Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Macbook Pro 13" or 15"

Jan 17, 2011 6:12AM PST

I am looking to buy a macbook pro and need some buying advice. I am a mainstream video and audio editor (I use adobe premire elements and audacity). i would like to know if the 13" base model macbook pro will be able to handle this sort of thing, or do i need a 15" i5 model?
Thanks
Leoleann55

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Not sure I would go with either for
Jan 17, 2011 8:19AM PST

the stated tasks.

I suspect you need something with a little more muscle than the Mac Pro and almost certainly a larger screen.

Of course, that's just my opinion.

P

- Collapse -
I would concur
Jan 17, 2011 9:25AM PST

I would concur with the above. You want something a bit more powerful than a laptop for this. Even the Core i7 MBP 17" would be ill suited for this sort of task. Cramped keyboards, limited screen space, lower powered hardware... It's all going to nag at you constantly after the honeymoon period is over.

I'd say go for an iMac or Mac Pro. A Mac Mini is basically a laptop in a desktop configuration, so equally ill suited.

If you go iMac, I'd strongly recommend the Core i7 option for longevity sake. But if that's a bit rich for your blood, then the Core i5 model would probably be pretty good. The i3 models are likely going to leave you wanting for the stated tasks. Any Mac Pro model should be perfectly well suited for the task.

- Collapse -
Thanks
Jan 17, 2011 12:25PM PST

Thanks for replying! Would they be better suited using iMovie or would It be better getting a core i7 6gb ram pc?
Thanks again!
Leoleann55

- Collapse -
iMovie is not really the software for
Jan 17, 2011 9:03PM PST

"mainstream video"
For that you should be looking at Final Cut Pro or, at a minimum, Final Cut Express.

P

- Collapse -
No
Jan 17, 2011 10:18PM PST

No, laptops are not good platforms for even the most basic of video encoding.

These days laptops are kind of squeezed between netbooks and tablets, but they are NOT just portable desktops. They are not good gaming systems, nor are they good media encoding/editing systems. Laptops are for when you need more freedom than a tablet will provide, and more power than a netbook will provide. One example might be that you have a fairly complex Excel spreadsheet that you need to use. A tablet can't even run a spreadsheet program like Excel, and performing a number of complex calculations on a netbook would probably be excruciatingly slow. So if there's a need for portability as well as power (within reason), that's where a laptop fits in. Not quite as clear cut as a few years ago when laptops were the only option for portability, but in a few more years things should have sorted themselves. Laptops and/or netbooks will likely get squeezed out by smartphones and tablets.

Anyway... Laptops always have the problem of heat buildup. There's considerably less space for that heat to go compared to a desktop, and also less room for fans to move that heat out. You start running programs like video encoders, which keep the CPU running at full speed for extended periods of time, and you're going to generate a lot of heat, which will ultimately have a dramatic (and negative) effect on the life of the laptop. Just take a look at some of the HP systems where they fit desktop CPUs into laptops and the heat they generated was literally melting the case. Or Toshiba's Qossimo line, where they sandwiched two high end video cards one on top of the other, and the result is probably at least a third of them are suffering from massive video failure.

Apple's designers may be better than the industry average, but they're no miracle workers. They can't suspend basic laws of physics, just distort people's sense of reality.

You want to do video encoding, get a desktop. Light to moderate encoding you could get away with an iMac, but if you're doing heavy encoding, I wouldn't take any chances, and go with a Mac Pro.

- Collapse -
"Mainstream?"
Jan 30, 2011 4:51AM PST

I think it is important to understand what the original poster means by "mainstream video editing." If that means taking hours of video and creating something that is of broadcast quality, then I would agree with the need for the most powerful desktop Mac that the person can afford. If this individual means mainstream home video editing and would like to take the computer on vacation in order to spend a little time during the evening cutting the video that was taken during the day, then I think that any current MacBook Pro would do the job, if slowly. Any current MacBook Pro seems to meet the minimum system requirements for Adobe Premiere Elements. Of course, a faster processor, more cores (or virtual cores) and more RAM would speed things up.

- Collapse -
I still wouldn't recommend it
Jan 30, 2011 5:06AM PST

I still wouldn't recommend it. I could do 100mph in my car, and probably jump a gorge in grand Dukes of Hazard fashion... Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Working the CPU on a laptop is just not a good idea, period. It's a very confined space with very little room for any excess heat to go. Even doing this on an all-in-one desktop system like the iMac is pushing it.

It's not a matter of capability, it's a matter of wisdom about using that capability. I absolutely would not recommend it any more on a laptop than I would say an iPad or iPhone. An iMac maybe, but you'd be pushing your luck a bit, and a Mac Mini would not be very wise either. All of them CAN do it, but the better questions is SHOULD they do it?