Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

My MBP edged by my brother's budget PC

A

AppleGoat

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Oct 14, 2010
655
8
My brother took delivery of an i3 HP notebook with Intel's integrated graphics; well maybe not exactly a budget laptop, but it's hard to come by an i3 for less - just over 500.

I compared it to my current generation Macbook Pro 13-inch, which I love but have been perpetually irked by Apple's short shrift in the processor department. I chose NFL.com, one of the few sites that is kind of sluggish on my MBP, its virtually invincible compared to my old Powerbook G4. Well, I noticed that the site ran better on my brother's HP, not choppy, and the drop-down menus smoothly did what they were designed to do. I've begun to question others claims that an entry level i3 is not really better than a C2D when it comes to everyday tasks.

Perhaps, I should run over to the Apple store and see how NFL.com loads on the 15 and 17-inch Arrandale-equipped machines to rule out the sluggishness is software-related.

For what's it's worth, I just popped open the site on Safari and it was little bit peppier. Before, I had conducted the test with Firefox on both machines.

It may seem like I'm quibbling over nothing, but this may not bode well for the future, as surely graphic-intensive websites like NFL.com are the future of the internet. Apple needs to get with the times and upgrade the MBP which, in a handful of respects, is inferior to the Airs that are geared towards casual computer users.
 
It's almost certainly a software issue. Flash is notorious for being sluggish and laggy.
Do you have the latest version? The new builds seem to be a lot better.
Alternatively try Chrome, it has a built in flash player which seems to run pretty nicely.
For reference, I just tried that site on my almost 3 year old blackbook (2.16G2D, 4GB RAM etc) and it ran perfectly. Shouldn't be a problem at all on a faster machine
 
Seriously? Look at the speed benchmarks. The i3 processors are very crippled. The gpu would be seriously compromised to be able to have an i3 in it. This topic has been gone over again and again and again.
Not a fair comparison. What web browser on mac? On windows? Flash plays a big part here... something apple doesn't develop.
 
Last edited:
phib3r0ptik said:
It's almost certainly a software issue. Flash is notorious for being sluggish and laggy.
Do you have the latest version? The new builds seem to be a lot better.
Alternatively try Chrome, it has a built in flash player which seems to run pretty nicely.
For reference, I just tried that site on my almost 3 year old blackbook (2.16G2D, 4GB RAM etc) and it ran perfectly. Shouldn't be a problem at all on a faster machine
Click to expand...

But at the same time, the OP is quite right in questioning why a $500 budget laptop will beast a $1000 premium laptop. Up until just a few months ago, Apple wouldn't allow Adobe to use the API's that they needed to optimize Flash for OS X. So yes you're right, the HP i3 will beat your C2D macbook pro, but it's not because of the CPU, it's because of OS X ;)
 
aimbdd said:
Seriously? Look at the speed benchmarks. The i3 processors are very crippled. The gpu would be seriously compromised to be able to have an i3 in it. This topic has been gone over again and again and again.
Click to expand...

How are the i3s crippled? They are superior to the C2D, not by a heck of a lot, but still newer and better technology. The drawback of course is in the graphics department, if there is no discrete chip. I'm not putting down my MBP, I was just making an observation. NFL.com loads up well for me, it just wasn't as smooth when compared to my brother's computer.
 
AppleGoat said:
How are the i3s crippled? They are superior to the C2D, not by a heck of a lot, but still newer and better technology. The drawback of course is in the graphics department, if there is no discrete chip.
Click to expand...

Right there is why the i3 is inferior. The graphics card plays a big big part in things, especially on OSX when OpenCL enabled apps will start showing up.

Not to mention your test is flawed. First off you used Firefox. Its a slow slow browser. Use something like Safari or Chrome.

Second, internet speed has pretty much nothing to do with the speed of a computer. You need a real test like video encoding. Just having a page load slower means nothing, especially if its flash based.
 
that cheap budget laptop has the newest technology
the mbp 13 has 2-3 year old tech

of course the new tech will beat out the old. but of course every apple fan boy will defend apple to their dying breath. I'm not apple hater, in fact I plan on buying a mbp after the refresh. it's a bit ridiculous that apple charges so much for old tech.
 
gonnabuyamacbsh said:
that cheap budget laptop has the newest technology
the mbp 13 has 2-3 year old tech

of course the new tech will beat out the old. but of course every apple fan boy will defend apple to their dying breath. I'm not apple hater, in fact I plan on buying a mbp after the refresh. it's a bit ridiculous that apple charges so much for old tech.
Click to expand...

Its nothing to do with fanboyism, most people refuse to believe that Apple is a different type of business model. Apple makes money off of hardware, thats why their software is so cheap. Free developer tools, their full office suite is only $70, their OS is $129 for the full version, etc. Microsoft makes money off of software, which is why their OS is $400 for the full version, their office suite is $400+ for the full version, their developer tools are almost a grand for the full version, etc.

As for bargain PCs, if they were sold at straight hardware level HP, Acer, etc would all take a loss or break about even. They make money by letting countless crapware vendors rent "spots" on their OEM disks. Thats why so many windows PCs come with crap loaded all over them. Not to mention, you get what you pay for.

Too many people use the "fanboy" card when in reality they know nothing about the computer industry or the companies that are in it.
 
It could also have something to do with the freshness of the install? From my experience, things are always peppier before you start messing with the configurations, etc.
 
If the 13" MBPs had a dedicated graphics card and an ix processor they would be just as good for everything except flash :D

On the contrary though, I know people with mid range 15" windows laptops that don't have an ix processor or a dedicated graphics card.
 
NFL.com's menu is NOT flash. It's a little choppy on my work PC.

GET OVER IT. There are SO many things that could slow things down on websites...could be internet related, code related, browser related, etc. etc.
 
NFL.com runs just fine and smooth in my MacBook Pro 13" 2010.
I really don't understand what AppleGoat is saying.

You should take a look at others applications running in background, as well as any process that could be eating all your CPU performance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd1GjXfk_ik

PS: Is there any way to embed an YouTube video in my post?
 
Just tried this on my 2010 13" MBP - in Safari, things were smooth if I didn't load the Flash banner just below the menus. Loading the Flash and then mousing over the menus caused the animation to be much more choppy.
 
Could be slowing down for a number of reasons. I did a browser test before and firefox came in dead last in terms of performance on osx. Chrome is by a significant margin much faster.

Firefox on osx is NOT the same on windows.
 
vant said:
Firefox on osx is NOT the same on windows.
Click to expand...

Honestly I don't know why people keep saying that.

Have you even compared performance of Firefox in Windows and OSX using the same hardware?

Usually a Mac has inferior hardware compared to a PC, so I think it's safe to say that Firefox would run worse in a Mac than on a PC, but not because of OS X...

Yes, Firefox is by far the most CPU-demanding web browser available. I've done the same test and found out that all WebKit browser (Safari and Chrome) consume less CPU than others.
In both Windows and OS X, Firefox consumes more CPU than any other web browser.

Firefox is the same thing on Windows and Firefox, at least performance-wise.
 
davidcmc said:
Honestly I don't know why people keep saying that.

Have you even compared performance of Firefox in Windows and OSX using the same hardware?

Usually a Mac has inferior hardware compared to a PC, so I think it's safe to say that Firefox would run worse in a Mac than on a PC, but not because of OS X...

Yes, Firefox is by far the most CPU-demanding web browser available. I've done the same test and found out that all WebKit browser (Safari and Chrome) consume less CPU than others.
In both Windows and OS X, Firefox consumes more CPU than any other web browser.

Firefox is the same thing on Windows and Firefox, at least performance-wise.
Click to expand...
Fire fox is bloat. Horrible. On my windows desktop, with no extensions installed it opens slower then IE. Thats pretty bad...
Google Chrome all the way!
 
Last edited:
NFL.COM no problem on my new 13'' MBP Base model it ran
very smoothly on Safari.
 
AppleGoat said:
My brother took delivery of an i3 HP notebook with Intel's integrated graphics; well maybe not exactly a budget laptop, but it's hard to come by an i3 for less - just over 500.

I compared it to my current generation Macbook Pro 13-inch, which I love but have been perpetually irked by Apple's short shrift in the processor department. I chose NFL.com, one of the few sites that is kind of sluggish on my MBP, its virtually invincible compared to my old Powerbook G4. Well, I noticed that the site ran better on my brother's HP, not choppy, and the drop-down menus smoothly did what they were designed to do. I've begun to question others claims that an entry level i3 is not really better than a C2D when it comes to everyday tasks.

Perhaps, I should run over to the Apple store and see how NFL.com loads on the 15 and 17-inch Arrandale-equipped machines to rule out the sluggishness is software-related.

For what's it's worth, I just popped open the site on Safari and it was little bit peppier. Before, I had conducted the test with Firefox on both machines.

It may seem like I'm quibbling over nothing, but this may not bode well for the future, as surely graphic-intensive websites like NFL.com are the future of the internet. Apple needs to get with the times and upgrade the MBP which, in a handful of respects, is inferior to the Airs that are geared towards casual computer users.
Click to expand...
Windows slows down pretty fast
Firefox is slow, Safari is much better
gonnabuyamacbsh said:
that cheap budget laptop has the newest technology
the mbp 13 has 2-3 year old tech

of course the new tech will beat out the old. but of course every apple fan boy will defend apple to their dying breath. I'm not apple hater, in fact I plan on buying a mbp after the refresh. it's a bit ridiculous that apple charges so much for old tech.
Click to expand...
A Pentium M will obliterate a 50% better clocked Atom ∴ Newer≠Better
 
chrono1081 said:
Not to mention your test is flawed. First off you used Firefox. Its a slow slow browser. Use something like Safari or Chrome.
Click to expand...

What?! If they are both using Firefox, it is totally not a flawed test as both computers will be running a slow browser. What would be flawed is if you had one running Firefox and another a different browser. But to really accurately compare, you'd have to have them running as much the same software as possible (unless you have an arguement that Firefox is crappy on the Mac but runs great on the PC).
 
tigress666 said:
What?! If they are both using Firefox, it is totally not a flawed test as both computers will be running a slow browser. What would be flawed is if you had one running Firefox and another a different browser. But to really accurately compare, you'd have to have them running as much the same software as possible (unless you have an arguement that Firefox is crappy on the Mac but runs great on the PC).
Click to expand...

fire fox is very crappy on mac, and mostly crappy on windows.
 
chrono1081 said:
Right there is why the i3 is inferior. The graphics card plays a big big part in things, especially on OSX when OpenCL enabled apps will start showing up.
Click to expand...
lol, We've been waiting for OpenCL apps now since June of 2009 (when SL was unveiled and released to the developers). Even apple doesn't seem all that serious with OpenCL since they don't use it AFAIK

As for the crippled comment, I keep seeing it here but without any proof/substance behind it. I'm not saying it isn't crippled, but just saying doesn't make it so. I'd not call an inferior GPU a crippled i3 either.

All things being equal, it would seem that an i3 should beat out a c2d machine because of the improvements intel built into the i3 chipset over the aging and sagging c2d platform that's been around since 2006. While intel has kept refreshing the line, they made no major architecture changes so what they built in 06 is still the same in 2010
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back