Both are Vaio's and have been available for months. The first has a Core i5-520M, Nvidia 330M, 1600x900 14" screen, BR, 4 GB DDR3, BT, 802.11n, 500 GB HD, blah, blah, blah.
The second is similar, but has a 16" 1080p screen, a mobile quad-core i7, Nvidia 330M, 6 GB DDR3, and everything else is basically the same as the 14". Due to the extra width, it has a numeric pad on the side.
The 14" is $980, the 16" is $1350. Neither has Optimus, and each probably get around 3-3.5 on battery (if I wanted long battery life on a PC laptop, I would look at Asus instead, like this one:
That Asus has a Core i3, Nvidia Optimus (310M), and gets about 9.5 hours on battery. Only real downside, is that it's 13.3" screen is 1366x768, but it's only $900.
Apple is still a day late to the Core 'i' series. I won't compare aesthetics, but from a raw performance standout, Apple falls a bit short, but beats most other OEM's on battery life, and the OS' are completely different choices; if you want OSX, you have no choice in the matter.
Both are Vaio's and have been available for months. The first has a Core i5-520M, Nvidia 330M, 1600x900 14" screen, BR, 4 GB DDR3, BT, 802.11n, 500 GB HD, blah, blah, blah.
The second is similar, but has a 16" 1080p screen, a mobile quad-core i7, Nvidia 330M, 6 GB DDR3, and everything else is basically the same as the 14". Due to the extra width, it has a numeric pad on the side.
The 14" is $980, the 16" is $1350. Neither has Optimus, and each probably get around 3-3.5 on battery (if I wanted long battery life on a PC laptop, I would look at Asus instead, like this one:
That Asus has a Core i3, Nvidia Optimus (310M), and gets about 9.5 hours on battery. Only real downside, is that it's 13.3" screen is 1366x768, but it's only $900.
Apple is still a day late to the Core 'i' series. I won't compare aesthetics, but from a raw performance standout, Apple falls a bit short, but beats most other OEM's on battery life, and the OS' are completely different choices; if you want OSX, you have no choice in the matter.
Your Best Buy links aren't working, but I recommend just doing price comparisons via the vendor's websites. Using discounted, wholesale, couponed, clearance, or whatever items from resellers isn't the fairest method for a comparison.
Apple has never tried to be the fastest notebooks out there. Never! They may used marketing lingo to say so, but they never have actually competed. You can buy notebooks with desktop CPUs in them so it's clear they never cared about that.
If performance was their only focus then they wouldn't sell notebooks that are only 0.95" tall because it limits so many possible performance options. For instance, despite not knowing which notebook from Best Buy is using the quad-core i7 you mention, I know it's a Clarksdale that is 45W (or 55W) TDP that needs more cooling than the 35W chips Apple uses and greatly reduces battery life with little performance gain.
I also think that aesthetics is important to the comparison because in good engineering, aesthetics serve a purpose. It adds features and usability, and these are not things that I overlook with my purchases.
As or the Asus, I'd still choose a MB for $99 more or MBP for $299 more as Core-i3 plus a discrete GPU just isn't a big enough reason, even when you exclude the OS as a measure. For people looking for Windows machines I almost always recommend Asus. They have good quality for the price and pretty nice looking for price. BTW, is that U30Jc TN or IPS? Resolution isn't the most important aspect of a display yet that is the only thing that is typically listed on spec sheets.
Just as a matter of interest, why are Asus advertising that their laptops have USB3.0 on their site?
Asus started implementing USB3.0 last year.
SInce Apple has used Asus to design logic boards in the past I hoped that Asus was jumping on this at Apple's request. With Apple's longer than industry average between updates and the yearly release of iDevices I had hoped they'd add USB3.0 to Macs now with iDevices getting support for it this year because next year they will be behind and Apple let go of FireWire syncing long ago ang LightPeak isn't a viable option yet. Oh well, maybe with the next Mac Pro release.
I was worried about that too, but I was just in an Apple Store that still had the older MacBook Pros on display - even on the older ones it was called "anti-glare" and not matte, at least on their signs.
They didn't have any new ones out yet, so I couldn't actually look at it to see if it was the same.
I was worried about that too, but I was just in an Apple Store that still had the older MacBook Pros on display - even on the older ones it was called "anti-glare" and not matte, at least on their signs.
They didn't have any new ones out yet, so I couldn't actually look at it to see if it was the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffharris
Anti-glare is more descriptive than matte. it's pure marketing.
But I'll take Ant-glare over glossy any day. That's why I bought a ViewSonic pro 26" 1920 x 1200 monitor over an Apple.
Apple lost my $700, but they clearly don't seem to care.
The do have an Anti-glare option as BTO, possibly available in store as well. (I commented originally in post #211)
I don't know who started calling them "matte" screens because they are not actually "matte" finish, but are treated with high-tech anti-reflective processes.
I agree with you that they are the better ergonomic choice.
For my eyes, Anti-glare, Anti-reflective is absolutely the way to go. I have found pretty much any brand or type of glossy screen to be just too distracting for me.
It's strange that they are unfortunately relegated to the back of the pack by Apple, especially in how they only offer them as BTO on a few models, and for a significant extra $$.
I am just astounded by the number of glossy mirror-like screens out there as the manufacturers rush lemming-like to the shiny glossy as if that was a good thing. I've assumed that it is some LCD manufacturer economy of scale issue as they try to produce both TV and computer screens. But I don't really know why...
My guess is that many people buy them, not because they have compared side by side, but just because they are the only choice on vast majority of computers in the stores, and they don't know to ask/demand an anti-glare. So of course, they walk out with a glossy because that was the only choice on the shelf.
(I am sure some people must like them, but of all the users I work with, most seem to consciously or unconsciously need to adjust the screen or their head placement to avoid the reflections.)
What's with the heavy use of 'integrated graphics" in these MBPs?
I hate that term because it reminds me of cheap underpowered PCs and I will NEVER by an Apple MBP if it has an integrated graphics card in it.
Cmon Apple...
As stated, it's built into the Intel processors so unless you don't want a modern mobile processor in your notebook you're going to be getting an IGP in every Mac notebook you buy. Also stated is that you can turn on the discrete GPU without it intelligently jumping to the IGP to save power when it's not needed, but I don't know why one would do that.
(wish I could give a direct link to just the 4-6 ones, but they're there; #s: 16, 22, 34, 39, 44 & 45, iirc).
It's just that Apple ~looks~ stupid Not putting an i3 into their baseline machine right now.
+And I Do Not get Intel's attitude over the chipsets vs. Nvidia.
It sounds patently anticompetitive.
It's like saying that no company is allowed to make a transmission that will work with the Chrysler-sourced engine powering a Mitsubishi car except for Chrysler.
That kind of crap should be illegal. You make a chip; that's it.
Whoever wants to make a go of trying a chipset/mobo business can try if they like.
At some point the C2D train will stop and Apple will be forced to jump on i3 for the 13s.
Maybe they'll wait until Sandy Bridge, or whatever the laptop equivalent is for that; ?Ivy Bridge? .
(wish I could give a direct link to just the 4-6 ones, but they're there; #s: 16, 22, 34, 39, 44 & 45, iirc).
It's just that Apple ~looks~ stupid Not putting an i3 into their baseline machine right now.
+And I Do Not get Intel's attitude over the chipsets vs. Nvidia.
It sounds patently anticompetitive.
It's like saying that no company is allowed to make a transmission that will work with the Chrysler-sourced engine powering a Mitsubishi car except for Chrysler.
That kind of crap should be illegal. You make a chip; that's it.
Whoever wants to make a go of trying a chipset/mobo business can try if they like.
At some point the C2D train will stop and Apple will be forced to jump on i3 for the 13s.
Maybe they'll wait until Sandy Bridge, or whatever the laptop equivalent is for that; ?Ivy Bridge? .
Nice stats. Took me a minute to realize the Restrict button is what I need to press after I select the items for comparison. This looks pretty definitive for C2D being the right choice over Core-i3 this time around.
Isn't the problem with Intel and Nvidia's IGP more about the IGP (and other parts) being in the processor as the Northbridge removed, which is like saying having the transmission integrated in with the engine and then trying to add a better transmission to it. I recall the actual licensing issue being with FSB and not DMI, but isn't there an inherent technical issue, too?
Comments
Real nice. I think we all know I was talking straight to download like iTunes. But if you didn't, now you do.
Not really, if they are referring to digital downloads, it isn't that hard to add the word download, or distributed in there as well.
High end = Core i7.
Now my IMac 27" will have someone to play with!
I would love to see some current comparisons to other vendor's comparable notebooks now that Apple has Core-ix shipping
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Sony+-+V...&skuId=9723951
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Sony+-+V...&skuId=9705382
Both are Vaio's and have been available for months. The first has a Core i5-520M, Nvidia 330M, 1600x900 14" screen, BR, 4 GB DDR3, BT, 802.11n, 500 GB HD, blah, blah, blah.
The second is similar, but has a 16" 1080p screen, a mobile quad-core i7, Nvidia 330M, 6 GB DDR3, and everything else is basically the same as the 14". Due to the extra width, it has a numeric pad on the side.
The 14" is $980, the 16" is $1350. Neither has Optimus, and each probably get around 3-3.5 on battery (if I wanted long battery life on a PC laptop, I would look at Asus instead, like this one:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/13/a...0jc-1a-review/
That Asus has a Core i3, Nvidia Optimus (310M), and gets about 9.5 hours on battery. Only real downside, is that it's 13.3" screen is 1366x768, but it's only $900.
Apple is still a day late to the Core 'i' series. I won't compare aesthetics, but from a raw performance standout, Apple falls a bit short, but beats most other OEM's on battery life, and the OS' are completely different choices; if you want OSX, you have no choice in the matter.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Sony+-+V...&skuId=9723951
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/Sony+-+V...&skuId=9705382
Both are Vaio's and have been available for months. The first has a Core i5-520M, Nvidia 330M, 1600x900 14" screen, BR, 4 GB DDR3, BT, 802.11n, 500 GB HD, blah, blah, blah.
The second is similar, but has a 16" 1080p screen, a mobile quad-core i7, Nvidia 330M, 6 GB DDR3, and everything else is basically the same as the 14". Due to the extra width, it has a numeric pad on the side.
The 14" is $980, the 16" is $1350. Neither has Optimus, and each probably get around 3-3.5 on battery (if I wanted long battery life on a PC laptop, I would look at Asus instead, like this one:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/13/a...0jc-1a-review/
That Asus has a Core i3, Nvidia Optimus (310M), and gets about 9.5 hours on battery. Only real downside, is that it's 13.3" screen is 1366x768, but it's only $900.
Apple is still a day late to the Core 'i' series. I won't compare aesthetics, but from a raw performance standout, Apple falls a bit short, but beats most other OEM's on battery life, and the OS' are completely different choices; if you want OSX, you have no choice in the matter.
Your Best Buy links aren't working, but I recommend just doing price comparisons via the vendor's websites. Using discounted, wholesale, couponed, clearance, or whatever items from resellers isn't the fairest method for a comparison.
Apple has never tried to be the fastest notebooks out there. Never! They may used marketing lingo to say so, but they never have actually competed. You can buy notebooks with desktop CPUs in them so it's clear they never cared about that.
If performance was their only focus then they wouldn't sell notebooks that are only 0.95" tall because it limits so many possible performance options. For instance, despite not knowing which notebook from Best Buy is using the quad-core i7 you mention, I know it's a Clarksdale that is 45W (or 55W) TDP that needs more cooling than the 35W chips Apple uses and greatly reduces battery life with little performance gain.
I also think that aesthetics is important to the comparison because in good engineering, aesthetics serve a purpose. It adds features and usability, and these are not things that I overlook with my purchases.
As or the Asus, I'd still choose a MB for $99 more or MBP for $299 more as Core-i3 plus a discrete GPU just isn't a big enough reason, even when you exclude the OS as a measure. For people looking for Windows machines I almost always recommend Asus. They have good quality for the price and pretty nice looking for price. BTW, is that U30Jc TN or IPS? Resolution isn't the most important aspect of a display yet that is the only thing that is typically listed on spec sheets.
Just as a matter of interest, why are Asus advertising that their laptops have USB3.0 on their site?
Asus started implementing USB3.0 last year.
SInce Apple has used Asus to design logic boards in the past I hoped that Asus was jumping on this at Apple's request. With Apple's longer than industry average between updates and the yearly release of iDevices I had hoped they'd add USB3.0 to Macs now with iDevices getting support for it this year because next year they will be behind and Apple let go of FireWire syncing long ago ang LightPeak isn't a viable option yet. Oh well, maybe with the next Mac Pro release.
Intel® Core? i7-820QM processor (1.73GHz) with Turbo Boost up to 3.06GHz
500GB Hard Disk Drive (7200rpm)
6GB (4GBx1 + 2GBx1) DDR3-SDRAM-1333
Blu-ray Disc? player (+CD/DVD burner)
16.4" VAIO Premium Display (1920x1080) with NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 330M GPU (1GB VRAM)
For $1844.90
That seems a bit higher specced than the best 15 inch MBP?
I was worried about that too, but I was just in an Apple Store that still had the older MacBook Pros on display - even on the older ones it was called "anti-glare" and not matte, at least on their signs.
They didn't have any new ones out yet, so I couldn't actually look at it to see if it was the same.
FYI, see my post #211 this thread.
They do have an Anti-glare Anti-reflective screen option - it is a BTO order option.
Dual core Core i7for $2,200? No thanks. Can get quad core Core i7 and a better gpu for 1,000 less
Enjoy!
I was worried about that too, but I was just in an Apple Store that still had the older MacBook Pros on display - even on the older ones it was called "anti-glare" and not matte, at least on their signs.
They didn't have any new ones out yet, so I couldn't actually look at it to see if it was the same.
Anti-glare is more descriptive than matte. it's pure marketing.
But I'll take Ant-glare over glossy any day. That's why I bought a ViewSonic pro 26" 1920 x 1200 monitor over an Apple.
Apple lost my $700, but they clearly don't seem to care.
The do have an Anti-glare option as BTO, possibly available in store as well. (I commented originally in post #211)
I don't know who started calling them "matte" screens because they are not actually "matte" finish, but are treated with high-tech anti-reflective processes.
I agree with you that they are the better ergonomic choice.
For my eyes, Anti-glare, Anti-reflective is absolutely the way to go. I have found pretty much any brand or type of glossy screen to be just too distracting for me.
It's strange that they are unfortunately relegated to the back of the pack by Apple, especially in how they only offer them as BTO on a few models, and for a significant extra $$.
I am just astounded by the number of glossy mirror-like screens out there as the manufacturers rush lemming-like to the shiny glossy as if that was a good thing. I've assumed that it is some LCD manufacturer economy of scale issue as they try to produce both TV and computer screens. But I don't really know why...
My guess is that many people buy them, not because they have compared side by side, but just because they are the only choice on vast majority of computers in the stores, and they don't know to ask/demand an anti-glare. So of course, they walk out with a glossy because that was the only choice on the shelf.
(I am sure some people must like them, but of all the users I work with, most seem to consciously or unconsciously need to adjust the screen or their head placement to avoid the reflections.)
I hate that term because it reminds me of cheap underpowered PCs and I will NEVER by an Apple MBP if it has an integrated graphics card in it.
Cmon Apple...
What's with the heavy use of 'integrated graphics" in these MBPs?
I hate that term because it reminds me of cheap underpowered PCs and I will NEVER by an Apple MBP if it has an integrated graphics card in it.
Cmon Apple...
As stated, it's built into the Intel processors so unless you don't want a modern mobile processor in your notebook you're going to be getting an IGP in every Mac notebook you buy. Also stated is that you can turn on the discrete GPU without it intelligently jumping to the IGP to save power when it's not needed, but I don't know why one would do that.
But will it run Crysis?
I don't think it will run Crysis, but walk... maybe. Crawl?
Yes, I'm sure it hurts not having it yet
(wish I could give a direct link to just the 4-6 ones, but they're there; #s: 16, 22, 34, 39, 44 & 45, iirc).
It's just that Apple ~looks~ stupid Not putting an i3 into their baseline machine right now.
+And I Do Not get Intel's attitude over the chipsets vs. Nvidia.
It sounds patently anticompetitive.
It's like saying that no company is allowed to make a transmission that will work with the Chrysler-sourced engine powering a Mitsubishi car except for Chrysler.
That kind of crap should be illegal. You make a chip; that's it.
Whoever wants to make a go of trying a chipset/mobo business can try if they like.
At some point the C2D train will stop and Apple will be forced to jump on i3 for the 13s.
Maybe they'll wait until Sandy Bridge, or whatever the laptop equivalent is for that; ?Ivy Bridge? .
If you look at the benchmarks on Notebookcheck, the C2D and i3 processors, they're actually quite close: http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-...st.2436.0.html
(wish I could give a direct link to just the 4-6 ones, but they're there; #s: 16, 22, 34, 39, 44 & 45, iirc).
It's just that Apple ~looks~ stupid Not putting an i3 into their baseline machine right now.
+And I Do Not get Intel's attitude over the chipsets vs. Nvidia.
It sounds patently anticompetitive.
It's like saying that no company is allowed to make a transmission that will work with the Chrysler-sourced engine powering a Mitsubishi car except for Chrysler.
That kind of crap should be illegal. You make a chip; that's it.
Whoever wants to make a go of trying a chipset/mobo business can try if they like.
At some point the C2D train will stop and Apple will be forced to jump on i3 for the 13s.
Maybe they'll wait until Sandy Bridge, or whatever the laptop equivalent is for that; ?Ivy Bridge? .
Nice stats. Took me a minute to realize the Restrict button is what I need to press after I select the items for comparison. This looks pretty definitive for C2D being the right choice over Core-i3 this time around.
Isn't the problem with Intel and Nvidia's IGP more about the IGP (and other parts) being in the processor as the Northbridge removed, which is like saying having the transmission integrated in with the engine and then trying to add a better transmission to it. I recall the actual licensing issue being with FSB and not DMI, but isn't there an inherent technical issue, too?
Apple is Doomed!?
Perhaps not, but customers are screwed.
...No touch screen, no accelerometer, no option for 3G... No deal!
Actually, there has been an accelerometer in macbooks for YEARS.