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.
Intel to Launch New Mobile CPUs (Arrandale) in January?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I like OS X but Apple's hardware leaves much to be desired.
I think the HP hit a good mark with the Core i7 720/820M options and the Mobility HD 4830 in the Envy 15 by removing the optical drive.Getting rid of a disc drive to make room for a better graphics solution sounds oddly like a good idea. Apple could include a slim external cd drive to connect via usb, you could easily keep it in your e-mail bag and only use when you need to. Or they could charge extra for it and use proprietary connectors like we know apple likes to use
As much as I would like for it to happen, I doubt that apple would include an hdmi port on their mbp. They like display port too much..... even though there is hardly anything that uses it.
It's a quad core with the mobile GPU power in a thin package.
Lots of people watch DVDs still. It is still the dominant video format, plus its the highest quality standard definition format out there. Apple and others online stores don't even come close to competing with DVD in terms of A/V quality. Plus DVDs can generally be played and decoded while all of the hardware is in a reserved power state. If Apple would join the modern world and allow for full bitstream decoding of all video codecs, not just half-baked "hardware assisted" like in Snow Leopard, then you'd have the GPU decoding DVD video at its lowest power state with the CPU being able to hang out in its lowest power state because demuxing the stream and decoding audio takes only a few CPU cycles. Most software DVD players already cache data to the RAM, so the optical drive is in a power saving state. Apple finally does this with Snow Leopard.
And some of us want blu-ray. I have my Mac and PC hooked up to a very nice display and all standard definition video, especially that downloaded from iTunes, looks awful.
Have you seen the benchmarks? The Core i7s running at 1.7GHz have no problem keeping up with and outperforming Core 2 Duos at 2.53GHz and above.
Clock speed really means nothing. If you're playing modern games or doing video encoding, then you need as many fast cores as possible. A Core i7 with hyper-threading gives you 8 logical cores. Theres no way a Core 2 Duo at 2.53GHz running two threads will be able to keep up with a Core i7 pushing 8 threads.
Most modern multi-threaded apps can take full advantage of that Core i7 too. Especially modern games. Look at Grand Theft Auto 4. The more cores you have the better it runs, because its calculating physics for EVERYTHING on screen.
Look at x264 on Core i7 systems. It chews through video encodes at unbelievable rates.
CUDA encoders suck. Sure, they're way faster than x264 based encoders like Handbrake. But holy crap the quality is terrible. Theres a bunch of image quality comparisons out there. CUDA encoders, even at their highest quality settings, look as bad as digital cable. x264 might take a few hours to encode an HD video, but at least it will look nearly identical to the original. I'll even wait the 40 or so minutes it takes my aluminum MacBook to encode a 2 hour DVD in Handbrake to watch on an iPhone or iPod touch because I don't want to see compression artifacting.
Sometimes quality is far more important than speed.
Well, thats your opinion.
Some people only want one computer, and that computer needs to be relatively portable AND a desktop replacement. One thats good for work and play. Core 2 Quad and Core i7 notebooks are both. They're something you can use on the go, or for work, and then come home and connect it to a nice big desktop display or a HDTV and play some games or watch some high definition video.
A $1,500 notebook with a GeForce GTX 260M and a Core i7, like this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220605 will be faster than a 17" MacBook Pro with a 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo with 512MB GeForce 9600M GT at everything
I feel the same way. Now that Snow Leopard is mostly stable with 10.6.2, aside from the inability to properly wake up when connected to an external display, its a rock solid OS. Apple, however, holds the OS and hardware back. If Apple would support modern video playback, modern video connectors, and get their hardware in line with their prices, they'd have great systems.
I'll just post this happy little benchmark again.
GPU based encoding is miserable right now compared to x264 in terms of quality. When the GPU encoding works it's fast but the picture quality is lacking.
Apple's products just aren't that interesting when you already own a Mac. Much less the sacrfices you have to make in order to own that Mac.
I'll just post this happy little benchmark again.
Very impressive. Makes me wonder what the 820QM and 920QM mentioned are capable of.
I've never seen the results of a CUDA encode, but am still looking forward to Handbrake using OpenCL, which I assume will have the same quality as it does now - excellent. On that day, Apple will sell a LOT of quad core Mac Pros with four GT 120's.
'Sif. They're fascinating. How interesting will it be if Apple don't put a quad core option in the MBPs, or put in a decent graphics card? We'll have lots of highly stimulating discussion as to why Apple shafted us so!
Thats basically true. You do have to give up a lot to be happy with a Mac, or you have to jump through a lot of hoops plus have a secondary OS installed.
I was looking at the Mac minis the other day in Fry's. I love the size and design of the system. But $800 for the "good" one? If it had HDMI with audio, it would be the ultimate little home theater PC. But it doesn't. Which leads one to think about how, for $800, they could build a desktop that could compete with a Mac Pro costing a couple thousand more...
Very true. x264 is an excellent encoder and is second to none when it comes to software encoders. The image quality is fantastic and well worth the wait. CUDA/GPU encoders just don't hold a candle to it. Funny enough, neither does the video you can purchase from iTunes, HD or SD.
Why GT120s? They're just rebadged 9600 GTs. A single GTX 295 should be significantly faster than 4 GT120s. It only costs a little bit more than 4 GT120s too. Even the GTX 285 for the Mac will beat out 4 GT120s. And it costs the same as the 4 GT120 upgrade.
You know, it really is surprising that Apple gets away with the price of the Mac Pro. $2,499 for a quad core Xeon, which is no different than a Core i7 other than support for ECC memory, at 2.66GHz, 3GB of RAM, 640GB HDD, a DVD writer, and a 512MB GeForce GT120. Thats just.. wow.. thats so bad it should be in the dictionary under "Ripoff".
But anyway, the developers of x264 haven't had too much luck when trying to find a useful way to use OpenCL to speed up the encoding. So its going to be a while before you see Handbrake and other x264 based video encoders take advantage of it.
You got any proof of this? I sincerely doubt that a single GTX295 would beat 4 GT120's in video encoding. Obviously there would be no competition in games (even ignoring the fact that Apple doesn't do SLI), but video encoding with OpenCL isn't gaming.
On the other hand, I agree that AU$4.5G for a single 2.66GHz quad core processor, just 3 GB of RAM, an irrelevant HD, and one of the world's worst GPUs is a gargantuan rip-off. It seems that if you're not willing to spend over 10G on it, there's no point.
That was the general consensus at the time of launch and now it's even more so. Hopefully the next revision makes it a good deallike what the 2006/2008 Mac Pros were.
"Personal opinion" which nobody can seem to refute.
Not true. I'll give you a few examples.
Let's look at connecting to external displays and HDTVs.
Let's say I want to watch some video I have stored on my Mac on my HDTV. I'll need an HDMI cable, mini DisplayPort to HDMI, optical cable, mini-TOSLink adapter, mouse, keyboard. I'll have to connect it all, start the system and close the lid really quick and wait. Snow Leopard doesn't properly wake up when connected to external displays, so I have to do a fresh boot each time. Then I can use my Harmony Remote to control the Mac.
With Windows on my Mac, I can connect the HDMI cable, mDP adapter, optical, mini TOSLink cables and just start the system up. Don't need an external keyboard and mouse. Windows will start up and see the external display and kill the built-in display and automatically switch to the appropriate resolution on the HDTV.
If I want to connect my PC I just plug in the HDMI cable, the power cable, sit back and hit the button my Harmony remote.
And if I want to use my desktop display? With the Mac I need the HDMI cable and mini DisplayPort adapter and external keyboard and mouse. If I'm using Snow Leopard I have to do a fresh boot and close the lid really fast. Windows recognizes the display right off the bat. My PC? Again, just the HDMI and power cable.
Let's not get started on software selection. Nobody can deny the fact that Windows has everything for everyone.
And if you are a big video watcher, OS X is not for you at all. I was watching an 11Mbps H.264 video on my Mac. In Windows 7, CPU use only hovers around 15% with 0 dropped frames. In Snow Leopard the CPU is pegged at 100% and frames are dropped left and right. Thats using Quicktime X.
DVD playback in OS X hovers around 20%. It takes less CPU time in Windows to play high definition video than OS X uses for standard MPEG-2 DVD playback.
I can go on if you'd like. Theres no denying the fact that Macs require you to sacrifice and possibly even have a secondary OS installed.
Well, I don't have time to look for benchmarks. But look at the specs. http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gt_120_us.html
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gtx_295_us.html theres pretty much no comparison. More faster cores (480 "CUDA" cores versus 128 on 4 GT120s), almost 14x the memory bandwidth. The 4x GT120 would have a cool 2GB versus the 1792MB of the GTX 295, but the 295 is just completely out of the GT120s league in every other way.
Basically.
I agree. When the Intel Macs first launched they were actually priced accordingly. But now, almost 4 years later, Apple really hasn't kept up at all. Which is sad, because OS X would be a fantastic OS with a couple of extra tweaks. Give me full bitstream decoding for video playback and make the OS handle multiple displays the same way Windows does and I'd be happy with it. Hardware prices need to be brought in line though.
Because Personal Opinion is impossible to refute. ITS AN OPINION!!!
"Thats basically true. You do have to give up a lot to be happy with a Mac, or you have to jump through a lot of hoops plus have a secondary OS installed."
Maybe if you actually read what he said. Instead of mindlessly agreeing with the Pro-MS people.
i laugh and point at the people who only use OSX as their only OS..
i love OSX on my MBP but win 7 is used alot more.
i love OSX on my MBP but win 7 is used alot more.
So why can he refute all your points? (Maybe I should have said "logic" instead, but it doesn't matter.)
If logic and opinions can’t be refuted…how can debates happen?
Yeah, and he gave logic and examples to prove his point. What do you have, or are you mindlessly disagreeing with everything pro-Microsoft?
And no, I’m not all anti-Apple or Pro-Microsoft, you’d know this if you actually read my past posts.
Tutt tutt, You're argument is crubling. I didn't make a single point against Mosx in this thread.
I said hes once again pushing opinion as fact. You're the only one whos replied. Hmm? How many times debates actually finish based on PURE opinions?
And people prove evidence against his claim and it goes on... and on... and on...
Uh huh, Maybe you want to read this,
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?p=1291607
I think Microsoft makes some very good products, like Silverlight.
Because you can't.Tutt tutt, You're argument is crubling. I didn't make a single point against Mosx in this thread.
Yeah, and I was saying that his points are fact. You're the only one who's replied. Hmm? Maybe because the others know that he speaks fact?
Even if I was wrong by saying "pure opinion," it doesn't matter. He uses logic and opinions, and wins each time.
And he refutes them all. It's not proof if it can be refuted.
No, I was just replying to your incorrect point that I'm all pro-MS.
Or maybe you are all anti-mosx?
Very depressing but true things about OS X. I've had the same experiences in video playback. I accidentally forced my processor to the idle state for hours in Windows before I realized it. I had just done tons of full screen video without noticing frame drops.
This takes me back down memory lane to 2006 when the Core Duo iMacs came out. The more informed userbase was clamoring for Apple to use Conroe in the iMac or asking why Apple had even spent time on the 32-bit Yonah adventure.
The prices were right until the second line Conroe processors showed up which brought 3.0 GHz Core 2 to the masses with the E6850 and the Core 2 Quad showed up. Then the disparity just got worse in the iMac until today. We finally have what we wanted back in 2006 but we're paying 2006 prices for it.
Of course plenty of people are going to cling to the iMac's display before even considering what actually powers the computer.
Target Display Mode tosses in another can of worms that can go either way.
Because you can't.
Yeah, and I was saying that his points are fact. You're the only one who's replied. Hmm? Maybe because the others know that he speaks fact?
Even if I was wrong by saying "pure opinion," it doesn't matter. He uses logic and opinions, and wins each time.
And he refutes them all. It's not proof if it can be refuted.
No, I was just replying to your incorrect point that I'm all pro-MS.
Or maybe you are all anti-mosx?
You want to know why I don't like to argue with people like MosX and you, all people end up doing end up doing is saying the same things in a different way. It happens on the internet, at school even at home.
Thats not an "argument", thats a stalemate. But typical of all is that the person who stops the loop gets burned because the other person shows his true intention.
FTR I'm a Pro-Linux person.
It's not just the iMac. The MacBook Pro has seen a CPU disparity in the last few years.
Probably because the opponent keeps making points that don't refute the original points.
And I understand. I've been there before, argued with someone like mosx. As you said, the same things were said in a different way. And I lost, obviously. There's not much you can do (that holds any weight) if you can't refute the arguments.
Not when one side's arguments are all refuted and the other side's isn't.
The 13" notebooks are Apple's most competitive products. Though over about $1,000 you'd better be getting a quad core on your 15/17" notebooks unless there's a damn good reason.
Dell set a new benchmark by having a Core i7-720QM in the Studio 15 for $999.
apart from CPU and GPU
what is the chance of seeing SSD as default in all the MB and MBP?
I think Kingston produces 40GB SSD for good $$$, so it is NOT tough for Apple to strike a deal with Kingston/Samsung/Intel for SSDs (like they did with LG for displays).
what is the chance of seeing SSD as default in all the MB and MBP?
I think Kingston produces 40GB SSD for good $$$, so it is NOT tough for Apple to strike a deal with Kingston/Samsung/Intel for SSDs (like they did with LG for displays).
thats is pretty good $364 CPU in $999, HP also has some models 15" with Core i7 for around $1k.
Please, do explain how this is anything other than an opinion:
There are millions of people that feel as though they've given up nothing, and have actually gained by going with a Mac, myself included. Sure, that's an opinion too. But it cannot be refuted. It's a preference, something a lot of people here have absolutely zero respect for.