Arrandale isn't Clarksfied though. A quad core all around notebook at $999 is possible now.
Sadly most of the benchmarks are of the i7-920XM. There's this wonderful list though.
Not that I'm terribly fond of PassMark.
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.
Core 2 Duo vs. i7
- Thread starter anti-win
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not that I'm terribly fond of PassMark.
I think the conclusion of the matter, then, is that Apple needs to get off their lazy rears and get with the quad-core program.
A CPU benchmark, however, just shows max. throughput, right? Again, assuming that said application is using all available cores, right? Sounds like an apples and oranges comparison. *sigh* o O (I might be wrong again...) O o
A CPU benchmark, however, just shows max. throughput, right? Again, assuming that said application is using all available cores, right? Sounds like an apples and oranges comparison. *sigh* o O (I might be wrong again...) O o
From what I can tell PassMark is heavily multithreaded so it's very dependent on cores more so than raw clock speed.
It's really annoying that there are literally no benchmarks of the base Core i7-720QM for comparison. At $1,000 the Core i7-720QM can either go high end gamer with a short battery life and powerful hardware or a midrange all around notebook.
$1,000 in the desktop or notebook market gets you quite a bit of hardware today. This is true even down to around $699.
This is true. I recently helped find and purchase a $499 laptop for an 85-year-old grandmother. Ended up with a Pentium Dual-Core (not the best I know, but not bad), 3GB RAM, 320GB hard drive, and 16" screen HP G60. Not too bad for the price, me thinks.
A coworker of mine just bought a Dell Studio 17.3" with 2.2 GHz T6600, 4 GB of RAM, 500 GB hard drive, and a 900p LED screen for $779. It's using Intel mobile graphics but it's used more for presentations and office work for her non-profit.
I had a chance to play with it and the build quality is solid for the price. It's just a few more ounces over the Macbook Pro 17".
2.5 years ago when Vista came out I bought a new laptop for my wife (yeah, big mistake, I know). It was an HP DV9000 - 17", dual core AMD Turion, 1GB RAM, 120GB HD. Weighed almost 8lbs, and I paid $1099. We kept it all of 18 months, sold it, and bought a Macbook. That was her first (and so far, only) Mac.
Prices and bang-for-the-buck have changed quite a bit since then.
While the HP clearly has great specs, I still would definitely go with the Mac, because I prefer OS X. All that performance doesn't mean a whole lot if I don't prefer the workflow or apps.
And if I did want a Windows 7 machine, I'd wait for a machine that isn't a complete piece of garbage, such as a Lenovo Thinkpad.
Honestly after dealing with business class HP's for 3 years now I wouldn't take one if given to me.
Apple does very well in the 13 inch Core 2 + 9400M G thin and light arena. The previous generation MacBook was my favorite contender against my friends since it's light enough and the 9400M G is still the best IGP out there with the Radeon 3200/4200 on its heels.
It's just that Dell, HP, and Sony have 16-17" solutions under or around $1,000 that aren't the heavier 8 lbs. monsters they were. The 17" MacBook Pro comes in at 6.6 lbs so it's not a lightweight either.
If you want to go thin and light I recommend a MacBook if you can spend $800 refurbished to a $1,000 new. Otherwise if you want something with a big screen or a quad core it's getting tough.
Apple can sell something light with long battery life but that's about it for hardware.
I've been very happy with my wife's Macbook, but its got the X3100 crap graphics (my only complaint, but I knew it going in - she doesn't play any games). My sister has a unibody, and its great. I like the 13" size, myself - wouldn't really want any bigger (maybe higher res., though).
Competition is a good thing - it makes EVERYONE'S products better.
My Late 2007 GMA X3100 MacBook is just so good I don't see a need to buy a replacement.
4 hours of battery life with wireless, 4 GB of RAM, and a 320 GB hard drive. I can't ask for much else.
If I feel the upgrade bug for hardware I have my Windows 7 desktop for that.
My Late 2007 GMA X3100 MacBook is just so good I don't see a need to buy a replacement.
I'll second that, except hers is an early '08.
She gets 4+ hours battery, has 4GB RAM, but we never touched the HD (its plenty for her needs).And I actually feel that way (most of the time) about my iMac. I don't really NEED a new machine (I want one, of course, but I don't NEED one). My only real complaint is I wish I had bigger than this 17" screen, but I ain't gonna go buy a new iMac just for a bigger screen. But my HD is busting at the seams, and I don't want ANOTHER external, so I'm gonna have to either perform some surgery or breakdown and buy a new one... let's see, ~$50 for a hard drive or at least $1199 for a new iMac... hmmm...
And my PowerBook... well... it leaves much to be desired, but it serves its purpose perfectly - its my "netbook."
From what I am reading the ATI 4330, which the HP Envy 13 and a few other machines have, is supposedly slightly better in gaming vs 9400G. Then again if we move to dedicated GPU you can get a 13in LG in some parts of the world with a 9600GT, and a few machines with the ATI 4570.
A dedicated HD 4330 is going to be better than the 9400M G. The HD 4570 is becoming a rather popular component as well in 13-15" models. You're still looking at lower end gaming though.
Twice as thick, a full pound heavier, plastic, Windows, no iLife, no multitouch, no bluetooth... but hey, its got a MODEM!
I don't really see the comparison here... save for the $$ vs. $$$$. (And all Mac-heads know you get what you pay for, right?
EDIT: AHHHH! Missed one... 1600x900 screen... lol.
You can’t be this stupid. Core i7 is a quad core processor with a lot of newer technology. Its 1.6ghz will probably eat current 2.8ghz for dinner. And I thought Apple guys didn’t believe in the ghz myth, wasn’t it you guys who started it?
No Blue tooth… ooh, I haven’t used my MBP bluetooth even once.
No multitouch… big deal, I use a mouse. 4 buttons better than swiping around.
Windows 7 is pretty good, you must be blind to not think it is.
It also has 6 gigs of ram, runs games are rediculous fast speeds (230m pwns 9600gt to the point where it’s sad to watch)
Twice the thickness for half the price? Would you care?
I really hope Apple sees some sense. I really can’t stand paying 1999 for a laptop that’s half the speed of a 1099 laptop.
Looking at Dell’s with a 1920x1080 LED backlit on their 15.4 inch screens and blu ray with a quad core and a really really fast video card… for about 400 bucks cheaper, not to mention it runs cooler, I have to always convince myself that I made the better choice. Playing the few games for mac under crappy graphics… multitouch and all that is nice… but watching a blu ray movie on my super high def screen or playing the vast amount of games for Windows is a lot more fun. And I’m sure you can do anything on Windows that you can do on OS X
Guess I’ll just have to wait for the next big update to MBPs. Faster video card, and quad core cpu 32nm, come on Apple! Hurry it up!
Very true, and when said hardware can run 4 VM's while also running Mail, web, iChat, iTunes, and Excel, that's good enough for me.
The ability to have that capability as well as it being only 4.5 pounds or so and fits in a small messenger bag is more desirable than the all out performance offered by a quad core. Much of the time I'm SSH'd into servers anyway, or in a client of some sort.
Actually, it isn't.
i7 isn't that much faster than Core 2 - AMD have taken much of the market back because of this.
Most applications are not programmed for the use of 3 cores let alone 4.
I'm looking to purchase a 17" MBP soon, because the build quality is superior to every other PC laptop - I can say that in confidence - It has a high quality Lithium Polymer battery that actually lasts what is claimed - 8 hours - plus the bonus of a gorgeous full 16:10 1920x1200 resolution on a brilliant LED screen.
HP make some real tack, I wouldn't touch any of their computers with a barge pole.
Windows 7 is Vista with a UI update, re-released 3 years later when we have had massive jumps in technology.
As with my previous post, if you honestly think a 1.6GHz i7 will eat a 2.8GHz Penryn CPU then good luck with that theory.
A 2.5GHz i7 maybe, but that's pushing it.
Hyper-******** - rather hyper-threading is a waste of time, Core i5 has proven that.
It was released for the lack of Core management in Windows for the Pentium 4 line many years ago, it's not needed now, it's just a marketing strategy.
Don't be sucking the sack!
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3641&p=1
Feast your eyes.
Looking at those very specific benchmarks - it's really not that impressive!
You can't argue with fanbois to be honest. They will swear by their products and disregard any fact or compare a low-end pc vs a high end mac.
Even shodan said W7 is an upgraded Vista UI. He doesn't even know Windows 7 was invested before Vista and that Vista is a branch of W7 that was pre-released for native 64bit apps.
Even shodan said W7 is an upgraded Vista UI. He doesn't even know Windows 7 was invested before Vista and that Vista is a branch of W7 that was pre-released for native 64bit apps.
I am pretty sure AMD is still selling that same model processor for notebooks as their mainline mobile product.
Oh Lord.
65nm based Turions are getting as old as seeing 90nm power optimized Windsor take on Core 2 back in the day. They did manage to get 45nm Turion II out though, finally.
Yes. I'm sure the Dell has an awesome screen and a whole SEVEN MINUTES
of battery life!
May I suggest you take a look first.Yes. I'm sure the Dell has an awesome screen and a whole SEVEN MINUTES
So who's the bigger idiot, the person who chooses or rather, supports a company that he knows will **** on him, or the person who chooses a company's product because it is good?
Let's not ********, Windows 7 wasn't even in the Crosshair when Vista was released.