Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by JamesGorman, Jan 7, 2012.
Is there anything that this years line up of 15 and 17 inch MBP are not really suited for?
If all you're gonna do is gaming, you'd be better off with a Windows machine.
Not interested in gaming. But aren't these gfx cards pretty good?
As mentioned, gaming.
Other than that, they are very good for photo editing, movie editing, and coding. The ability to support 16GB RAM is very much needed for those tasks.
The graphics cards are pretty good. But regardless, since the CPU is more important (even for 3D modeling), it's the CPU that really gains a lot for the users.
They're decent, especially by mobile pc standards. But I wouldn't say they're fantastic or anything. The processors are pretty darn good; about as good as you can get for a mobile pc right now.
So to answer your original question: Gaming.
the only thing they aren't really suited for is hardcore gaming. light gaming is fine.
as far as maxing out the CPU? I've only been able to do that with handbrake and programs that are designed to max out the CPU.
Playback of flash videos
Just search this forum
Playing Blue Ray.
32 GB for current SB MBPs. Expect 64 GB RAM support (2013-2014) for IB MBPs.
Expect up to 40-60 percent more performance, compared to SB MBPs.
This is not a hardware problem.
The 15" base models (2.0GHz 15" Early 2011 and 2.2GHz 15" Late 2011) and lower don't support more than 16GB. Only the high-end models support up to 32GB.
Only if Apple allows it in the EFI. Current MBPs theoretically support 32GB but it remains to be seen if they can actually use that much.
60% only as far as Intel HD graphics ie the integrated GPU are concerned. As for the dGPU both nVidia and AMD have already announced that the 600M and 7000M series respectively are just rebadges of the 500M and 6000M series so unless there is something better than a 7770M Radeon there won't be any performance gains as far as graphics are concerned. It looks like we won't see 28nm mobile GPUs this year.
Doesn't matter. It's an Apple problem, and the statement about Flash is true. It runs terribly on Macs, including Apple portables.
Code written by Adobe-engineers is Apples problem? What contributed Apple to the slowness of Flash?
It is not necessarily Apple's fault, but Flash playback is a problem on Apple machines. The question asks,
Regardless of whose fault crappy Flash implementation is, Flash is terrible on Macs. Not really sure what relevance your statement has to the question.
Has nothing to do with Apples machines. Install Windows XP SP3 or Windows 7 SP1 on the same machine, and you will see Flash runs much faster. That is Adobes problem. They did think "Mac platform? Not important for us.", and the result was Flash Player for Mac OS X. ;-)
Uh, the fact that it does not run well on Apple machines has everything to do with Apple machines. It simply doesn't run as well. Whose fault that is does not change this fact.
regarding thundersteeles comment, and you started a discussion with me. So you must have seen some relevance.
Again, you are welcome to rationalize Flash's shortcomings on Apple machines. Unfortunately for you, that will not make it any better, and Flash continues to be something that Apple machines are "not really suited for" per the OP.
You cannot say it is HARDWARE dependent, like you do it. It is a SOFTWARE problem (Flash Player for Mac), while the OPs question was regarding the HARDWARE. I hope you see the difference.
So what are the technical reasons, if we assume for a moment your statement is true?
I speak about the Windows version of Flash on a MBP. I think you overlooked this (see above).
That was not the discussion. The discussion between us was about the same hardware, and that Flash runs very well on the same MBP hardware, if you use it under Windows XP SP3 or Windows 7 SP1, which contradicts your statement that (your own words):
"Uh, the fact that it does not run well on Apple machines has everything to do with Apple machines."
Or in other words: Flash Player under Windows on a MBP proves that your statement is wrong.
I end that discussion here, because it is OT. Have a nice day! ;-)
I disagree with you gaming for macbook pro why? Current macbook pros with discreet graphic card are suitable for gaming platform. A quad core with ddr5 graphic card(ex 6770m) can handle games. The only thing bothers me 17inch macbook pro have full hd and 15inch should have have full hd. The 17inch 2012 line should upgrade for 6 core processor and gtx 600 or 590ti. The 13inch should at least get 4 cores plus 1gb graphic card and full hd screen.
And you would fit this how, exactly, in a 13" chassis that is not even an inch thick?
People who make these claims make me laugh. The current MBP's are as powerful as they can get with the space provided in the case and the ability of the cooling system to keep things running, no more, no less.
While this may be true, a Windows laptop at the same price point (~$2000) has a faster quad-core CPU for sure, and also a much faster upper-class GDDR5 graphics card. The 6770M is fast, but not really fast enough to max out everything at full HD resolution in every game, and some modern games bring it to its knee (Battlefield 3 comes to mind here), while a similarly priced... Alienware can take Battlefield 3 beyond Low settings and at 1920 x 1080 or higher easily.
It's not that the Macbook Pros aren't suitable for gaming, it's that if you are going to game a lot, then you are still better off with a Windows laptop.