Whoa 17" hi res mbp feels alot faster connected to 23" acd than 15" sr mbp!!

[Joko]

Non taken, 2 monster drinks and a forum that interests you can get you pretty pumped up.

I just find it sad that with such a great machine, this is what people do with it, post on MR. I know guys who are doing stellar work on 2005 iMacs and 1.5Ghz Powerbooks for example, they don't even know about MR! But they produce amazing consistent work, only a fool rates his abilities by the quality of his tools.

 

[jjahshik32]

No offense either but maybe some people would like to know the experience and ask questions.

Is good that you do not see a diff with the old version. Personally I know that it takes 10min for my laptop to get to full brightness and also the WUXGA was less bright than the WSXGA model.

As they did not have this model in the store to verify it I had to rely on accounts from people that got it to decide if I order it or not.

I've had the 2.4ghz sr mbp 17" hi res in glossy (non led) model last year and the 15" of the same spec that I just recently sold last year together to see which one I'd keep. I ALMOST went with the 17" but that 15" led model looks so much better and brighter and not to mention clearer than anything. Even when the 17" hi res glossy was at full brightness for a good hour and just turning on the 15" led looks THAT much brighter.

Either if the person is half blind/color blind, or telling themselves that its the same thing is purely wrong.

 

[jjahshik32]

I just find it sad that with such a great machine, this is what people do with it, post on MR. I know guys who are doing stellar work on 2005 iMacs and 1.5Ghz Powerbooks for example, they don't even know about MR! But they produce amazing consistent work, only a fool rates his abilities by the quality of his tools.

True but I never boasted about how much better ends product I can achieve than a person with a powerbook. Just telling you guys what the machines differ in performance, just pure facts thats all. I mean a person can still do all webmastery/graphics work still on a 17" 1.67ghz powerbook and get stellar work.

What I find funny is that people taken in offense with a topic that's stupid to them in the first place, in which I find something is very wrong with those people, no offense.

 

[xeux]

Believe what you will

I will believe what I know.

Video Ram has absolutely jack **** to do with what you're talking about.


Let's put some educated thought into this.
1. The 15 inch has it's GPU clocked slower than the 17 inch. Been that way for all the mac book pros.
2. Video Ram isn't going to affect expose or other basic gui functions. Just about the only time you'll see this is gaming with massive textures at high resolution.


The only thing that adds up to you "feeling" the 17 inch being snappier is the faster GPU clock, and obviously the penryn benefits.

My bet is if you used a MEROM/Santa Rosa 17 you'd be just as pleased making the jump.

 

[BrianKonarsMac]

Congrats!

 

[jjahshik32]

I will believe what I know.

Video Ram has absolutely jack **** to do with what you're talking about.


Let's put some educated thought into this.
1. The 15 inch has it's GPU clocked slower than the 17 inch. Been that way for all the mac book pros.
2. Video Ram isn't going to affect expose or other basic gui functions. Just about the only time you'll see this is gaming with massive textures at high resolution.


The only thing that adds up to you "feeling" the 17 inch being snappier is the faster GPU clock, and obviously the penryn benefits.

My bet is if you used a MEROM/Santa Rosa 17 you'd be just as pleased making the jump.

When I had the 17" sr mbp 2.4ghz (exact same model as the 15" a year ago) I did some extensive testing as well before making a choice to which one I wanted to keep (both have 256vram, hitachi travelstar 7k200,4gb ram from crucial). I do remember driving the 23" acd felt pretty much the same in (non closed mode), but the ONLY difference I wanted the 17" was due to the 1920x1200 hi res screen but in the end chose the 15" since it was identical in the function under the 23" acd and everything else + the led screen is what I really wanted).

I remember I tested the game S.T.A.L.K.E.R. on the 17" mbp as to the 15" mbp (with the settings both set at medium) and the 17" did give me anywhere from 2-7 fps more than the 15" since it was higher clocked.

What I can say though is that my brother at that time had the 2.2ghz SR 128mb model and interesting enough in medium and even low settings the fps was so choppy and lagged too long in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. that it was unplayable (not just because the fps were bad that I didnt want to play it, it was so bad that when you moved around the main character and since the fps was so terrible that you didnt know what you were doing and had to wait and see where your character has ended up. That did have a huge difference though jumping from 128vram to the 256vram.

So no the 2.4ghz 17" hi res was the same thing in driving the 23" acd as the 15 2.4ghz model, a bit faster in gaming though but same thing in the external monitor department.

If vram has absolutely jack **** to do with the performance of driving an external monitor, then why do some bigger monitors require a certain amount of vram to drive it in the first place?? AND why does the 23" acd run so much faster in closed (shell) mode? Maybe its due to the fact that in closed mode its not dividing the vram in half and the full 256vram goes to the 23" acd?? Its common sense.

Please dont call your guesses/thoughts "educated." And apparently what you believe is absolutely wrong. Learn from this please.

 

[bobbleheadbob]

Whoa no offense but I find these kind of threads very funny, but also very annoying. If you love your machine so much, why are you going on and on and on?? Just say you love it once, and let it rest. Great, so you think the led is better than mercury (personally I can hardly tell the difference), but really, get back to actually USING the machine instead of sitting on MR going on about it.
Like I said, no offense, but it's kinda sad seeing these type of threads.

Whoa no offense, but if you find it annoying, then don't bother reading it. There are plenty of other comments to read here that will be more interesting to you. Or you could get back to actually USING the machine instead of sitting on MR going on about things that annoy you...but not other people who ARE interested in these type of discussions.

Like I said, no offense, but it's kinda sad seeing these type of comments....

 

[jjahshik32]

I find the 17" 2.5Ghz mbp much faster than the 15" so now I am selling my mac pro, its that much faster. Fast enough now to comfortably work on with the 23" ACD. Not to mention get to pocket the money as the mac pro was bought by own money.

 

[cmcbridejr]

I just find it sad that with such a great machine, this is what people do with it, post on MR. I know guys who are doing stellar work on 2005 iMacs and 1.5Ghz Powerbooks for example, they don't even know about MR! But they produce amazing consistent work, only a fool rates his abilities by the quality of his tools.

What is with all the haters?!?

I find your thread to be informative.

Just because you have a great machine, then you should not post on MR, and instead, you should be doing only work?

Does this guy make sense to anyone else?

 

[weckart]

I ran my PB 15" on a Dell 2405 at 1920x1200. Only 64MB of VRAM and Expose never stuttered once. Nor should it have. The hardware was way in advance of what was needed to do that, even with plenty of apps open. Hell, you should be able to do this with a Mac mini.

Not sure what was wrong with your rig to struggle with such a basic task.

 

[Joko]

Whoa no offense, but if you find it annoying, then don't bother reading it. There are plenty of other comments to read here that will be more interesting to you. Or you could get back to actually USING the machine instead of sitting on MR going on about things that annoy you...but not other people who ARE interested in these type of discussions.

Like I said, no offense, but it's kinda sad seeing these type of comments....

FAIL.

 

[Joko]

What is with all the haters?!?

I find your thread to be informative.

Just because you have a great machine, then you should not post on MR, and instead, you should be doing only work?

Does this guy make sense to anyone else?

I love what i do, therefor it is not 'work'. I guess I'm one of the lucky ones.

 

[Joko]

I find the 17" 2.5Ghz mbp much faster than the 15" so now I am selling my mac pro, its that much faster. Fast enough now to comfortably work on with the 23" ACD. Not to mention get to pocket the money as the mac pro was bought by own money.

I'm glad we can agree on one thing at least! I sold my Mac Pro too, my 2.6 17'' 2.6 is easily a desktop replacement.

 

[jjahshik32]

I ran my PB 15" on a Dell 2405 at 1920x1200. Only 64MB of VRAM and Expose never stuttered once. Nor should it have. The hardware was way in advance of what was needed to do that, even with plenty of apps open. Hell, you should be able to do this with a Mac mini.

Not sure what was wrong with your rig to struggle with such a basic task.

Lol, no offense seriously... but please refer to one of my posts on top about cheaper/inferior monitor/panels, its an inferior screen with an s-pva panel and inferior circuitry and chipset which is less demanding than the cinema displays, its a dell thats why

 

[pionata]

This has NOTHING to do with the video card, and it's probably related more with you previous 15" problems than your new 17" performances.

The desktop, no matter what is the task, take barely 10% of 256megs of ram and less than 1% your video card cpu. It has no basis in facts, unless there is a driver issue.

My 15" run my 23" fine in non close lid mode, even with 3d games I dont notice the difference as it unload the ram from the other monitor and turn it automatically off.

If there is a driver issue with certain models? perhaps... ?
There has never been any report of this anywhere and it has no "scientific" basis as it's the same video card with the same drivers (and less than 1% it's cpu is used for 2d).

 

[jjahshik32]

I'm glad we can agree on one thing at least! I sold my Mac Pro too, my 2.6 17'' 2.6 is easily a desktop replacement.

Yeap, the only reason I kept my mac pro is because of extracting huge files the size of 9gb+. I guess its the hdd in the mbp that's the limiting factor but now I made my own solution. I have a nice firewire 800 hdd that I bought the case from owc.com and its the best external enclosure I've ever used, the firewire 800 speed is incredibly fast! And I bought a 1tb seagate barracuda the server grade version with the ns at the end of the serial number.

Anyway now when I want to extract a huge file, I just transfer the whole folder to the external 1tb seagate barracuda drive and use the 1tb seagate drive to extract the file which took 7 minutes for a 9.4gb file as to the raptor 10k on my mac pro that with the same 9.4gb file took 5 min but 2 minutes is not a huge deal when you can sell the whole mac pro and pocket $4000!

 

[jjahshik32]

This has NOTHING to do with the video card, and it's probably related more with you previous 15" problems than your new 17" performances.

The desktop, no matter what is the task, take barely 10% of 256megs of ram and less than 1% your video card cpu. It has no basis in facts, unless there is a driver issue.

My 15" run my 23" fine in non close lid mode, even with 3d games I dont notice the difference as it unload the ram from the other monitor and turn it automatically off.

If there is a driver issue with certain models? perhaps... ?
There has never been any report of this anywhere and it has no "scientific" basis as it's the same video card with the same drivers (and less than 1% it's cpu is used for 2d).

Try running your mbp in closed mode and not only me there are plenty of other mbp users of 15" even 17" all say that it runs much faster in closed mode. Pretty much near the same speed if your mbp is not even connected to the 23" acd. Anyways the 17" is that much faster connected to the 23" and does not lag at all (15" seems like everything you do is a split second in lag as to the 17" seems like its responding like its own built in monitor), but if I use the 17" in closed mode it runs so much faster as well.

You'd be surprised if your doing alot of multitasking how fast that "128mb" 256mb/2 could fill up/used real fast.

 

[Joko]

when you can sell the whole mac pro and pocket $4000!

Absolutely true.

I have been in the market for a FW800 external HD for a while, my 400 is being used by my soundcard so the 800 it has to be. Any suggestions? 500GB would be perfect.

 

[zerohp]

Lol, no offense seriously... but please refer to one of my posts on top about cheaper/inferior monitor/panels, its an inferior screen with an s-pva panel and inferior circuitry and chipset which is less demanding than the cinema displays, its a dell thats why

This is the most clueless post I've seen regarding displays on this forum. You're trying to justify a more expensive display performing worse for you by claiming the cheaper display performs better because of poor components. Is this bizzaro-macrumors?

 

[jjahshik32]

Absolutely true.

I have been in the market for a FW800 external HD for a while, my 400 is being used by my soundcard so the 800 it has to be. Any suggestions? 500GB would be perfect.

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other World Computing/MEFW924AL1K/

this is what I bought

If I ever need another 1tb external drive again, I'd forsure buy another one of these enclosures and you can even stack them on top of each other for room if you'd like! I love these enclosures!!

I highly highly recommend this drive.. man fw800 is ohh sooo fast in this hdd and the build quality is top notch! It can go up to 1tb but I think there is a 500gb enclosure version thats cheaper with the same looks/specs or you could order from them with the hdd they already have inside the enclosures.

 

[jjahshik32]

This is the most clueless post I've seen regarding displays on this forum. You're trying to justify a more expensive display performing worse for you by claiming the cheaper display performs better because of poor components. Is this bizzaro-macrumors?

Oh yea this makes sense,with cheaper/inferior displays that have less demanding circuitry/board/chipset of course you can drive it much easier. Try driving say a 23" ACD or a 24" viewsonic and tell me which has overall faster response and in especially OSX.

I had a dell 2407fwp and even the powerbook g4 12" drove it fast and was horrible on the 23" ACD.

 

[zerohp]

Oh yea this makes sense,with cheaper/inferior displays that have less demanding circuitry/board/chipset of course you can drive it much easier. Try driving say a 23" ACD or a 24" viewsonic and tell me which has overall faster response and in especially OSX.

I had a dell 2407fwp and even the powerbook g4 12" drove it fast and was horrible on the 23" ACD.

You need to read up on how DVI works to understand why this is wrong. The 23" ACD is not Dual-link, so across the exact same interface it is no more demanding on the video card than any other. 30" would be dual-link so that could make a difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface

 

[jjahshik32]

You need to read up on how DVI works to understand why this is wrong. The 23" ACD is not Dual-link, so across the exact same interface it is no more demanding on the video card than any other. 30" would be dual-link so that could make a difference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface

Great a wiki on how DVI works. But DVI does not have anything to do with how much more demanding a monitor is. All dvi has the same speed in transferring the signal to and from the laptop. Just on the monitor's end is what I'm talking about.

I mean I can buy a $1400 52" 1080p vizio and hook up my mbp to it and it'll drive it much faster than hooked up to my 52" 1080p sony bravia xbr4 which has a much higher sophisticated chipset/circuitry/quality than the vizio all from the same dvi.

Thats another note too on my 52" sony bravia xbr4, I hooked up the mbp 15" with the 256vram and it lags alot, especially the mouse cursor, I mean it literally skips. But on the 17" mbp with 512mb its smooth sailing and yes this is all through dvi.

 

[Joko]

http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other World Computing/MEFW924AL1K/

this is what I bought

If I ever need another 1tb external drive again, I'd forsure buy another one of these enclosures and you can even stack them on top of each other for room if you'd like! I love these enclosures!!

I highly highly recommend this drive.. man fw800 is ohh sooo fast in this hdd and the build quality is top notch! It can go up to 1tb but I think there is a 500gb enclosure version thats cheaper with the same looks/specs or you could order from them with the hdd they already have inside the enclosures.

Cool, nice one. So it's an enclosure, thought it came with the HD. I'm in SA, haven't seen them here, moving to Germany in April, can't wait! Will look for them there.

 

[zerohp]

Great a wiki on how DVI works. But DVI does not have anything to do with how much more demanding a monitor is. All dvi has the same speed in transferring the signal to and from the laptop. Just on the monitor's end is what I'm talking about.

There's no logic in your posts then. You say the ACD is more demanding than a cheaper dell display at the same resolution. I show you how it cannot be due to standards in the interface design.

You've been praising the ACD for being slower (in your case, not saying that it actually is) and claiming that poor performance means that it is better quality. I'm finished replying to your post as I only wanted to expose the contradictions in your claims.