I'm referring to the weight of the slice battery. As I mentioned, I think it is very well designed, but it is strange to hold something in your hand that is so thin and so heavy at the same time.
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.
Macbook pro 15" i7 vs HP ENVY 15" i7
- Thread starter rwdebes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm referring to the weight of the slice battery. As I mentioned, I think it is very well designed, but it is strange to hold something in your hand that is so thin and so heavy at the same time.
Because Steve Jobs doesn't like gamers and you guys will buy whatever **** hardware he puts inside because you can't live without OS X. Some will even go further to defend Steve's ****** choice of hardware.
It certainly depends on what you want to do with it and, if the hardware and software you need are available for the OS you choose; the biggest selling point for me was that you can run Windows on a Mac and have the best of both worlds.
I used the GPU and CPU as examples; in your case, USB 3.0 and HDMI ports were the deal breaker. But again, if those are the things you want (and they are not available in a Mac) then that's what you buy. But with the understanding that you can't have OS X (unless you buy one of each
).Maybe a better way of phrasing my point was that people buy Macs because they want OS X (and maybe a pretty aluminum shell, too
); if you want the latest, greatest tech stuff, then one of the higher end PCs is probably best for you.I am forced by my work to buy a MacBook of some sort. I was given a budget of $1500, but I had to chip in my own money. You can't get much for $1500.
EULA said that
OMG, maybe there is hope !
There is people still using his brain, out there
BTW, let people choose their notebook based on tech specs (on the paper): I'll keep choosing for a totally different user experience.
My two cents
EULA said that
OMG, maybe there is hope !
There is people still using his brain, out there
BTW, let people choose their notebook based on tech specs (on the paper): I'll keep choosing for a totally different user experience.
My two cents
It's not just the specs though. It really is underpowered. I just don't understand why Apple couldn't have made a laptop that can keep up.
How is it that the MBP can't keep up?
You won't get that much more CPU or GPU power unless you get a desktop replacement.
Most people buy laptops to have a portable computer with good battery life.
Gaming is working good on the MBP, it's not a blazing desktop replacement, but people that want to game would choose windows anyway.
There are no computers that gives same performance, portability and battery life and are considerably cheaper.
There are a lot of equal competitors, but they are also in the ~2k price range.
The Envy is one of them, if you want gaming performance over battery.
Sony also have computers in the same range, but they are usually more expensive.
If you want decent gaming performance, great battery life MBP should be a no brainer.
If you want gaming performance, go with Alienware or HP, but be prepared to sacrifice something.
You won't get a computer with MBP size and battery life with the gaming performance as an Alienware.
I can agree upon having a faster card as an option for the MBP, and I'd really hoped to see a ATI 5k series in the MBP, but it didn't happen.
it IS only tech specs, with a lot of people like you misleaded by the power of marketing ....
A MBP is underpowered for what ???
A MBP cannot keep up with what ???
So I cannot correct someone's inaccurate statement about the MBP's CPU & GPU without being told to buy an Envy?
The thing with the Envy is that the i5 version is ridiculous. There is no reason you cannot get the same battery life out of an Core i5 envy as of some Lenovo T400 if the Intel HD is in use. Most people game plugged and in this case the HD5830 creates a cooling problem only (which is not that big with 23W TDP).
The core i7 quads suck in battery life but with an Arrendale it would be possible to build a fast notebook that handels modern games well in combination with great battery life. Considering the battery cells you get with the slice the Envy 15 Core i5 should do with serious optimizations (like in a MBP, or Lenovo Thinkpad) 15+ hours of battery life. 5-6 on the 6 cell and another 10-12 h from the additional cells alone. In reality it does not even get half that.
Along with the 16:9 display, the HP quality this 3 reasons is why I prefer a MBP. It do not need the speed enough to feel it is worth it to carry around a big battery slice to get at least close to the same battery life.
Sorry but that's a load of hokum, the 15" and 17" models have the 3 best dual core CPUs from Intel, the 330M all not ideal is fairly common on notebooks, this whole under powered deal makes them sound like netbooks. Look at the geek bench scores, wouldn't call them underpowered.
If that is the case, where are all the disgruntled owners of the new MBP? I haven't seen them up in arms over performance issues yet.
To put things politely, Apple tries to design units to satisfy the requirements of particular market segments. Every company does this, its called business and it just so happens that they're very good at it. Unfortunately, they can't cover all segments... nobody does/can.
I agree, the MacBook Pros are fine, but they are not what they could be and I don't understand why. Why wouldn't Apple use a more capable GPU? I know, I know, it is ok, but why no option for "kickass graphics"? Why no Blu-ray option? etc etc. I just think it could be better. Does anyone disagree and think it is as good as it could be?
Close. Going back to an ExpressCard slot for the 15" instead of the SD slot would make it perfect.
Too much power can be a bad thing - ie. it will generate heat, require more cooling, lead to a bigger chassis or more unreliable future meltdowns, reduce battery life, and if one can splurge on Macs, they can certainly afford dedicated devices for Blu-Ray too.
I guess, well, it doesn't come with free upgrades to the next one they release, I'd like the latest model for myself too.
Close. Going back to an ExpressCard slot for the 15" instead of the SD slot would make it perfect.
Too much power can be a bad thing - ie. it will generate heat, require more cooling, lead to a bigger chassis or more unreliable future meltdowns, reduce battery life, and if one can splurge on Macs, they can certainly afford dedicated devices for Blu-Ray too.
I guess, well, it doesn't come with free upgrades to the next one they release, I'd like the latest model for myself too.
I you can afford a Mac you can afford to buy and carry around a Blu-ray player?? That's funny!!! Also, please just give me a video card with some memory and I will be happy. I am not asking for a dual card Alienware or anything crazy.
I was in the same situation. I went with the Macbook Pro. the ENVY's got horrible ratings by gizmodo or engadget. Probably engadget. I don't think they are as portable.
I'm the most anti-mac person I know. I hate the temperatures these things run at under load. I hate OSX. I especially hate the forced mice acceleration curve, and I definitely hate the price. But these things are just so darn portable, I take my laptop literally around with me everywhere I go, and that makes all the difference in the world to me. The portability goes for more than just size and weight, but also down to usability. The trackpad is great, and your just not going to find that usability on the ENVY. It's true though that you can plug in a mouse and work, but that does hamper with portability I think. I don't want to get stuck using the envy with no peripherals though, thats for sure, and while it's the same with the mac, I'm comfortable enough working straight from it.
Where are your benchmarks? Notebookcheck.net has the specs I used. Again, only a 15.5% gain from the ATI 5830 over the NVIDIA 330M GT, in terms of 3DMark 06. That is not bad, but I wouldn't call it "another league." I mean, I don't know how much HP is paying you but 15.5% is not "another league."
Also, LOL, the quad-core chip you are raving about is 1.6 GHZ! I crap out 1.6 GHZ chips in my sleep. Sigh. Look dude this 2.66 GHz i7 that's in the MacBook Pro simply *is not available* on the HP... the best they have is the 2.53 GHz i5, which is good, but it's not quite as fast. Now, this 2.66 GHz i7 outperforms or matches my *Mac Pro* with its EIGHT CORES of 2.16 GHz on almost every task I have thrown at it. Only on things that use more than the four virtual cores of the CPU do you notice any difference (video compression, etc.).
Can you name me even ONE game that uses more than FOUR cores simultaneously? Perhaps some of the very latest games actually do? I am curious to know. Anyway, I'm quite sure that on most games (given that 99% of them don't use more than two cores), then you're going to get much better performance on an i7 dual core at 2.66 GHz, than you are on an i7 quad core with 1.6 GHz.
When I bought my MacBook Pro, it was *$70 cheaper* than an equivalently specced HP. Even my 8600M GT machine ran games very well, I got over 30FPS on Oblivion which was better than my XBOX 360 was getting. Besides, if you're THAT hardcore of a gamer, and you just *insist* on using a laptop for it, then why aren't you purchasing an Alienware with dual SLI and all that stuff? Seriously.
Personally, I think you're just wrong. I'll take the Mac's faster CPU, internal DVD writer, and 2x battery life plus the $70 I saved (though I see HP has dropped its prices since Apple's release, big surprise) over a marginally faster GPU any day! Oh yeah and the build quality of the MacBook Pro is second-to-none. HP's about 3 years behind Apple on this. Where is the unibody, HP?
Please stop using Futuremark's 3DMark as a measure stick. That synthetic benchmark has been out for more than 4 years.
Use any contemporary game and compare the results.
The Radeon Mobility HD 5830 (Juniper based) with 800 Stream Processors IS faster than the Geforce GT 330M with 48 CUDA cores.
Even the Radeon Mobility HD 5650 (Madison based) with 400 Stream Processors is faster than the Geforce GT 330M and it uses significantly less power to boot. The Thermal Design Power of the Geforce GT 330M is 23 Watt, while the Thermal Design Power of the Radeon Mobility HD 5650 is between 15 to 19 Watt based on configuration.
Geforce GT 240M (GT216) = Geforce GT 330M (GT216).
LOL. In what way is a 240M = 330M? And that's a 5650 in the chart. Plus, that's the chart released by ATI's parent company... a little biased? Can you show actual benchmarks from the actual processors we are discussing, instead of showing random charts from completely different processors that are not the same, and then *claiming* they are the same thing? Sigh.
Look I'm perfectly willing to accept if one thing is faster than another... but there is hype, then there are facts. I know how good the NVIDIA ones are: really damn good. On my 8600M GT it was plenty fast enough to play, for instance, Star Trek Online or Modern Warfare 2 at very smooth rates. Good enough for a laptop by far, since I'm always going to get much faster performance out of my desktop. I haven't tried a game yet on the i7 machine but I'm sure it's that much better...
Read my post on page 4 and stop being a dumb fanboy. 3DMark06 is old and outdated and every other benchmark will show that the 5830 is easily at least 50% faster than the 330M. Since you love notebookcheck AND 3DMark06 instead, why haven't you ever talked about the 3DMark Vantage scores of both these cards? Because the 5830 totally obliterated the 330M by scoring almost twice as much?
Also, just because AMD may be biased doesn't mean that they would deliberately fake benchmarks. The most bias thing they did was to start the chart at 75% to make the 5650 look more impressive on the chart.
You're the one who's bias by ONLY quoting 3DMark06 as prove that the the 5830 is only 15.5% faster.
Again, since you love notebookcheck so much, let them explain to you why the 330M is almost the same as a 240M.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GT-330M.22437.0.html
Oh hoho hope you read the last line. I underlined and made it bold just for you, stupid fanboy.
Fact for you: The 8600M was one of the best mobile cards in it's time. That was 3 years ago back in 2007. The tides have changed, and ATI is now far superior than Nvidia in mobile cards. Just like how ATI was beating the crap out of Nvidia 8 years ago with the 9600/9800 cards.
Like? Opening Firefox?
That's silly. Most people only own quad-core processors at the max. It's impossible to use more than 4 cores simultaneously on a quad-core processor.