Need help...powerbook dilema!

Discussion in 'Buying Tips, Advice and Discussion (archive)' started by Romulan, Aug 10, 2004.

  1. Romulan macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #1
    I'm going to get a powerbook this week but I still can't decide between the 12 inch and the 15 inch. If I got a 12 inch it would be:

    • 768MB DDR333 (256MB built-in + 512MB SO-DIMM)
    • 60GB Ultra ATA drive @ 4200rpm
    • Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
    • AirPort Extreme Card
    • Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
    • 1.33GHz PowerPC G4
    • NVIDIA GeForce FX GO 5200 with 64MB DDR Video Memory
    • 12.1-inch TFT Display
    Subtotal $1,669.00

    If i got a 15 inch it would be:

    • 1.33GHz PowerPC G4 with 64MB Graphics Memory
    • 512MB DDR333 SDRAM - 1 SO-DIMM
    • 60GB Ultra ATA drive @ 4200 rpm
    • Combo Drive (DVD-ROM/CD-RW)
    • Keyboard/Mac OS - U.S. English
    • AirPort Extreme Card
    • 15.2-inch TFT Display
    Subtotal $1,979.00

    I will be doing basic computing, some video editing and maybe play a few games (like UT2004 :) If anyone could help me out on this one that would be awesome. Thx in advance. Oh yeah...does anyone think 12" is too small...anyproblems with this...thx.
     
  2. jxyama macrumors 68040

    jxyama

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2003
    #2
    if you get the 12", save yourself money and buy the 512 MB stick third party.

    i have a 12" PB rev. A. i love the portability. but if you are going to game a bit, i think i'd personally go for the 15".
     
  3. SolidGun macrumors 6502

    SolidGun

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Location:
    Twin Cities
    #3
    I don't think 12" is small at all, but I bought it for portable computing. It will be challenging to play UT2004 or similar games with notebooks (I said challenging not possible, don't get riled up about this ppl). But if you want to game, I would go with the 15" because it offers Radeon 9700.
    12" easy on the back, but 15" may suite your gaming needs.
     
  4. wide macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Location:
    NYC
    #4
    Get the RAM from someone else and buy an external CRT for gaming. The 15-inch PowerBook does have a far superior video card though (even though the VRAM is the same on each model)
     
  5. puckhead193 macrumors G3

    puckhead193

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Location:
    NY
    #5
    I have a 15" and I love it. Is portability an issue? The 15" is portable yet it has a nice size screen. Is money tight? i would say go for the 1.5 and the upgrade the vram espially if your going to be playing some games. Its better to have then not have. Go in the s tore and and see which one you like best!
     
  6. Elan0204 macrumors 65816

    Elan0204

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #6
    Personally, if the powerbook is going to be your primary\only computer I'd go for the 15" for the bigger screen. However, if you also have a desktop or a big second monitor, I'd go with the 12" for extra portability.
     
  7. rareflares macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    #7
    just curious, but what kind of framerates would the 12" get in UT2004, Call of Duty, etc. with the above configuration?

    If any 12" owners have experience, I would love to hear your detailed impressions (especialy with the updated 10.3.5 graphics drivers).

    i'm having the same dilemma and am leaning towards the 12" simply because of $$$. So i just want to know what kind of gaming i can expect (specifically framerates and settings).


    thanks
     
  8. Eomando macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    Well, i've got a 12" pb, but mostly i just play warcraft 3 or neverwinter nights (though i have been tempted to try out the ut2004 and call of duty demos - i miss counterstrike..). As far as wc3 and nwn go though, i've been more than happy with how they run on my laptop, they run nice and smooth for me (and i'm quite picky about jerkiness)...

    However, that doesn't mean that it'd be like that for all games, especially future ones... so if i was you, i'd have a hunt around for any upcoming games for the mac you might *want* to play... the 15"s graphics card might come in a bit more handy for you in a year's time...

    I wouldn't swap my 12" for a 15"... but i'm not really going to be too upset as far as games go either, i'm quite happy with how it plays things now, and i'm sure it'll play future games that *i'm* interested in..

    it's all down to what you play, in the end... i'll try out the demo's for ut2004 and call of duty and tell you how they run if no-one else can tell you how the real game goes :)
     
  9. rareflares macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
    #9
    thanks Eomando!

    I've heard that there is a sound bug in the UT2004 demo that really screws up performance (the retail version is bug-free). So turning off the sound in the demo will probably yield the same framerates you would get in the real version.

    Call of Duty is also supposed to be more optimized in the real version than the demo so also keep that in mind before you try it out.


    looking forward to hear your impressions on the demos regardless. :)
     
  10. FriarCrazy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Location:
    Ames, IA/Eden Prairie, MN
    #10
    I can play UT2k4 at maxed graphics settings on my 12" PB rev C (details in sig). Indoor levels (like Asbestos) NEVER drop below a steady 30 fps. Levels like onslaught Torlan never drop below a steady 15 fps (most of the action stays around 23 fps). Some of the new levels (like HyperBlast2) kick the crap out of the performance, but then I just take the detail settings down. If you get the retail version of UT2k4, it will 95% of the time be playable and over 20fps. I have had great gaming experiences on it. Call of Duty is another great performer, only in the LARGEST maps does it get a little choppy, and even then its fine. That game I also run at max resolution, but with "high" detail settings (not maximum). 10.3.5 seemed to help me out, but I didn't do any benches. I can honestly say that you won't be disappointed by UT2k4 and Call of Duty if you are willing to tone the graphics down a wee bit.
     
  11. vraxtus macrumors 65816

    vraxtus

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2004
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #11

    Rev B 12" = Halo Timedemo = 18 avg FPS @ 800x600 medium quality
     
  12. rareflares macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Location:
    Washington D.C.
  13. Eomando macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Location:
    UK
    #13
    Well, i had a little go of the demo's of ut2004 and cod last night..

    Call of Duty's quite unplayable, I don't know how I survived so long considering that it was a bit jerky when there was no fighting going on, and as soon as people started firing, and i tried to start aiming, it was quite useless... i tried on 1024x768 and 800x600 with the majority of things turned off... if the real thing is improved over the demo, then i might be just playable as far as i can see.....

    ut2004, on the other hand, played rather well, especially since i've seen people complain how poorly the demo plays.. but i had barely a stutter as i was running around.. that was on 1024x768, with all the other default options left as they were..

    Course, cod could be helped by me having more ram.. i've got the stock 12" with combo drive, but with 512mb of ram... i know that when i got it with 256mb, neverwinter nights was appalling to play, but as soon as i stuck in the other stick of ram, it was wonderful.. so it *could* be a case of a bit more ram helping things out :)
     

Share This Page