I have that Mouse. It's excellent. Do you have past experience with multi-touch trackpads? Reason I ask is you may want to give that a fair try before you decide to drop ~$100 on a mouse. The trackpad is awesome. Possibly my favorite feature of Apple laptops. That mouse is awesome for use with the Adobe programs, for instance, for automation and shortcuts. I use it when I'm working and only when I'm working.
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.
Buyer's remorse: 15" GPUs?
- Thread starter Prodo123
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I love the multitouch surface. The only thing that was a bummer was the lack of buttons. I need precision, and a gigantic button-pad can't make pinpoint clicks. Every time I tried, the pointer shook and shifted.
Also, for precision work, mice and trackballs are the best.
Sounds like you know what you want. I just wanted to add a word of caution in case you didn't. If I'm doing casual stuff I just use the trackpad, but for work I wouldn't want to be without a real mouse and the Performance MX is the best one available, in my opinion.
If I'm doing casual stuff I just use the trackpad, but for work I wouldn't want to be without a real mouse and the Performance MX is the best one available, in my opinion.it's not just a .2MHz speed increase, the 2.2GHz processor also has AES New Instruction which increases the speed of encryption and decryption, plus one or two other neat extras (such as higher memory bandwidth and capacity).
http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=52219,50067,
Plus, the 2.2GHz costs $378 on its own, never mind with the graphics card.
These factors contributed to my switching from a 2.0GHz to a 2.2.
http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?ids=52219,50067,
Plus, the 2.2GHz costs $378 on its own, never mind with the graphics card.
These factors contributed to my switching from a 2.0GHz to a 2.2.
Great. But are you ever going to use AES? and higher memory bandwidth + 200mhz will account for next to nothing in real world use. You might encode something in handbrake a few seconds faster!
I bought the 17" as I needed the 1920x1200 screen but if res wasn't important to me I would have considered the 15" base model. People talk about future proofing as if that extra 200mhz is going to make the laptop last an extra year
You are better off putting the savings in an account and upgrading your MBP sooner as it is pointless trying to futureproof in the IT world!
Great. But are you ever going to use AES? and higher memory bandwidth + 200mhz will account for next to nothing in real world use. You might encode something in handbrake a few seconds faster!
I bought the 17" as I needed the 1920x1200 screen but if res wasn't important to me I would have considered the 15" base model. People talk about future proofing as if that extra 200mhz is going to make the laptop last an extra year
You are better off putting the savings in an account and upgrading your MBP sooner as it is pointless trying to futureproof in the IT world!
My point is that it's not just a .2GHz speed increase.
For what it's worth (which is very little because you didn't address my point) I do use AES, and I know lots of other people who don't use Macs or AES enabled processors but who wished they did to speed up their encryption.
While I may not use 16GBs of RAM, I'm sure there are people out there who would, such as movie editors and graphic designers or whatever.
And you're wrong on the memory bandwidth increase being so slight as to have very little real world application. It depends on the app, but games make use of higher bandwidth RAM as do other programs.
Oh and what a brilliant idea, putting the money in a savings account. With interest rates so low and inflation high you can watch your money devalue itself without your help.
Last edited:
gaming benchmarks between the 2.2 and 2.3 are almost unnoticeable... games benefit more from the GPU than CPU.
As if you aren't watching your money devalue MORE if you purchase a laptop... it's not like the laptop is going to be worth more money than you purchased it for 2 years ago, and inflation also comes into effect. If you put your money in a savings account it would be worth more money in 2 years than using it to buy the 2.3
Almost nobody on these forums would recommend the 2.3. We were discussing it in the Sandy Bridge Video Encoding thread where it was determined the 2.3 saves you approx. 4-5 mins over a 2 hour video encode, almost not even worth the extra $300 for people who spend a lot of their time encoding video.
you should approach debate like hunting game: when hunting game you don't come out into the open making lots of noise and waving your gun, you survey the area and take stock of the situation.
Where the hell do I mention the 2.3GHz processor? The argument is between the 2.0 and 2.2.
Ye god, i really feel like just ****ing off and avoiding forums. this is the first forum i've ever joined and participated in but it's such a nightmare. i never realised how intellectually inept most people are. you people truly frighten me because you're the majority and i'm forced to live in your world with your ilk.
You are the inept one my friend, i know you are talking about the 2.0 vs 2.2, but you can't compare gaming benchmarks between the two because they use 2 different graphics cards. If you could get the same graphics card in the 2.0, the differences would still be negligible as the extra cpu power isn't going to help you. Nobody is gaming and running both their gpu and cpu at full capacity, it's typically only taxing on the gpu.
I could really have cared less which cpu's you were debating, i'm taking issue with your last two statements
The gaming benefit of any of the higher end processors wouldn't matter if every processor had the same graphics card... the dual core in the 13" would be perfectly suitable for gaming if it had the 6750.
Saying your money is better spent investing in a computer that will lose value vs putting it in savings which will gain value (as both are affected the same by inflation) is simply put... stupidest thing i have ever heard.
you didn't read what i posted at all. I said the higher bandwidth that the 2.2 and 2.3 are capable of using isn't negligible. the 2.0 can't use the higher bandwidth.
Last edited by a moderator:
I did read what you posted.
I agree for some people it may be beneficial, for the vast majority NO, it will not be useful.
More specifically (I'll quote you, so you know I read your post
) you said:Like I said, games aren't going to completely tax your CPU, pretty much any modern CPU, including the dual core "i" series will be perfectly fine for gaming... the benefits are going to come from a better GPU. You could put the best processor available in a computer, if you are running integrated graphics it's not going to perform as well as a core 2 duo running a high end graphics card, plain and simple.
I'm not saying other programs may not benefit from the extra stuff in the higher end processors, but you specifically claimed "GAMING" as something that would benefit. Maybe you will score a little higher in geekbench, but real world performance you will see almost no differences.
your last two arguments were and still have no basis
Last edited by a moderator:
I did read what you posted.
I agree for some people it may be beneficial, for the vast majority NO, it will not be useful.
More specifically (I'll quote you, so you know I read your post
Like I said, games aren't going to completely tax your CPU, pretty much any modern CPU, including the dual core "i" series will be perfectly fine for gaming... the benefits are going to come from a better GPU. You could put the best processor available in a computer, if you are running integrated graphics it's not going to perform as well as a core 2 duo running a high end graphics card, plain and simple.
I'm not saying other programs may not benefit from the extra stuff in the higher end processors, but you specifically claimed "GAMING" as something that would benefit. Maybe you will score a little higher in geekbench, but real world performance you will see almost no differences.
your last two arguments were and still have no basis
No, you read games and you latched on to it thinking I was discussing the different models including the graphics card. I was discussing why it was worth going for the 2.2GHz processor as opposed to the 2.0, and I stated my reasons. Someone said it's just a .2GHz. I said it's not just that. If you people could comprehend the written communication then I wouldn't need to repeat it as many times as I have.
If he'd wanted the 2.3GHz I would have told him not to bother unless he wanted the 8mb cache.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you would read what i wrote i agreed with you i never said it's only a 200mhz increase, i also acknowledged that some people may see the benefits of the upgraded ram. I simply took issue with 2 of your statements, that the best example of someone who would "benefit" is a gamer??? FALSE and your money argument. Never did I say anything else you were claiming was wrong... you just seem to fail at reading comprehension. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to jump on others backs, weren't you the one trying to tell me to treat it like hunting? I never even tried arguing with you I was simply stating your arguments were weak... gamers aren't going to see huge benefits, if any at all.
You claim I took grasp on one of your statements... ummm duh, I said from the beginning that I was simply arguing the last 2 points of your original post... guess you are the one who fails at reading comprehension
Last edited by a moderator:
This kind of comment is really dependent on the assumption that you'll actually NEED the extra performance. Most users are not going to need the upgraded GPU, or notice the difference between the 2.0 and 2.2.
I do a LOT of work in music production, I use logic, protools, sibelius, kotakt player, ableton, etc. on a daily basis. I encode movies for DVDs regularly, and I watch HD movies nearly every evening. I don't even come close to maxing out my 2.0, and have no graphic related issues. The bottleneck that you should be worried about is your HDD, because that is what will keep your CPU from throttling up to it's full capacity.
So unless you're planning on doing substantial gaming, or do professional video/photo editing, the 2.0 will fit your needs just fine and you will most likely never reach the CPU threshold.
Good Lord
Who in the UNIVERSE mentioned ANYTHING about the 2.2 to 2.3 bump in this thread???? Answer: NO one!!! Nobody!!!!I did read what you posted.
I agree for some people it may be beneficial, for the vast majority NO, it will not be useful.
More specifically (I'll quote you, so you know I read your post
Like I said, games aren't going to completely tax your CPU, pretty much any modern CPU, including the dual core "i" series will be perfectly fine for gaming... the benefits are going to come from a better GPU. You could put the best processor available in a computer, if you are running integrated graphics it's not going to perform as well as a core 2 duo running a high end graphics card, plain and simple.
I'm not saying other programs may not benefit from the extra stuff in the higher end processors, but you specifically claimed "GAMING" as something that would benefit. Maybe you will score a little higher in geekbench, but real world performance you will see almost no differences.
your last two arguments were and still have no basis
While I've NEVER met edifyingGerbil, don't know him...never seen him (or, I suppose it could easily be a woman)...I agree with his sentiments to a T! The reading comprehension on this forum has gone from questionable when I first started here...to downright ridiculous!!! It's a wonder how some of these folks passed their high school classes...much less, made it out of Junior high! Hell, my six year old son comprehends better than some folk on MR. Not sure what happened, but I seriously hope it's not a sign, an omen of things to come in our society.
Long story short, edifyingGerbil is absolutely correct.
If you've nothing to add to the conversation, IMO...you should NOT respond.
TO the OP...and to get back on track to his obvious concern on the GPU being worth the upgrade. IMO, no....JUST for the GPU, it's not worth it....HOWEVER, when you take in to account the 400 price difference and ALL that goes with it, including the CPU bump, GPU, and isn't the HDD a bit bigger as well? Again, IMVHO...yes, it is worth it if only for a bit more future proofing...especially on the gaming front. We are already living in a world that high end games are requesting a 512 card....having the 1gigger, even for casual gaming, will assure several years of gaming down the road without a stumbling block of an underpowered GPU.
My Two Cents
J
Last edited by a moderator:
...except....you fail to consider if he will ever actually NEED it.
By his own admission he only does light gaming, will he really need to future proof for a gaming machine?
I think we get a little too caught up in specs and benchmarks here, instead of thinking about what we actually need. For instance I will NEVER use my mbp for gaming, and therefore am completely satisfied with the base 15''. There is no need to advocate that he spend an extra $400 on extra specs that he will probably never end up utilizing.
By his own admission he only does light gaming, will he really need to future proof for a gaming machine?
I think we get a little too caught up in specs and benchmarks here, instead of thinking about what we actually need. For instance I will NEVER use my mbp for gaming, and therefore am completely satisfied with the base 15''. There is no need to advocate that he spend an extra $400 on extra specs that he will probably never end up utilizing.
ya ya **** you thanks for butting in but...Good Lord
While I've NEVER met edifyingGerbil, don't know him...never seen him (or, I suppose it could easily be a woman)...I agree with his sentiments to a T! The reading comprehension on this forum has gone from questionable when I first started here...to downright ridiculous!!! It's a wonder how some of these folks passed their high school classes...much less, made it out of Junior high! Hell, my six year old son comprehends better than some folk on MR. Not sure what happened, but I seriously hope it's not a sign, an omen of things to come in our society.
Long story short, edifyingGerbil is absolutely correct...while, IMVHO, posts from xxBurtonxx should be read with...ah, never mind. They shouldn't even be read! If you've nothing to add to the conversation, IMO...you should NOT respond. Especially when you're obviously clueless (kinda like a "moron") on the subject. Period. And, xxBurtonxx....be aware, please....frustrating folks like you that argue something as silly as you've done here (and tried to back peddle out of), are bound to be called a school yard name...IE, "Moron". Just a fact of life. You ought to get over it. Forget forum rules, you responded calling Gerbil a name yourself. Back peddle, re-read your initial response, and quit with the crying about name calling....and, before responding next time, take the time to COMPREHEND what is being discussed. Please. Makes for much better discussion.
TO the OP...and to get back on track to his obvious concern on the GPU being worth the upgrade. IMO, no....JUST for the GPU, it's not worth it....HOWEVER, when you take in to account the 400 price difference and ALL that goes with it, including the CPU bump, GPU, and isn't the HDD a bit bigger as well? Again, IMVHO...yes, it is worth it if only for a bit more future proofing...especially on the gaming front. We are already living in a world that high end games are requesting a 512 card....having the 1gigger, even for casual gaming, will assure several years of gaming down the road without a stumbling block of an underpowered GPU.
My Two Cents
J
the only thing i told him he wasn't right about was that gaming would see benefit from the better CPU... the only reason that's true is because of the better GPU, which is exactly what I said... please show me where I said otherwise.
I was talking about the 2.2 to 2.3 because they have the same graphics card, and there is no evident gain in gaming going from the 2.2 to 2.3... the same would be true if the 2.0 and 2.2 had the same graphics card, but the OP has already stated he doesn't care about speed, just wanted to know if he needed the better graphics so this argument is pointless.
If you would actually read what i posted instead of acting like a complete fool then maybe you would see i have told him i agree with him i never said the 2.2 wasn't better or didn't include what he said but to say that the 200mhz speed and AES were going to be beneficial to gaming... sure they may be beneficial to other apps, but hardly gaming so pull your head out of your ass and stop harassing other people. Get over yourself, not everyone has your needs, and you don't have the same needs as many others i'm sure.
AGAIN, since apparently you don't get it... the ONLY TWO things I had a problem with were his last two statements, the higher memory bandwith helps gaming, and that money is better INVESTED in a computer than in a bank account...
Prove me wrong there, because I never was, and don't intend on arguing the other points... AGAIN, I agreed with him numerous times, guess you are just like those "non-readers" that you dispise so much.
Maybe. The fact is, nothing Apple's selling in laptops is really much good for gaming. "Light" gaming doesn't affect this. It's not as though the GPU comes with a fixed number of polygons it can render in a 24-hour period, and if you play for 8 hours you'll run out, but as long as you only play for 2 hours you'll be fine. "Light" gaming does not actually mean fewer requirements on hardware; it just means you use them less of the time.
A year or so back, I was asking people about the 335M that was, then, the top of the line. Ultimately, it turned out that it was, in fact, garbage. And as a result I ended up buying a Windows laptop so I can run video games, because Apple simply could not deliver an acceptable level of performance for ANY price. Heck, the 335M machine can overheat if you don't use third-party software to set the fans to run fast enough while running even older video games.
Now... If I were gonna get a new MBP, I'd get the 6750 one, probably, but I really don't feel like they've addressed the underlying issue there. I know, you can't get good graphics in a case that slim, so it's never gonna happen; Apple cares more about having the machine be really thin than they do about performance.
If you plan to play video games that are in any way modern, you should probably get the 6750 and resign yourself to sub-par performance. At that point, you may want to save the money, get a cheaper mac, and get a separate machine to play video games. When I priced it out, I could get a gaming machine with better graphics than anything portable Apple sells, plus a fast CPU, for less than the price difference between a low-end MBP and the cheapest one with the 6750M. (Okay, so it's one dollar less, and the gaming machine would be a refurb... Still.)
Basically, if you desperately need performance, Apple's laptops are not designed for you, because they are designed to be slim and light. That means they don't have enough heat sink material or airflow to handle the heat that would come off of a higher-end processor or GPU. On the other hand, outside of video games, almost no one actually has a use for that kind of performance; very little of the rest of what we do is processor-limited, and almost nothing but gaming is GPU-limited. There's $500 netbooks that can decode blu-rays to HD just fine; it's only video games that really use rendering hardware.
So...
Think through what you really want. If you're gonna be unhappy with poor gaming performance, find out whether the 6750M is enough to make a difference. If it's not, don't bother spending the extra money on it, because you'll still be unhappy. If it is, then it depends on what you were comparing with; if you're comparing with the 6490M, it's only $400, and that's not bad. If without the 6750M, you'd be fine with the Intel graphics hardware, then you may be better off with one of the much cheaper dual-core systems, and if you really wanna play video games, a refurbished PC will play video games just fine.
Yeah, having to deal with Windows sucks. On the other hand, so does getting <10fps.
I bought the 6490m model. The only game I still play on a computer is CS:Source and its more than enough for that. CPU difference is not significant. $400 towards ram, ssd, and fast opti-bayed 750GB hard drive is. Apple did make too wide of a difference between GPU's this time around though. I buy a new MBP every year when new models come out so I'm not worried about longevity anyway.
BS. They handle it as well or better than many other similar laptops. Do some research and not on internet forums.
for me, i just get the best GPU avaliable, coz i game all the time.
i think it worth more than improved CPU
i think it worth more than improved CPU