 2006 : 1:46 pm

   The Macbook Pro specs you have published are innacurate. The processors start at 2 GHZ, and the deives do feature e Anti-Shock Protection. It also boots Windows via Bootcamp.

3. 3Libs — Jul 06, 2006 : 6:26 pm

   The mac looks way nicer aesthetically. But lol “Anti-Shock” protection…. “Anti-shock,” wow what a word. All components in a laptop has its own tested shock resistance (like harddrives have a certain threshold when operating and not operating). The chasis can help a little bit, but “anti-shock”… I think apple’s trying really hard here.

4. 4Brent — Jul 22, 2006 : 2:45 pm

   Your MacBook Pro specs are definitely off, but not so much for Jan 11. However, your analysis ignores the software that comes installed. The stuff on the Mac is stuff you’d actually want to use. Also, you ignore the fact that even with the same specs, the Mac will boot much faster (into OS X, if not XP too). Finally, I get done with things I’m doing way faster on my MacBook Pro. Everything responds snappier in OS X. I hate going back to using Windows now, just because I have to wait so long for everything to load and respond.

5. 5Kyle Prescott — Sep 04, 2006 : 7:48 pm

   “The Macbook Pro specs you have published are innacurate. The processors start at 2 GHZ, and the deives do feature e Anti-Shock Protection. It also boots Windows via Bootcamp.”

   When the intel laptops were first out the slowest was 1.67

   The anti-shock technology is the feature of having the hard drive shut down in a few ms after it detects a shock…. most laptops have this

   its also makes having the software smackbook a lot of fun

6. 6Jon — Oct 25, 2006 : 6:57 am

   You left out the most important point: the OS.

   The MacBook can run OS X and Windows via BootCamp. The Acer comes with some version of Windows. Well, Windows is a steaming pile of shit. That drops it well below the MacBook in terms of specs.

7. 7andre — Jan 23, 2007 : 11:15 pm

   Omg, who ever wrote this comparison knows NOTHING about macs. This comparison is highly biased. Let me set you straight. The 15inch macbooks come with at LEAST 2.16 ghz WITH 4MB’s of cache, an ati 1600 with 128 OR 256 mmegs of memory, 1 GB STANDARD, 1 firewire 400 and 1 firewire 800, airport extreme that support 802.11 A B G & N with firmware upgrade. BATTERY LIFE IS 4-5 HOURS with standard usage, 1-2 HOURS when playing dvds or other highly intensive tasks.

   Beyond all this your buying an apple which can run windows. also CROSSOVER MAC allows you to install windows apps + GAMES without windows.

   “anti-shock” – this is alot better than what LIBS describes it as. The computer can detect how many “G’s” the laptop is taking, so lets say it started to fall from your desk, the computer would detect this, stop the hard drive during the high G’s and then turn the hard drive back on when the G’s are back to normal.

   APPLE is a superior pc manufacturer. A wise man once said “if you want to make good software, make good hard ware”. When you buy a pc laptop, most of them are pretty much the same, in fact most of them are made from the same motherboard manufacturer. The reason why people buy apple is not only the the os superior to windows and easy to use, but the hardware is awesome.

   that acer is pretty good though. My teacher has one too. but.. apple is better none the less, if i were to get a pc, it would probably be that acer. But why would i want another pc?

8. 8Francisco Gama — Nov 28, 2007 : 8:03 am

   hi
   Ignoring the fact that the comparison is outdated, i think that chart benefits Apple.
   RAM BUS and ATI graphic card highly underclocked because of known heat problems. Up to the Modem saying “Apple USB Modem (sold separately)” is the same of “Not Available”. Battery of these new macs lasts less than 3 hours. Oh, it’s a lie that a Mac boots faster. Just a myth.
   On details, the Acer includes case and mouse and adapters you have to pay in a Mac.

   Of course that Apple design hypnotises a lot of people like most of the comments here but the truth is that they only give a real advantage on a Software discussion.

   Thanks

   P.S.:
   I have a bunch of pc’s, a laptop x86, a macbook and a macbook pro.

9. 9Mickey — Oct 15, 2008 : 12:35 am

   Macbook Pro doesn’t come with HDMI?? what the? I won’t buy unless it comes with HTMI. How am i to hook it up with my HDTV. I don’t want to use two cables -1 for Video and -2 for Sound? what were you thinking Steve Jobs?

10. 10DPC — Jul 07, 2009 : 1:47 pm

    Not to mention, Apple doesn’t subsidize hardware costs with adware and cr@pware. Windows machine developers do. Even when removing the garbageware, the registry isn’t entirely cleaned up, and even using 3rd party cleaning tools, the registry is not re-compressed. Which still means slower performance and greater risk of corruption than if the yutzware wasn’t installed to begin with.

    If Windows machine brands didn’t do the “Subsidize me with heapware” routine, costs would almost be identical. Never mind Apple hasn’t any ill-implemented registry to muck things up… or a file system that fragments files as part of its very nature… or needs a 4GB system to run at an acceptable speed… (no platform is immune to viruses and malware… OS X is still by and large cleaner, but nothing is immune so it’s a silly argument to really make in the first place.)