My MBP edged by my brother's budget PC

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by AppleGoat, Nov 22, 2010.

  1. AppleGoat macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    #1
    My brother took delivery of an i3 HP notebook with Intel's integrated graphics; well maybe not exactly a budget laptop, but it's hard to come by an i3 for less - just over 500.

    I compared it to my current generation Macbook Pro 13-inch, which I love but have been perpetually irked by Apple's short shrift in the processor department. I chose NFL.com, one of the few sites that is kind of sluggish on my MBP, its virtually invincible compared to my old Powerbook G4. Well, I noticed that the site ran better on my brother's HP, not choppy, and the drop-down menus smoothly did what they were designed to do. I've begun to question others claims that an entry level i3 is not really better than a C2D when it comes to everyday tasks.

    Perhaps, I should run over to the Apple store and see how NFL.com loads on the 15 and 17-inch Arrandale-equipped machines to rule out the sluggishness is software-related.

    For what's it's worth, I just popped open the site on Safari and it was little bit peppier. Before, I had conducted the test with Firefox on both machines.

    It may seem like I'm quibbling over nothing, but this may not bode well for the future, as surely graphic-intensive websites like NFL.com are the future of the internet. Apple needs to get with the times and upgrade the MBP which, in a handful of respects, is inferior to the Airs that are geared towards casual computer users.
     
  2. phib3r0ptik macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    #2
    It's almost certainly a software issue. Flash is notorious for being sluggish and laggy.
    Do you have the latest version? The new builds seem to be a lot better.
    Alternatively try Chrome, it has a built in flash player which seems to run pretty nicely.
    For reference, I just tried that site on my almost 3 year old blackbook (2.16G2D, 4GB RAM etc) and it ran perfectly. Shouldn't be a problem at all on a faster machine
     
  3. aimbdd, Nov 22, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2010

    aimbdd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    East Cost
    #3
    Seriously? Look at the speed benchmarks. The i3 processors are very crippled. The gpu would be seriously compromised to be able to have an i3 in it. This topic has been gone over again and again and again.
    Not a fair comparison. What web browser on mac? On windows? Flash plays a big part here... something apple doesn't develop.
     
  4. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #4
    But at the same time, the OP is quite right in questioning why a $500 budget laptop will beast a $1000 premium laptop. Up until just a few months ago, Apple wouldn't allow Adobe to use the API's that they needed to optimize Flash for OS X. So yes you're right, the HP i3 will beat your C2D macbook pro, but it's not because of the CPU, it's because of OS X ;)
     
  5. AppleGoat thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    #5
    How are the i3s crippled? They are superior to the C2D, not by a heck of a lot, but still newer and better technology. The drawback of course is in the graphics department, if there is no discrete chip. I'm not putting down my MBP, I was just making an observation. NFL.com loads up well for me, it just wasn't as smooth when compared to my brother's computer.
     
  6. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #6
    Right there is why the i3 is inferior. The graphics card plays a big big part in things, especially on OSX when OpenCL enabled apps will start showing up.

    Not to mention your test is flawed. First off you used Firefox. Its a slow slow browser. Use something like Safari or Chrome.

    Second, internet speed has pretty much nothing to do with the speed of a computer. You need a real test like video encoding. Just having a page load slower means nothing, especially if its flash based.
     
  7. gonnabuyamacbsh macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    #7
    that cheap budget laptop has the newest technology
    the mbp 13 has 2-3 year old tech

    of course the new tech will beat out the old. but of course every apple fan boy will defend apple to their dying breath. I'm not apple hater, in fact I plan on buying a mbp after the refresh. it's a bit ridiculous that apple charges so much for old tech.
     
  8. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #8
    Its nothing to do with fanboyism, most people refuse to believe that Apple is a different type of business model. Apple makes money off of hardware, thats why their software is so cheap. Free developer tools, their full office suite is only $70, their OS is $129 for the full version, etc. Microsoft makes money off of software, which is why their OS is $400 for the full version, their office suite is $400+ for the full version, their developer tools are almost a grand for the full version, etc.

    As for bargain PCs, if they were sold at straight hardware level HP, Acer, etc would all take a loss or break about even. They make money by letting countless crapware vendors rent "spots" on their OEM disks. Thats why so many windows PCs come with crap loaded all over them. Not to mention, you get what you pay for.

    Too many people use the "fanboy" card when in reality they know nothing about the computer industry or the companies that are in it.
     
  9. phib3r0ptik macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    #9
  10. Stvwndr219 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    #10
    It could also have something to do with the freshness of the install? From my experience, things are always peppier before you start messing with the configurations, etc.
     
  11. Eddyisgreat macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    #11
    blah. blah. blah.

    'Tis got nothing to do with older technology.

    Install Windows on the very same Macbook, and the NFL website will be much smoother.
     
  12. mrsir2009 macrumors 604

    mrsir2009

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #12
    If the 13" MBPs had a dedicated graphics card and an ix processor they would be just as good for everything except flash :D

    On the contrary though, I know people with mid range 15" windows laptops that don't have an ix processor or a dedicated graphics card.
     
  13. JasonR macrumors 6502a

    JasonR

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    #13
    NFL.com's menu is NOT flash. It's a little choppy on my work PC.

    GET OVER IT. There are SO many things that could slow things down on websites...could be internet related, code related, browser related, etc. etc.
     
  14. davidcmc macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #14
    NFL.com runs just fine and smooth in my MacBook Pro 13" 2010.
    I really don't understand what AppleGoat is saying.

    You should take a look at others applications running in background, as well as any process that could be eating all your CPU performance.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pd1GjXfk_ik

    PS: Is there any way to embed an YouTube video in my post?
     
  15. al2o3cr macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    #15
    Just tried this on my 2010 13" MBP - in Safari, things were smooth if I didn't load the Flash banner just below the menus. Loading the Flash and then mousing over the menus caused the animation to be much more choppy.
     
  16. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #16
    No, it has been disabled, thankfully.

    OP, here some additional benchmark tools, as NFL.com is not widely recognised as such.
     
  17. vant macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #17
    Could be slowing down for a number of reasons. I did a browser test before and firefox came in dead last in terms of performance on osx. Chrome is by a significant margin much faster.

    Firefox on osx is NOT the same on windows.
     
  18. davidcmc macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #18
    Honestly I don't know why people keep saying that.

    Have you even compared performance of Firefox in Windows and OSX using the same hardware?

    Usually a Mac has inferior hardware compared to a PC, so I think it's safe to say that Firefox would run worse in a Mac than on a PC, but not because of OS X...

    Yes, Firefox is by far the most CPU-demanding web browser available. I've done the same test and found out that all WebKit browser (Safari and Chrome) consume less CPU than others.
    In both Windows and OS X, Firefox consumes more CPU than any other web browser.

    Firefox is the same thing on Windows and Firefox, at least performance-wise.
     
  19. aimbdd, Nov 23, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 23, 2010

    aimbdd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    East Cost
    #19
    Fire fox is bloat. Horrible. On my windows desktop, with no extensions installed it opens slower then IE. Thats pretty bad...
    Google Chrome all the way!
     
  20. mrsir2009 macrumors 604

    mrsir2009

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #20
    Firefox has become so slow recently that I've switched to Google Chrome.
     
  21. ottos macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2010
    #21
    NFL.COM no problem on my new 13'' MBP Base model it ran
    very smoothly on Safari.
     
  22. CaoCao macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    #22
    Windows slows down pretty fast
    Firefox is slow, Safari is much better
    A Pentium M will obliterate a 50% better clocked Atom ∴ Newer≠Better
     
  23. tigress666 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2010
    Location:
    Washington State
    #23
    What?! If they are both using Firefox, it is totally not a flawed test as both computers will be running a slow browser. What would be flawed is if you had one running Firefox and another a different browser. But to really accurately compare, you'd have to have them running as much the same software as possible (unless you have an arguement that Firefox is crappy on the Mac but runs great on the PC).
     
  24. aimbdd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    East Cost
    #24
    fire fox is very crappy on mac, and mostly crappy on windows.
     
  25. maflynn, Nov 24, 2010
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2010

    maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #25
    lol, We've been waiting for OpenCL apps now since June of 2009 (when SL was unveiled and released to the developers). Even apple doesn't seem all that serious with OpenCL since they don't use it AFAIK

    As for the crippled comment, I keep seeing it here but without any proof/substance behind it. I'm not saying it isn't crippled, but just saying doesn't make it so. I'd not call an inferior GPU a crippled i3 either.

    All things being equal, it would seem that an i3 should beat out a c2d machine because of the improvements intel built into the i3 chipset over the aging and sagging c2d platform that's been around since 2006. While intel has kept refreshing the line, they made no major architecture changes so what they built in 06 is still the same in 2010
     

Share This Page