Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by macuser1232, Sep 28, 2012.
It's all in the title. How much can an i5 2.3ghz processor from a Macbook Pro handle?
It can handle anything. I think the variable is the time to accomplish a task and not the task accomplishment itself.
I mean't time as well.
But then it depends of the task. I'm afraid nobody can tell you that. :/
Your question does not make any sense.
How much or how many of what? Ballons? Cookies? Poop?
It should handle normal everyday tasks efficiently.
Then again, it all depends on your definition of "normal".
If all you do is web browsing, word processing, and maybe edit a few photos like the average computer user, a 2.3GHz i5 is probably more than twice what you'll ever need. That processor is even fine for a power user when paired to a good graphics card.
It's still largely subjective.
Which processes? Obviously more if they aren't intensive, and less if they are. I don't understand the question really you need to be more specific.
"How many processes or applications can a 2.3 GHz i5 processor handle" is not a sensible question.
When all else fails, use a car analogy...
You're essentially asking, "Will a toyota corolla with a 4 cylinder engine be good enough for me?".
If you're a 39 year old housewife who needs something to drop the kids off at school and pick up the groceries, then yes.
If you're a 17 year old male high school student who's wanting to drag race down main street and attract girls, probably not.
It will handle as many processes/applications as any other Ivy Bridge CPU.
Anyway, if you even have to ask a question like this, this means that this CPU will be more than enough for you. Even a MacBook Air will actually.
He is actually asking "How much can a toyota corolla drive?" ^^ Yes, it doesn't make any sense.
How does it even occur to you that you can compare a MacBook Pro to a Toyora Corolla?
Let alone your statement that it would be good for a housewife but not for a teenager. The whole comparison is just plain wrong - if you don't have anything useful to say, just don't say anything at all.
Love Toyotas...well built, reliable, dependable vehicles giving years of relatively trouble free service. How could I NOT compare one to a Mac?
And I meant to use a minivan in the case of a housewife (or any other primary care giver to juveniles); I just couldn't remember the name of a Toyota minivan at that moment.
Do you honestly think the usage case and preferences of someone with three kids for an automobile would be the same as a high school teenager?
You don't like the analogy, fine. Take it easy, Francis!
He didn't say that the subjects were comparable. He said that the questions were analogous.
Again, you're missing the analogy. The point is that what is or isn't an adequate solution depends on your needs and intended use. That applies to both selecting cars and selecting computers (and just about any other topic out there).
Pot, kettle. Where's your better analogy?
I don't know about the image of Toyota in the US, but I'm from Europe and it's not exactly as premium as Apple is compared to its competitors. It's therefore that I think that a MacBook cannot be compared to a Toyota.
Also I think that your conclusion about a MacBook being incapable for a teenager is a bit odd - why wouldn't it be? It's not as if a teenager needs a top of the line gaming rig...
Why would one bother making a comparison when the subjects aren't compareable? I don't see any logic on that.
I never said I could make a good comparison, but I just said that this comparison makes no sense. I don't feel obligated to make a "better" one myself.
The comparison is about the questions, not the products. I'm not sure how I can state that again and clearer for you. The products do not matter. Let's try this:
"Is X enough?" is a bad question. You need to provide details on intended use and needs for anyone to answer the question. What X is doesn't matter.
Ah, in that way. When put like that it indeed makes sense! I apologize for my (possible) rudeness but I did not see it was about the "engine" of the computer. I thought it was about the computer as a whole.
No problem! Sorry if I came across as rude. Sometimes it's tricky getting an idea across when it's clear to you but not clear to the other person.
I found it an excellent comparison! Whereas you do not bring anything to the discussion apart from some cheap criticism.
The i5 2.3 can handle anything you can throw at it, but it will take about 30-50% longer than a i7. But if you are not interested in quick turnaround times, like professional video-editors, than it is enough for all tasks.
Anything over 100% is too much.
I think he was just asking for an example of something (an application, or perhaps a combination of applications and processes related to say, photo/video editing, virtual machines, etc) that would be 'too much' or at least noticeably less efficient on an i5 2.3 compared to a higher powered processor. There must be an example, otherwise there would really be no reason for there to be anything better. He's probably just asking out of curiosity. No reason to say his question is stupid or to answer with a bunch of silly analogies.
Anyway, I really don't know what to say because I don't believe I've ever done anything on my computers that their processors couldn't handle, those being an i5 2.5 and an i7 2.6 respectively. But maybe there is someone who can shed light on the subject, perhaps by saying why they opted to buy a computer with something better than a i5 2.3 if that was a factor they consciously and particularly considered when buying their PC. For me, my buying decisions were influenced more by ram and storage space.