macplusplus

k2kw said:

Putting Amazon Music on Echo is like the HomePod waiving a white flag of surrender.

Putting Apple Music on Echo will not put HomePod at stakes. Buyers of HomePod know what and why they are buying, they will still buy it. HomePod addresses a different audience than Echo.

KITA said:

macplusplus said:

KITA said:

macplusplus said:

foregoneconclusion said:

macplusplus said:  Because that "staff" know how they will be ridiculed if they put the battery benchmark in the article. The battery life is most probably two hours or so, because a gaming laptop is expected to be used mostly plugged in. That one is a laptop for teens, who want it to carry their games alongside when hanging out with friends. Teens like that brand's flashy keyboards and mice too.

Right on the money: it's specifically intended for gaming, so it isn't really a very good comparison to begin with. For example, how many people working in a typical corporate office that use PCs are going to be given a Razer Blade Stealth as their working laptop? I doubt that ever happens. They would get a PC model that was specifically intended for use as a working PC, not a gaming PC. 

The article doesn't even mention the low-res 1080p display of that mid-range model. Moving less pixels than the Retina display of MBP it can barely compete despite the boost from the discrete GeForce MX150. The Macbook Pro moves twice as much pixels as that gamers' machine:  compare 2560x1600 to 1920x1080. And it does that without the boost from a discrete GPU. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "barely compete", the graphics tests are all running at the same resolution. The native display resolution doesn't change that.

The NVIDIA GPU with CUDA is also useful for compute workloads, something none of these benchmarks highlight.

The native display resolution DOES change the performance in real world usage. Yet the MBP performs better than the Razer considering that it doesn't have the discrete GPU.  31075 OpenCL without the discrete GPU versus 47516 with GeForce MX150 means that MBP performs even better.

That must be a new trend, comparing a machine with discrete GPU to a machine without one...

And whatever benchmarks say, the inclusion of a discrete GPU affects the thermal balance and battery life, all other specs being equal. And those are not equal in that comparison, there is a huge difference in display resolutions.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Real world applications have no problem scaling to a defined resolution regardless of the native resolution. 

An OpenCL benchmark doesn't care what the resolution is. The workload is still the same on both machines.

And again, another compute benchmark that doesn't include CUDA, a major plus of having an NVIDA GPU.

You have absolutely no idea what resolution is.

If real world applications have no problem scaling to a defined resolution then why games provide different resolution settings and why people adjust those settings to get the max FPS? Lower the render resolution to 800x600 you get the max FPS but horrible graphics. Mapping that rendered image to the display is of course no problem, what is problem is the render resolution, i.e. the internal graphics port onto which the applications draw, this is where the GPU enters into play. A render resolution of 2560x1600 creates twice as much load on the GPU than a 1920x1080 resolution. On a machine with 1080p display like that one, choosing a game resolution of 2560x1600 is stupid, because the extra detail provided by that resolution will not be visible on 1080p display, would require an external monitor. If the main display is internal, the game will default to 1080p rendering and everything will run smoothly !.. We have Retina displays on our Macbooks for a reason: on a Retina display photos, videos, drawings and text appear with the crispest details the analog retina cells in our eyes can resolve. With 1080p you cannot get that graphics quality. Retina display is first, everything else is built on that.

KITA said:

macplusplus said:

foregoneconclusion said:

macplusplus said:  Because that "staff" know how they will be ridiculed if they put the battery benchmark in the article. The battery life is most probably two hours or so, because a gaming laptop is expected to be used mostly plugged in. That one is a laptop for teens, who want it to carry their games alongside when hanging out with friends. Teens like that brand's flashy keyboards and mice too.

Right on the money: it's specifically intended for gaming, so it isn't really a very good comparison to begin with. For example, how many people working in a typical corporate office that use PCs are going to be given a Razer Blade Stealth as their working laptop? I doubt that ever happens. They would get a PC model that was specifically intended for use as a working PC, not a gaming PC. 

The article doesn't even mention the low-res 1080p display of that mid-range model. Moving less pixels than the Retina display of MBP it can barely compete despite the boost from the discrete GeForce MX150. The Macbook Pro moves twice as much pixels as that gamers' machine:  compare 2560x1600 to 1920x1080. And it does that without the boost from a discrete GPU. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "barely compete", the graphics tests are all running at the same resolution. The native display resolution doesn't change that.

The NVIDIA GPU with CUDA is also useful for compute workloads, something none of these benchmarks highlight.

The native display resolution DOES change the performance in real world usage. Yet the MBP (of last year) performs better than the Razer (of this year) considering that it doesn't have the discrete GPU.  31075 OpenCL without the discrete GPU versus 47516 with GeForce MX150 means that MBP performs even better.

That must be a new trend, comparing a machine with discrete GPU to a machine without one...

And whatever benchmarks say, the inclusion of a discrete GPU affects the thermal balance and battery life, all other specs being equal. And those are not equal in that comparison, there is a huge difference in display resolutions.

GeorgeBMac said:

foregoneconclusion said:

macplusplus said:  Because that "staff" know how they will be ridiculed if they put the battery benchmark in the article. The battery life is most probably two hours or so, because a gaming laptop is expected to be used mostly plugged in. That one is a laptop for teens, who want it to carry their games alongside when hanging out with friends. Teens like that brand's flashy keyboards and mice too.

Right on the money: it's specifically intended for gaming, so it isn't really a very good comparison to begin with. For example, how many people working in a typical corporate office that use PCs are going to be given a Razer Blade Stealth as their working laptop? I doubt that ever happens. They would get a PC model that was specifically intended for use as a working PC, not a gaming PC. 

That's true.   But then, not many get a MacBook Pro either.   Apple doesn't spend much time marketing or designing for the corporate/enterprise market anymore.   I wish they would. 

https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/10/24/ibm-seeing-great-returns-on-over-277000-macs-and-ios-devices-issued-to-employees

foregoneconclusion said:

macplusplus said:  Because that "staff" know how they will be ridiculed if they put the battery benchmark in the article. The battery life is most probably two hours or so, because a gaming laptop is expected to be used mostly plugged in. That one is a laptop for teens, who want it to carry their games alongside when hanging out with friends. Teens like that brand's flashy keyboards and mice too.

Right on the money: it's specifically intended for gaming, so it isn't really a very good comparison to begin with. For example, how many people working in a typical corporate office that use PCs are going to be given a Razer Blade Stealth as their working laptop? I doubt that ever happens. They would get a PC model that was specifically intended for use as a working PC, not a gaming PC. 

The article doesn't even mention the low-res 1080p display of that mid-range model. Moving less pixels than the Retina display of MBP it can barely compete despite the boost from the discrete GeForce MX150. The Macbook Pro moves twice as much pixels as that gamers' machine:  compare 2560x1600 to 1920x1080. And it does that without the boost from a discrete GPU.