I'm just noticing that the graph they used is almost completely meaningless. What is the baseline? I assume they mean the graphics performance in last generation Macs but which game? They can't all have had the same framerate.
I guess Apple overestimated the intelligence of the reader.
This is standard comparison of new item vs old item. The old item is given a performance of 1.0 and the new item is a ratio of performance. So a value of 1.8 means 80% faster than the baseline.
As you can see, the performance gain varies by game. It will also depend on resolution chosen, options selected, and so on, so fps isn't too useful, either. If you have a game you like, then search for a review on how that game performs on various Macs to get an idea.
I guess we shouldnt be surprised. Apple knows whats best for you. Little to no choice as usual.
Not true at all. Apple knows what is best FOR APPLE. That means selling items that will appeal to lots of people, but they couldn't care less whether it appeals to any one particular person. Their recent history shows that they are right far more often than they are wrong.
To all complainers of the "I can get a computer with better specs from manufacturer X" variety:
Apple sells high margin hardware. "High margin" means (from a consumer perspective) that you pay more money for less stuff.
They manage to pull this off because they have a crackerjack design team that can (1) create a good user experience on mediocre hardware and (2) create beautiful products that their customers can be proud to own.
This is the way Apple has done business for years. If you are not okay with that, then you are not the kind of customer Apple has in mind when they design their products.
Actually, they have also excelled at designing and manufacturing products with very high quality levels - as shown by their consistently being at the top of the heap for initial and long term reliability. They also excel at customer service.
Why is 13" excluded though? Shouldn't we be able to choose which size laptop we like?
Sure you can. Apple makes 13", 15" and 17" laptops and they'll sell you whatever size you want.
What they won't do is sell you all sorts of configurations that would have a low market. For example, their experience is that people who buy 13" laptops are probably not going to pay for lots of high end performance features. They have also determined that on a 17" laptop, the cost savings from going with a low end processor aren't justified.
The fact that YOU may see things differently isn't their problem.
I forgot one more thing.
It's depressing to see the games Apple still uses for their gaming benchmarks.
Why? Because you're some super gamer hacker dude? They chose a reasonable range of games that would play well on that system. People buying a 13" MacBook are probably not going to be leet Crysis dudes.
I still don't know what are the icore5 and icore7. Can someone explain me? I am still deciding whether to buy the 13(cheapest) or 15(cheapest). Can somebody so kind explain me the MBP 15 is for what kind of person, I meant what is that person likely to do in the MBP 15 with core i5? because basically I need the laptop to write papers, watch video, email, and edit videos; so what will be my best interest? the 13 C2D or 15 icore5?
p.s I am not a pc expert =P
Michelle
Any of them will do the job. The i5 will be significantly faster and have a larger screen, but at significantly higher price. I would suggest that you go to an Apple store and try them both. You probably won't be able to edit much video there, but you will be able to see how important the larger screen is to you.
To use your car analogy, the only thing that would be relative is a hybrid. now apple is trying to sell you a 2 year old hybrid with a strong gas engine. The only reason why they won't upgrade to the current hybrid with a strong gas engine is the size, the newer hybrid is alot larger and apple does not want to redesign the car. so you're either stuck with an old hybrid with a strong gas engine or a new hybrid with an old gas engine.
That is the most bizarre analogy I've ever seen.
Let's recap. You said that you would never buy the 13" simply because it has a C2D instead of i3. Apparently, nothing else matters to you since you said that was the sole determining factor. So it could have 16 GB of RAM, a 2 TB SSD, some super high end video card, 50 hour battery life and weigh 1.2 pounds - and you wouldn't buy it because it had a C2D instead of a 10% faster i3.
That led me to point out how foolish is is to choose something on the basis of one spec - and used the example that it would be equally foolish to choose a car on the basis of tire size or engine displacement.
That led you to some bizarre, convoluted analogy that doesn't even make sense. Go figure.
No it's not. You read what Jobs said and are now adding your fantasy to it. All he showed was game benchmarks.
AND he explained that the C2D wouldn't be much faster while the GPU IS much faster. So you have a choice of slightly faster CPU and much slower GPU or slightly slower CPU and much faster GPU.
Few applications benefit from a slight gain in CPU. A number of applications benefit from a faster GPU, particularly with OpenCl coming down the road. For the average user buying a low end 13" machine, they're not doing anything where CPU is the bottleneck, but they very well COULD be doing something where GPU is the bottleneck (like games).
Yep, I agree.
Optical drives are obsolete, can't remember the last time I used my superdrive tbh.
Every time I install software and every time I rip a CD or DVD. And every time I burn a disk to give large data files to someone else. It's important enough to me that I bought an external drive to go with my Mac Mini Server.
I'm sure that not everyone needs it, but I think it's still quite some time before its usage drops to the point that it can be eliminated.
