Interesting you did not link to where these quotes came from. Because they are likely taken from entirely different articles published at different times and taken out of proper context.
You are reaching pretty far in attempt to use two disjointed quotes that ultimately prove nothing.
You did not refute anything. You took two random quotes from two random articles and put them together with no context and no explanation of how they are connected.
I took an article that quotes benchmark results for the MacBook, and another article from the same publication wihich uses identical benchmark tests for the Studio.
Did you read them? And are you serious when you ask for test results given the vast differences in hardware?
BTW - I predicted correctly when I said you would not accept the proof, and would persist in your delusion that your laptop is faster than anything under $4500.
If not for your digital cluelessness, you would cut and paste the quotes into google and find the whole articles, and if not for your delusions, you would realize that your duo-core technology is slower than the i7.
Again, you?re only looking at a few specs that wannabe geeks think are the only things that matter to everyone. By your example it?s like saying a Big Mac performs better than a nice steak because the Big Mac has more calories and cost a lot less, but I prefer the steak every time. BTW, you?re only using the word ?perform? in a very limited way to mean computing performance.
Again, I was responding to "Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it."
"measurable and quantifiable" are the criteria that the delusional one wanted, and so that's the criteria I focused on. Listen - I'll admit that the MBP is very pretty and sleek. It is a beauty queen.
But the Mac-Gamer guy wanted performance specs, so that's what I focused on. I quoted two reviews from the same publication using the same benchmark tests. The quad-core Dell trounced the duo-core Mac (Duh - what a surprise!) and the idiot couldn't accept that his delusions were at odds with objective reality.
And he wouldn't accept that Apple does not make high-end laptops (performance-wise), but instead they use last-year's tech and put it in a nice package.
Yes - Apple products are pretty. Yes - Apple products are well engineered. Yes - Apple products are satisfying.
But the performance/price ratio is NOT superior to the alternatives. And until Apple catches up, anybody looking for a high-end (meaning high-performance) laptop should look elsewhere, and anyone looking for bang for the buck should look elsewhere.
That's the whole point. No I see no articles where anyone has said that PC's out perform Mac's at a lower price. When it comes to notebooks performance can include size, weight, battery life.
Apple does not sell a notebook that will compromise size, weight, and battery life for diminishing returns on hardware performance.
Yes. Performance can also include the plastic and metal case that holds the guts. But generally, performance benchmarks are used to compare performance.
Using your criteria is like saying that a Kia outperforms a Ferrari because it has a bigger gas tank and needs fill ups less often. If range is your criteria, the Kia wins over Ferrari on performance. "Kia will NOT compromise on gas tank capacity, so..."
With computers, and especially with the guy who claimed his Mac was the world's best gaming laptop under $4500, performance means throughput.
I understand, BTW, that the MBP is a very nice machine. All I am commenting on is that they are also slow and expensive compared to the alternatives. That is the exact point that gameBoi refuses to accept.
Q: Why even choose a notebook over a desktop, especially one that is made by a PC vendor, not one you built yourself. You can get a lot more ?performance? out of a desktop you build yourself at much lower price than any PC vendor?s notebook.
A: Computing performance isn?t the only metric that conscientious buyers should consider.
Hey - I agree. I've built/upgraded/cannibalized/hacked many machines over the years. Now I own a laptop, for very good and practical reasons.
I didn't build it - I bought it pre-assembled. That is because the practical considerations trumped performance.
If I wanted only performance, I would have built a box of SOTA components. If I wanted only bang/buck, I would have built a box using last year's latest and greatest. But for practical reasons., I geve up on SOTA performance and bang/buck and got a nice laptop.
I would NOT claim that it "performs" better than any computer at its price - to do that would be as silly as the gameBoi with his MacBook.
Never, ever, ever, will I own another desktop. Aside from the AIO iMac paradigm, desktops are going the way of the dinosaurs.
I dunno. For an every-day use computer, I agree.
But I'm thinking of building a home server for storing music and video and backups and other large files. It won't be a laptop
It likely will be a machine with quiet fans and lots of disk drives. I may want to offload video-conversion and other data-crunching tasks to it, and therefore it might need a good processor and lots of RAM.
For computers like that, a "desktop" configuration makes sense. But for an everyday computer, I agree that the laptop has become the best choice.
What you fail to understand is that you link to some random MBP benchmark with no further information. That doesn't tell us anything, when were those benchmarks done? Benchmark tests are best if they are done head to head, preferably on the same OS with the exact same software.
I shouldn't have to track down the articles you are using to support your point. If they truly prove your point, you should provide links to them.
The fact that you didn't provide a link says it all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius
I took an article that quotes benchmark results for the MacBook, and another article from the same publication wihich uses identical benchmark tests for the Studio.
Did you read them? And are you serious when you ask for test results given the vast differences in hardware?
BTW - I predicted correctly when I said you would not accept the proof, and would persist in your delusion that your laptop is faster than anything under $4500.
If not for your digital cluelessness, you would cut and paste the quotes into google and find the whole articles, and if not for your delusions, you would realize that your duo-core technology is slower than the i7.
The point of a notebook is to be portable. If its heavy, thick, with little battery life that limits its ability to be portable. These are all factors in its performance. Its not only about how fast it can process information.
In your car example, yes as a general car the Kia does out perform the Ferrari. If you are using the Ferrari as a race car their is less concern about its fuel consumption. Who cares about how fast it goes if it cannot hold enough fuel to get you to the grocery store.
In your mind faster is always better under any circumstance and that simply is not true. There are many other factors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGenius
Yes. Performance can also include the plastic and metal case that holds the guts. But generally, performance benchmarks are used to compare performance.
Using your criteria is like saying that a Kia outperforms a Ferrari because it has a bigger gas tank and needs fill ups less often. If range is your criteria, the Kia wins over Ferrari on performance. "Kia will NOT compromise on gas tank capacity, so..."
I understand, BTW, that the MBP is a very nice machine. All I am commenting on is that they are also slow and expensive compared to the alternatives. That is the exact point that gameBoi refuses to accept.
teckstud never really wrote more than six syllables per post. If that.
I may not agree with iGenius but I can’t see how it could be Teckstud. Besides what Quadra stated, iGenius writes paragraphs and complex compound sentence that aren’t making caustic statements about fanboys and Kool-Aid. The name he going by now is Mr. Koolaid.
"measurable and quantifiable" are the criteria that the delusional one wanted, and so that's the criteria I focused on. Listen - I'll admit that the MBP is very pretty and sleek. It is a beauty queen.
But the Mac-Gamer guy wanted performance specs, so that's what I focused on. I quoted two reviews from the same publication using the same benchmark tests. The quad-core Dell trounced the duo-core Mac (Duh - what a surprise!) and the idiot couldn't accept that his delusions were at odds with objective reality.
And he wouldn't accept that Apple does not make high-end laptops (performance-wise), but instead they use last-year's tech and put it in a nice package.
Yes - Apple products are pretty. Yes - Apple products are well engineered. Yes - Apple products are satisfying.
But the performance/price ratio is NOT superior to the alternatives. And until Apple catches up, anybody looking for a high-end (meaning high-performance) laptop should look elsewhere, and anyone looking for bang for the buck should look elsewhere.
That is why I keep saying you?re missing his point. You?re picking out some basic specs that any Mac will lose it and saying that Macs are worse performers.That is the not the whole picture, and you know it. TenoBell is right, you still haven?t found a machine that beats a Mac.
Being a ?beauty queen? or ?put in a nice package? is myopic if you think that a thin, sturdy encloser is only for aesthetic purposes.
Are you going to cry foul on Apple when they release dual-core Core-i machines this year, not quad-core Core-i? I?m sure we?re gonna hear a lot of ?But quad-core notebooks have been out since last year and Apple only has dual-core.?
PS: The forum has one rule it adheres to. No name calling.
I shouldn't have to track down the articles you are using to support your point. If they truly prove your point, you should provide links to them.
The fact that you didn't provide a link says it all.
You don't have to track down the articles unless you want to. The snippets provided the benchmarks you asked for, and if you want to look into it further, you are welcome to do so. Or, in the alternative, you are welcome to believe that you have the fastest sub-$4500 laptop on the market.
Your delusion that a machine with last-years architecture might be faster than the new Quad-core architecture needs little to refute it, so that all I gave. I think I mentioned that I spent all of 2 minutes to find a couple of relevant results.
You don't have to track down the articles unless you want to. The snippets provided the benchmarks you asked for, and if you want to look into it further, you are welcome to do so. Or, in the alternative, you are welcome to believe that you have the fastest sub-$4500 laptop on the market.
Your delusion that a machine with last-years architecture might be faster than the new Quad-core architecture needs little to refute it, so that all I gave. I think I mentioned that I spent all of 2 minutes to find a couple of relevant results.
In a few days/weeks, your CPU will be two generations behind the curve. And you'll still be kidding yourself.
1) Show me where he stated that he only wants performance from the CPU and nothing else?
2) You do realize that these Arrandales are already behind the curve of the Clarkfield released last year, based on your performance benchmarking. Why do you think Apple will use the Arrandales and bypass Clarkfield completely?
The point of a notebook is to be portable. If its heavy, thick, with little battery life that limits its ability to be portable. These are all factors in its performance. Its not only about how fast it can process information.
Very true. But the notebook used in comparison to the MBP is neither heavy nor thick, and it has a bigger battery than the Mac.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
In your car example, yes as a general car the Kia does out perform the Ferrari. If you are using the Ferrari as a race car their is less concern about its fuel consumption. Who cares about how fast it goes if it cannot hold enough fuel to get you to the grocery store.
The OP that I was responding to brought up benchmarks. And I think that I have said several times that the Mac is truly a beauty queen. That is not in dispute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
In your mind faster is always better under any circumstance and that simply is not true. There are many other factors.
I don't think that faster is always better. I bought a laptop, and not a desktop. Laptops offer a poor performance/$ ratio.
Indeed, I didn't even buy the best bang/buck laptop performance-wise, because I agree with your point about other factors being important. For example, I wanted an American manufacturer for personal political reasons. I wanted it to look nicer than average and to last longer than average. I wanted a nice screen. I wanted a backlit keyboard. I wanted a big battery, and the ability to swap in a spare when needed. I wanted it to be reasonably light and small, while nevertheless having a reasonable screen size. I wanted a nice assortment of ports (including FireWire and an HDMI port.
Compared to the MBP, I got a much faster processor, a much better screen, a larger, faster hard drive, a larger battery, and a MUCH lower price.
Again, I neither looked for nor got the most performance per dollar. And to claim that the MBP offers the most "performance" per dollar is to use idiosyncratic meanings.
That is why I keep saying you?re missing his point. You?re picking out some basic specs that any Mac will lose it and saying that Macs are worse performers.That is the not the whole picture, and you know it. TenoBell is right, you still haven?t found a machine that beats a Mac.
This is the quote that I was responding to by Tenobell: "Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it."
He spoke of "performance" as "measurable and quantifiable" . He then says that no other brand can out "perform" an Apple.
I will grant that if one uses a shifting criteria like "beat a mac", anything is possible, because we are in the realm of opinion. But Tenobell wasn't saying that no other machine is subjectively better, he was talking (or so appeared to me to be talking) about measurable and quantifiable aspects of the machines when he used the word "perform". Had he said, in an offhand manner, "Hey - nothing beats a Mac in my book!" I would likely have not responded. If that is truly what he meant, then I missed his point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Being a ?beauty queen? or ?put in a nice package? is myopic if you think that a thin, sturdy encloser is only for aesthetic purposes.
I do not think that. Sorry for the misimpression.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Are you going to cry foul on Apple when they release dual-core Core-i machines this year, not quad-core Core-i? I?m sure we?re gonna hear a lot of ?But quad-core notebooks have been out since last year and Apple only has dual-core.?
No, I won't cry foul over that. Why would I? But if the claim is made that they outperform aother, similarly-priced computers, I might comment on the claim, as I am doing now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
PS: The forum has one rule it adheres to. No name calling.
Thx. Does that include inanimate objects too? Was my Beauty-Queen comment against the rules?
1) Show me where he stated that he only wants performance from the CPU and nothing else?
He never stated that. Here's what he stated: "Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
2) You do realize that these Arrandales are already behind the curve of the Clarkfield released last year, based on your performance benchmarking. Why do you think Apple will use the Arrandales and bypass Clarkfield completely?
Was a Clarksfield ever made for mobile applications? I really don't follow this stufff closely. The Nehelem, I thought, was the mobile version of that architecture. Does Apple still use Penryn?
This is the quote that I was responding to by Tenobell: "Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it."
He spoke of "performance" as "measurable and quantifiable" . He then says that no other brand can out "perform" an Apple.
As both TenoBell and I have stated several times now, your CPU performance isn?t the only "measurable and quantifiable? metric for perform.
There have been gaming notebooks for years cramming desktop-grade components into a notebooky that is 3? thick, weighs 15lb and barely has any battery life. Those amchines perform much worse than any Mac notebook in portability and longevity. Can you not see how these are "measurable and quantifiable? ways in which see how a machine performs?
He never stated that. Here's what he stated: "Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it."
Was a Clarksfield ever made for mobile applications? I really don't follow this stufff closely. The Nehelem, I thought, was the mobile version of that architecture. Does Apple still use Penryn?
This is what some notebooks are using to get quad-core and Core-i7 in their machines, despite the 45W TDP. Now there is dual-core Core-3, i5, and i7 Arrandales which have a max TDP of 35W, which is inline with their current offerings. Yep, still Penryn.
As both TenoBell and I have stated several times now, your CPU performance isn?t the only "measurable and quantifiable? metric for perform.
There have been gaming notebooks for years cramming desktop-grade components into a notebooky that is 3? thick, weighs 15lb and barely has any battery life. Those amchines perform much worse than any Mac notebook in portability and longevity. Can you not see how these are "measurable and quantifiable? ways in which see how a machine performs?
No.
I have said several times (even in the post you responded to) that the notebook used in comparison is not heavy or thick. It is not as you describe above. Instead, it is comparable to the MBP in that regard.
It also has a faster, bigger hard drive. And a much better screen. And a better assortment of ports. And a bigger battery. All relevant aspects that might lead one to say that it "performs" better. And it is cheaper.
I've said each of these things repeatedly, and have never once said that CPU speed is the sole determinant of a good laptop.
I have said several times (even in the post you responded to) that the notebook used in comparison is not heavy or thick. It is not as you describe above. Instead, it is comparable to the MBP in that regard.
It also has a faster, bigger hard drive. And a much better screen. And a better assortment of ports. And a bigger battery. All relevant aspects that might lead one to say that it "performs" better. And it is cheaper.
I've said each of these things repeatedly, and have never once said that CPU speed is the sole determinant of a good laptop.
This is just getting pathetic. Are you purposely not reading anything. Is the machine less than 0.95? thick? No, I think it was 1.5? at it?s thickest point. Does it have a 7 hour battery that can last 5 years and 1000 cycles? I doubt it. Does it has a unibody aluminium case that is very, very sturdy and helps uphold the value of the machine? Of course not, as that takes engineering time and money?
You even say it has a better display, but you don?t quantify it. I?m guessing you mean a higher resolution display, but that is not even close to being the most important aspect of the display for me. Apple?s displays tend to beat the competition in most tests.
Stop looking at from angel and start looking at in the way TenoBell described.
This is just getting pathetic. Are you purposely not reading anything. Is the machine less than 0.95? thick? No, I think it was 1.5? at it?s thickest point. Does it have a 7 hour battery that can last 5 years and 1000 cycles? I doubt it. Does it has a unibody aluminium case that is very, very sturdy and helps uphold the value of the machine? Of course not, as that takes engineering time and money?
You even say it has a better display, but you don?t quantify it. I?m guessing you mean a higher resolution display, but that is not even close to being the most important aspect of the display for me. Apple?s displays tend to beat the competition in most tests.
Stop looking at from angel and start looking at in the way TenoBell described.
Fine. I agree.
Dollar-for-dollar, based upon objective criteria, the MacBook Pro is the best performing laptop on the market. Indeed, it is the best performing sub-$4500 gaming laptop on the market, and at the low price set by Apple, it is a bargain.
Comments
Interesting you did not link to where these quotes came from. Because they are likely taken from entirely different articles published at different times and taken out of proper context.
You are reaching pretty far in attempt to use two disjointed quotes that ultimately prove nothing.
You did not refute anything. You took two random quotes from two random articles and put them together with no context and no explanation of how they are connected.
I took an article that quotes benchmark results for the MacBook, and another article from the same publication wihich uses identical benchmark tests for the Studio.
Did you read them? And are you serious when you ask for test results given the vast differences in hardware?
BTW - I predicted correctly when I said you would not accept the proof, and would persist in your delusion that your laptop is faster than anything under $4500.
If not for your digital cluelessness, you would cut and paste the quotes into google and find the whole articles, and if not for your delusions, you would realize that your duo-core technology is slower than the i7.
Again, you?re only looking at a few specs that wannabe geeks think are the only things that matter to everyone. By your example it?s like saying a Big Mac performs better than a nice steak because the Big Mac has more calories and cost a lot less, but I prefer the steak every time. BTW, you?re only using the word ?perform? in a very limited way to mean computing performance.
Again, I was responding to "Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it."
"measurable and quantifiable" are the criteria that the delusional one wanted, and so that's the criteria I focused on. Listen - I'll admit that the MBP is very pretty and sleek. It is a beauty queen.
But the Mac-Gamer guy wanted performance specs, so that's what I focused on. I quoted two reviews from the same publication using the same benchmark tests. The quad-core Dell trounced the duo-core Mac (Duh - what a surprise!) and the idiot couldn't accept that his delusions were at odds with objective reality.
And he wouldn't accept that Apple does not make high-end laptops (performance-wise), but instead they use last-year's tech and put it in a nice package.
Yes - Apple products are pretty. Yes - Apple products are well engineered. Yes - Apple products are satisfying.
But the performance/price ratio is NOT superior to the alternatives. And until Apple catches up, anybody looking for a high-end (meaning high-performance) laptop should look elsewhere, and anyone looking for bang for the buck should look elsewhere.
That's the whole point. No I see no articles where anyone has said that PC's out perform Mac's at a lower price. When it comes to notebooks performance can include size, weight, battery life.
Apple does not sell a notebook that will compromise size, weight, and battery life for diminishing returns on hardware performance.
Yes. Performance can also include the plastic and metal case that holds the guts. But generally, performance benchmarks are used to compare performance.
Using your criteria is like saying that a Kia outperforms a Ferrari because it has a bigger gas tank and needs fill ups less often. If range is your criteria, the Kia wins over Ferrari on performance. "Kia will NOT compromise on gas tank capacity, so..."
With computers, and especially with the guy who claimed his Mac was the world's best gaming laptop under $4500, performance means throughput.
I understand, BTW, that the MBP is a very nice machine. All I am commenting on is that they are also slow and expensive compared to the alternatives. That is the exact point that gameBoi refuses to accept.
@ iGenius,
Hey - I agree. I've built/upgraded/cannibalized/hacked many machines over the years. Now I own a laptop, for very good and practical reasons.
I didn't build it - I bought it pre-assembled. That is because the practical considerations trumped performance.
If I wanted only performance, I would have built a box of SOTA components. If I wanted only bang/buck, I would have built a box using last year's latest and greatest. But for practical reasons., I geve up on SOTA performance and bang/buck and got a nice laptop.
I would NOT claim that it "performs" better than any computer at its price - to do that would be as silly as the gameBoi with his MacBook.
Never, ever, ever, will I own another desktop. Aside from the AIO iMac paradigm, desktops are going the way of the dinosaurs.
I dunno. For an every-day use computer, I agree.
But I'm thinking of building a home server for storing music and video and backups and other large files. It won't be a laptop
It likely will be a machine with quiet fans and lots of disk drives. I may want to offload video-conversion and other data-crunching tasks to it, and therefore it might need a good processor and lots of RAM.
For computers like that, a "desktop" configuration makes sense. But for an everyday computer, I agree that the laptop has become the best choice.
Geez, why are you responding to teckstud?
teckstud never really wrote more than six syllables per post. If that.
I shouldn't have to track down the articles you are using to support your point. If they truly prove your point, you should provide links to them.
The fact that you didn't provide a link says it all.
I took an article that quotes benchmark results for the MacBook, and another article from the same publication wihich uses identical benchmark tests for the Studio.
Did you read them? And are you serious when you ask for test results given the vast differences in hardware?
BTW - I predicted correctly when I said you would not accept the proof, and would persist in your delusion that your laptop is faster than anything under $4500.
If not for your digital cluelessness, you would cut and paste the quotes into google and find the whole articles, and if not for your delusions, you would realize that your duo-core technology is slower than the i7.
In your car example, yes as a general car the Kia does out perform the Ferrari. If you are using the Ferrari as a race car their is less concern about its fuel consumption. Who cares about how fast it goes if it cannot hold enough fuel to get you to the grocery store.
In your mind faster is always better under any circumstance and that simply is not true. There are many other factors.
Yes. Performance can also include the plastic and metal case that holds the guts. But generally, performance benchmarks are used to compare performance.
Using your criteria is like saying that a Kia outperforms a Ferrari because it has a bigger gas tank and needs fill ups less often. If range is your criteria, the Kia wins over Ferrari on performance. "Kia will NOT compromise on gas tank capacity, so..."
I understand, BTW, that the MBP is a very nice machine. All I am commenting on is that they are also slow and expensive compared to the alternatives. That is the exact point that gameBoi refuses to accept.
Geez, why are you responding to teckstud?
teckstud never really wrote more than six syllables per post. If that.
I may not agree with iGenius but I can’t see how it could be Teckstud. Besides what Quadra stated, iGenius writes paragraphs and complex compound sentence that aren’t making caustic statements about fanboys and Kool-Aid. The name he going by now is Mr. Koolaid.
"measurable and quantifiable" are the criteria that the delusional one wanted, and so that's the criteria I focused on. Listen - I'll admit that the MBP is very pretty and sleek. It is a beauty queen.
But the Mac-Gamer guy wanted performance specs, so that's what I focused on. I quoted two reviews from the same publication using the same benchmark tests. The quad-core Dell trounced the duo-core Mac (Duh - what a surprise!) and the idiot couldn't accept that his delusions were at odds with objective reality.
And he wouldn't accept that Apple does not make high-end laptops (performance-wise), but instead they use last-year's tech and put it in a nice package.
Yes - Apple products are pretty. Yes - Apple products are well engineered. Yes - Apple products are satisfying.
But the performance/price ratio is NOT superior to the alternatives. And until Apple catches up, anybody looking for a high-end (meaning high-performance) laptop should look elsewhere, and anyone looking for bang for the buck should look elsewhere.
That is why I keep saying you?re missing his point. You?re picking out some basic specs that any Mac will lose it and saying that Macs are worse performers.That is the not the whole picture, and you know it. TenoBell is right, you still haven?t found a machine that beats a Mac.
Being a ?beauty queen? or ?put in a nice package? is myopic if you think that a thin, sturdy encloser is only for aesthetic purposes.
Are you going to cry foul on Apple when they release dual-core Core-i machines this year, not quad-core Core-i? I?m sure we?re gonna hear a lot of ?But quad-core notebooks have been out since last year and Apple only has dual-core.?
PS: The forum has one rule it adheres to. No name calling.
I shouldn't have to track down the articles you are using to support your point. If they truly prove your point, you should provide links to them.
The fact that you didn't provide a link says it all.
You don't have to track down the articles unless you want to. The snippets provided the benchmarks you asked for, and if you want to look into it further, you are welcome to do so. Or, in the alternative, you are welcome to believe that you have the fastest sub-$4500 laptop on the market.
Your delusion that a machine with last-years architecture might be faster than the new Quad-core architecture needs little to refute it, so that all I gave. I think I mentioned that I spent all of 2 minutes to find a couple of relevant results.
And on a related note, have you seen this?
http://www.electronista.com/articles...5.and.i7.fast/
In a few days/weeks, your CPU will be two generations behind the curve. And you'll still be kidding yourself.
You don't have to track down the articles unless you want to. The snippets provided the benchmarks you asked for, and if you want to look into it further, you are welcome to do so. Or, in the alternative, you are welcome to believe that you have the fastest sub-$4500 laptop on the market.
Your delusion that a machine with last-years architecture might be faster than the new Quad-core architecture needs little to refute it, so that all I gave. I think I mentioned that I spent all of 2 minutes to find a couple of relevant results.
And on a related note, have you seen this?
http://www.electronista.com/articles...5.and.i7.fast/
In a few days/weeks, your CPU will be two generations behind the curve. And you'll still be kidding yourself.
1) Show me where he stated that he only wants performance from the CPU and nothing else?
2) You do realize that these Arrandales are already behind the curve of the Clarkfield released last year, based on your performance benchmarking. Why do you think Apple will use the Arrandales and bypass Clarkfield completely?
The point of a notebook is to be portable. If its heavy, thick, with little battery life that limits its ability to be portable. These are all factors in its performance. Its not only about how fast it can process information.
Very true. But the notebook used in comparison to the MBP is neither heavy nor thick, and it has a bigger battery than the Mac.
In your car example, yes as a general car the Kia does out perform the Ferrari. If you are using the Ferrari as a race car their is less concern about its fuel consumption. Who cares about how fast it goes if it cannot hold enough fuel to get you to the grocery store.
The OP that I was responding to brought up benchmarks. And I think that I have said several times that the Mac is truly a beauty queen. That is not in dispute.
In your mind faster is always better under any circumstance and that simply is not true. There are many other factors.
I don't think that faster is always better. I bought a laptop, and not a desktop. Laptops offer a poor performance/$ ratio.
Indeed, I didn't even buy the best bang/buck laptop performance-wise, because I agree with your point about other factors being important. For example, I wanted an American manufacturer for personal political reasons. I wanted it to look nicer than average and to last longer than average. I wanted a nice screen. I wanted a backlit keyboard. I wanted a big battery, and the ability to swap in a spare when needed. I wanted it to be reasonably light and small, while nevertheless having a reasonable screen size. I wanted a nice assortment of ports (including FireWire
Compared to the MBP, I got a much faster processor, a much better screen, a larger, faster hard drive, a larger battery, and a MUCH lower price.
Again, I neither looked for nor got the most performance per dollar. And to claim that the MBP offers the most "performance" per dollar is to use idiosyncratic meanings.
That is why I keep saying you?re missing his point. You?re picking out some basic specs that any Mac will lose it and saying that Macs are worse performers.That is the not the whole picture, and you know it. TenoBell is right, you still haven?t found a machine that beats a Mac.
This is the quote that I was responding to by Tenobell: "Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it."
He spoke of "performance" as "measurable and quantifiable" . He then says that no other brand can out "perform" an Apple.
I will grant that if one uses a shifting criteria like "beat a mac", anything is possible, because we are in the realm of opinion. But Tenobell wasn't saying that no other machine is subjectively better, he was talking (or so appeared to me to be talking) about measurable and quantifiable aspects of the machines when he used the word "perform". Had he said, in an offhand manner, "Hey - nothing beats a Mac in my book!" I would likely have not responded. If that is truly what he meant, then I missed his point.
Being a ?beauty queen? or ?put in a nice package? is myopic if you think that a thin, sturdy encloser is only for aesthetic purposes.
I do not think that. Sorry for the misimpression.
Are you going to cry foul on Apple when they release dual-core Core-i machines this year, not quad-core Core-i? I?m sure we?re gonna hear a lot of ?But quad-core notebooks have been out since last year and Apple only has dual-core.?
No, I won't cry foul over that. Why would I? But if the claim is made that they outperform aother, similarly-priced computers, I might comment on the claim, as I am doing now.
PS: The forum has one rule it adheres to. No name calling.
Thx. Does that include inanimate objects too? Was my Beauty-Queen comment against the rules?
1) Show me where he stated that he only wants performance from the CPU and nothing else?
He never stated that. Here's what he stated: "Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it."
2) You do realize that these Arrandales are already behind the curve of the Clarkfield released last year, based on your performance benchmarking. Why do you think Apple will use the Arrandales and bypass Clarkfield completely?
Was a Clarksfield ever made for mobile applications? I really don't follow this stufff closely. The Nehelem, I thought, was the mobile version of that architecture. Does Apple still use Penryn?
This is the quote that I was responding to by Tenobell: "Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it."
He spoke of "performance" as "measurable and quantifiable" . He then says that no other brand can out "perform" an Apple.
As both TenoBell and I have stated several times now, your CPU performance isn?t the only "measurable and quantifiable? metric for perform.
There have been gaming notebooks for years cramming desktop-grade components into a notebooky that is 3? thick, weighs 15lb and barely has any battery life. Those amchines perform much worse than any Mac notebook in portability and longevity. Can you not see how these are "measurable and quantifiable? ways in which see how a machine performs?
Was my Beauty-Queen comment against the rules?
No.
He never stated that. Here's what he stated: "Since computers are machines whose performance is measurable and quantifiable. When ever anyone attempts to argue how Apple is over priced, I asked them to point out any other computer brand that can out perform an Apple machine for a lower price. No one has yet been able to do it."
Was a Clarksfield ever made for mobile applications? I really don't follow this stufff closely. The Nehelem, I thought, was the mobile version of that architecture. Does Apple still use Penryn?
This is what some notebooks are using to get quad-core and Core-i7 in their machines, despite the 45W TDP. Now there is dual-core Core-3, i5, and i7 Arrandales which have a max TDP of 35W, which is inline with their current offerings. Yep, still Penryn.
As both TenoBell and I have stated several times now, your CPU performance isn?t the only "measurable and quantifiable? metric for perform.
There have been gaming notebooks for years cramming desktop-grade components into a notebooky that is 3? thick, weighs 15lb and barely has any battery life. Those amchines perform much worse than any Mac notebook in portability and longevity. Can you not see how these are "measurable and quantifiable? ways in which see how a machine performs?
No.
I have said several times (even in the post you responded to) that the notebook used in comparison is not heavy or thick. It is not as you describe above. Instead, it is comparable to the MBP in that regard.
It also has a faster, bigger hard drive. And a much better screen. And a better assortment of ports. And a bigger battery. All relevant aspects that might lead one to say that it "performs" better. And it is cheaper.
I've said each of these things repeatedly, and have never once said that CPU speed is the sole determinant of a good laptop.
I have said several times (even in the post you responded to) that the notebook used in comparison is not heavy or thick. It is not as you describe above. Instead, it is comparable to the MBP in that regard.
It also has a faster, bigger hard drive. And a much better screen. And a better assortment of ports. And a bigger battery. All relevant aspects that might lead one to say that it "performs" better. And it is cheaper.
I've said each of these things repeatedly, and have never once said that CPU speed is the sole determinant of a good laptop.
This is just getting pathetic. Are you purposely not reading anything. Is the machine less than 0.95? thick? No, I think it was 1.5? at it?s thickest point. Does it have a 7 hour battery that can last 5 years and 1000 cycles? I doubt it. Does it has a unibody aluminium case that is very, very sturdy and helps uphold the value of the machine? Of course not, as that takes engineering time and money?
You even say it has a better display, but you don?t quantify it. I?m guessing you mean a higher resolution display, but that is not even close to being the most important aspect of the display for me. Apple?s displays tend to beat the competition in most tests.
Stop looking at from angel and start looking at in the way TenoBell described.
This is just getting pathetic. Are you purposely not reading anything. Is the machine less than 0.95? thick? No, I think it was 1.5? at it?s thickest point. Does it have a 7 hour battery that can last 5 years and 1000 cycles? I doubt it. Does it has a unibody aluminium case that is very, very sturdy and helps uphold the value of the machine? Of course not, as that takes engineering time and money?
You even say it has a better display, but you don?t quantify it. I?m guessing you mean a higher resolution display, but that is not even close to being the most important aspect of the display for me. Apple?s displays tend to beat the competition in most tests.
Stop looking at from angel and start looking at in the way TenoBell described.
Fine. I agree.
Dollar-for-dollar, based upon objective criteria, the MacBook Pro is the best performing laptop on the market. Indeed, it is the best performing sub-$4500 gaming laptop on the market, and at the low price set by Apple, it is a bargain.
I'm done.