MACBOOK faster than MACBOOK PRO

[plinden]

Here's a little bit of research I did a couple of months ago: macrumors

To quote myself:

I think gamers overestimate the demand for 3D games on the PC. Because that's what they and all their friends are doing, they think everyone is.

There were 210-220 million PCs sold last year, while there were 38 million games for the PC sold.

I don't know what the breakdown in figures are for 3D games in that 38 million, but even if it's as high as 1/2, that means only 10% of PCs are running 3D games, and I'm pretty sure it's a lot less. Battlefield 2 and Call of Duty 2 are the only FPS games in the top ten games for North America last year, and serious gamers buy more than one game a year.

Console games outsold PC games 5 to 1 in 2005.

The MacBook is more than good enough for what 95% of people do 99% of the time. On their computers, that is.

 

[MIDI_EVIL]

First, buy a MacBook, then get a girlfriend, you won't need to worry about running Doom 3 at ultra high resolution 5434543FPSECONDSSS!!!111one.

Rich.

 

[dukebound85]

Here's a little bit of research I did a couple of months ago: macrumors

To quote myself:


The MacBook is more than good enough for what 95% of people do 99% of the time. On their computers, that is.

also gamers tend to buy more than one game i would think and the same is not generally true for the buying of a computer. for instance, i have had my computer for 3 years but i buy more than one console game a year

 

[dukebound85]

First, buy a MacBook, then get a girlfriend, you won't need to worry about running Doom 3 at ultra high resolution 5434543FPSECONDSSS!!!111one.

Rich.

or better yet get a girlfriend and then no longer be able to afford a computer

 

[slu]

i'm getting tired of this. could you please put a qualifier on statements like this? like: Integrated graphics are complete and total **** for 3d games.

games are completely useless (although they are fun for some people). nobody really needs them (although of course many want them). therefore they are not the only standard to judge a machines performance.

the 950 is fine for everthing that's not 3d with the added benefit of creating less heat and costing next to nothing.

so your statement is correct if limited to 3d games. for the rest of the applications it's not correct.

Well done. You all can call it "spin" all you want, but that fact is that this Macbook is superior to the iBook G4 in every way for 99% of the target users of this product.

Hardcore PC Gamers, as much as you all hate to admit it, ARE A NICHE MARKET. Many more people buy computers and NEVER play a game on it than do. If you think a $1000 laptop made by anyone can be a "serious" gaming machine, please pass what you are smoking this way.

If you must game on an Apple Laptop, buy a MBP. That is one of the reasons they are there. I am so sick of this video card bitching. It is almost worse than the old Powerbook G5 discussions.

 

[/dev/toaster]

Let me see a MB run BF:2 like the MBP can. Guess what, it can't. The game requires a 128MB card, just like many games coming out now.

Beyond that, I want to see some benchmarks running WoW.

 

[Core Trio]

I know how much some hate to hear about games, but I did notice the underclocking when playing Oblivion. It was very unresponsive until I bumped up the clock and memory. It was also noticeable in Inventor. But you're right, the underclocked x1600 is still heads and shoulders above the GMA.

how did your MBP run after you bumped up the clockspeed? Did the heat get worse or battery time decrease?

 

[slu]

Let me see a MB run BF:2 like the MBP can. Guess what, it can't. The game requires a 128MB card, just like many games coming out now.

Beyond that, I want to see some benchmarks running WoW.

So what? You want to run BF:2, get a MBP.

Dell has sold millions of PCs over the years with integrated graphics...and you know what gamers do? They don't buy them. They buy PCs for their needs, which is NEVER the least expensive option.

If you buy a Macbook or a $1000 Dell or whatever for $1000 and you expect to be able to run the latest games on it, you are either ignornat or crazy.

 

[slu]

Here's a little bit of research I did a couple of months ago: macrumors

To quote myself:


The MacBook is more than good enough for what 95% of people do 99% of the time. On their computers, that is.

I am glad someone took the time to prove that gamers are a minority in the overall market. This should be required reading before people complain about the graphics on the Macbook and 3D gaming.

Thanks for your efforts.

 

[Core Trio]

So what? You want to run BF:2, get a MBP.

Dell has sold millions of PCs over the years with integrated graphics...and you know what gamers do? They don't buy them. They buy PCs for their needs, which is NEVER the least expensive option.

If you buy a Macbook or a $1000 Dell or whatever for $1000 and you expect to be able to run the latest games on it, you are either ignornat or or crazy.

I dont think he was complaining about the MB but just making a case against the title of this thread.

You do have a point tho that more people around here should consider

 

[MRU]

ITS A MAC!!!!!

MOST MAC USERS WONT BE RUNNING WINDOWS ON IT - EVER!!!!
MOST MAC USERS WONT THEREFORE BE RUNNING BF2, HL2 OR FEAR.....

WANT THOSE ON A 13" BUY A PC......

Since when did a 2 month old piece of software, capable of running a competitors operating system suddenly become the be all and end all of an APPLE MAC laptop?

Dont like the fact it has integrated, fair enough, dont buy it, no ones forcing you, gaming so so important then you should look at pc full stop.

Gaming has and never will be important to the majority of Apple consumers..

 

[ManchesterTrix]

So what? You want to run BF:2, get a MBP.

Dell has sold millions of PCs over the years with integrated graphics...and you know what gamers do? They don't buy them. They buy PCs for their needs, which is NEVER the least expensive option.

If you buy a Macbook or a $1000 Dell or whatever for $1000 and you expect to be able to run the latest games on it, you are either ignornat or crazy.

Yes, but I think he's contending that the Macbook is not faster/superior than the Macbook Pro which is what the intent of this thread seems to be.

 

[ManchesterTrix]

how did your MBP run after you bumped up the clockspeed? Did the heat get worse or battery time decrease?

No idea about the battery as I pretty much run off of power always, but it did increase the heat, I haven't taken the time to measure it though.

 

[kugino]

gamers are the biggest whiners...never satistifed because they always need/want the newest and fastest. had apple put an x1400 there would be a ton of people complaining that "for just a little bit more they could have put the x1600"...when does it end? never, if you're a gamer

if you're so seriously into games, get a real gaming machine. if i wanted a serious pro laptop that ran all the final cut studio apps well, i'd go for the macbook pros, not whine about how the macbook doesn't run those apps. sheesh...

 

[ManchesterTrix]

gamers are the biggest whiners...never satistifed because they always need/want the newest and fastest. had apple put an x1400 there would be a ton of people complaining that "for just a little bit more they could have put the x1600"...when does it end? never, if you're a gamer

if you're so seriously into games, get a real gaming machine. if i wanted a serious pro laptop that ran all the final cut studio apps well, i'd go for the macbook pros, not whine about how the macbook doesn't run those apps. sheesh...

There'd probably be less whining if people wern't trying to prove the equality/superiority of the Macbook like in this thread.

 

[MRU]

Yes, but I think he's contending that the Macbook is not faster/superior than the Macbook Pro which is what the intent of this thread seems to be.

Actually thread title is a little misleading. My intent with the thread was to stop all the bitching and slagging off of a very capable laptop from apple.

I like the macbookpro and will be ordering a 17" model at the end of summer, but people were slagging off the macbook left right and center, almost making it sound like it was turd steve job squezed out.....

For most apps it will be as fast as a macbook pro, so how does that make it rubbish all of a sudden?

People bring up PC games and saying the macbook is unsuitable to play them, get over it. If apple hadnt released boot camp it would be a total non issue, and gaming really isnt that important to the vast majority of apple consumers. So by adding itegrated, doesnt suddenly turn a lovely laptop into a piece of crap, because it wont play somthing 99% of mac users would never be playing anyway....

I appologise if the thread lead you to believe I was slagging off the macbook pro because I wasnt. Just wanted to shut the bloody whiners up, which you have to agree is a worthy cause.

 

[slu]

Yes, but I think he's contending that the Macbook is not faster/superior than the Macbook Pro which is what the intent of this thread seems to be.

Point taken and I agree. I guess I too am getting emotional on this topic and it is affecting my reading comprehension.

 

[kugino]

There'd probably be less whining if people wern't trying to prove the equality/superiority of the Macbook like in this thread.

agreed.

i certainly don't think the MB is better than the MB pro. i'd certainly love an express card slot on my MB as well as an illuminated keyboard, but i can live w/out those things. i think people are generally happy about the performance of the MB relative to the performance of the MBP for MOST things (3D gaming excluded, of course), so people think it's a good deal. i think it's a good deal, but were i to need better graphics and an express card slot, the MBP would be the choice.

 

[MRU]

Point taken and I agree. I guess I too am getting emotional on this topic and it is affecting my reading comprehension.

Wasnt the point of my thread, I just wanted people to stop bitching on the macbook, by end of the summer I'll have both laptops 17" MBP and 13.3" MB

I think people should be celebrating apple launching a very competative laptop onto the market that is far bette than the model it replaced.

But hey, my message got out wrong...... sorry.....

Cant we agree... WHINNERS ****!!!!

 

[decksnap]

Sorry but there just isnt any Bang! in any Integrated graphics machine, please continue the spin.

I don't need to spin- I only need to look at the processor to know there's more Bang! in the Macbook than any iBook in history.

 

[cait-sith]

WTF are you all talking about gaming on a 13" consumer laptop?

Would you buy a 12000$ hyundai accent and then complain that it's not suited for racing?

I think ya'll like to argue.

 

[BornAgainMac]

I'll give you the short version: the macbook barely beats the ibook G4 and actually LOSES to a G4 powerbook playing UT2004.

That means Integrated Graphics does pretty good. The Powerbook G4 had a pretty good GPU and a pro laptop that was out less than 6 months ago and Integrated Graphics almost owned it but was 3 FPS short.

 

[bbrosemer]

OMG stop posting biased results and anyone who actually looked at the article and saw that it was a 2.0 vs a 1.83 I congratulate you everyone else shame shame shame on you. Also PUT a GB in these not 512ehh.

 

[MRU]

OMG stop posting biased results and anyone who actually looked at the article and saw that it was a 2.0 vs a 1.83 I congratulate you everyone else shame shame shame on you. Also PUT a GB in these not 512ehh.

Read my above comments. I agree after reading the thread title when I first posted it was misleading, just wanted the bitching to stop on the macbook.

 

[plinden]

I think what some people are taking issue with is, before the new Mini was introduced, Mac users sneered at integrated graphics because we thought it was inferior. Then there was a shift the other way.

For some Mac users, this may be because Apple can do no wrong - people like that are annoying no matter whether they're Mac or PC users.

However, for most people (well me - and I am most people, in case you didn't know) it was "hunh? Integrated graphics? Crap". Then we see the benchmarks and see that it's not too bad ... in fact it's pretty good ... for what we actually use our computers for. And we come to the conclusion that it's pretty good for what you pay.

But the IIG-haters just can't get past "integrated graphics". They can't get past the one benchmark (framerate). It doesn't matter that you can't play Doom 3 on a $1100 PC laptop (e.g. Dell E1405) either, or that the MacBook is as fast at CPU tasks as the MBP and faster than any PC at the same price point.

The rest of us, who have reached the acceptance stage, can point to benchmarks showing Photoshop, iMovie, Cinema4D and iTunes and hundreds of other applications being CPU bound and not GPU bound, till we're blue in the face. It's not going to change the opinion "Don't Hurt Me" etc.