Surface Book not twice as fast, it's THREE times faster than MBP for gaming

[BATman.Berlin]

That's applicable to all tech.

Exactly. This is why we Apple fanboys should stay relaxed. There will always be better performing and also cheaper laptops on the market. Sometimes also better performing AND cheaper. I don't care. I went from MacBooks into the Surface universe with Surface RT, Pro 1st Gen and the Pro 3. They are all nice devices but have two big flaws:

1 Windows
2 try to combine many devices e.g. many use cases into one device. Requires compromise and thus dissatisfaction. Not a Microsoft problem, rather a general issue.

However, I am back to my Mac and live happily ever after.

 

[maflynn]

This is why we Apple fanboys should stay relaxed.

Just perusing the threads here at MacRumors and I'd say the tone is anything but relaxed. In fact I've seen too many threads where people start ranting about something being shifted over a couple of pixels or a given feature has been removed.

 

[leman]

The benchmark is beyond idiotic. The OS X GPU drivers are 20-40% slower than Windows ones for gaming to begin with. Of course a half-assed OS X port will run slower on already crappy OS X drivers compared to Windows with a DirectX driver that is optimised for gaming.

 

[lowendlinux]

The benchmark is beyond idiotic. The OS X GPU drivers are 20-40% slower than Windows ones for gaming to begin with. Of course a half-assed OS X port will run slower on already crappy OS X drivers compared to Windows with a DirectX driver that is optimised for gaming.

Which makes it slower...you sound like an AMD Linux user

 

[Lexdexia]

AMD Radeon R9 M370X 2048 MB Tomb Raider benchmark results:

Played under OS X El Capitan 10.11.1

Graphical settings (average):
Low: 60 FPS
Normal: 56 FPS
Default: 52 FPS
High: 49 FPS
Ultra*: 40 FPS

*there was no Ultra graphical preset in the Tomb Raider OS X Port, only ones available were Low, Normal, and High. I cranked every setting to the highest possible under custom as a way of representing 'ultra graphical quality'.

Let's hope Metal for Mac be the hero OS X gaming deserves.

P.S. 1440x900 resolution

 

[Tech198]

Interesting. But for productivity I'd choose a Macbook over a Windows laptop anytime. I have zero expectations from laptops anyway, as it comes to gaming performance.

While u can game on a Mac, its not really for "primary use" for as Apple thinks so.

If it was, Apple would have used better GPU's... That's not to say their bad, but their not exactly gaming GPU's either like the high end PC gaming systems u see, if Apple really wanted to go that far, but they don't want to get into gaming era.

Get a PC for that stuff. I would agree that there are gaming laptops that out perform Mac's because Apple doesn't use top of the line GPU's as its not their purpose. so i'd have to say Surface notebook fr true gaming.

No surprise to see performance difference.

 

[maxsix]

There seems to be an ongoing tendency to compare devices or computers that in some cases aren't even close to being fair to compare. While most of my work is resource intense and I will admit speed is very important to me, there's a limit to just how much weight one applies to a single data point.

So completely satisfied with my Surface Pro 3, I'll admit I migrated to a fresh new Surface Pro 4 for it's various improvements. And yes being the laptop form factor addict I am, I also have a Surface Book which has exceeded my expectations for a MS Product.

Therefore the point from my perspective is that nothing beats careful assessment of ones requirements, then buy based on tech specs and your preferred form factor, not cosmetic appearance.

 

[Tech198]

I wish PC users felt that way...

 

[andreyush]

What about the Dell XPS 13" ? What is your opinion guys ?
It seems very expensive for what it brings. Btw , why are people bashing Apple for selling expensive products when other companies do the same ? :/

 

[maflynn]

hat about the Dell XPS 13" ? What is your opinion guys ?

Its a very nice looking laptop that looks to compete against Apple's MBP.
Its running skylake, I'm not sure about the iGPU. The i5 non-touch screen is priced under the MBP by 200 dollars, so I'd say its not in the league of MBP and SurfaceBook price ways

why are people bashing Apple for selling expensive products when other companies do the same ? :/

I've been very upfront in stating the Surfacebook is a very expensive 13" laptop, for my needs, too expensive. Perhaps if it was a 15" laptop, I could justify it, but spending that much for a smaller display then what I have now is a tough sell.

 

[andreyush]

Its a very nice looking laptop that looks to compete against Apple's MBP.
Its running skylake, I'm not sure about the iGPU. The i5 non-touch screen is priced under the MBP by 200 dollars, so I'd say its not in the league of MBP and SurfaceBook price ways


I've been very upfront in stating the Surfacebook is a very expensive 13" laptop, for my needs, too expensive. Perhaps if it was a 15" laptop, I could justify it, but spending that much for a smaller display then what I have now is a tough sell.

It has windows anyway so...it's meh..
But who wins in the display quality battle ?

 

[maflynn]

It has windows anyway so...it's meh..
But who wins in the display quality battle ?

I don't know about the Dell, but the SB has a gorgeous display, and don't knock windows till you try it. Windows 10 has been stable, fast and great. I have no complaints with it, so much so, I'm agonizing over getting an iMac or a windows desktop

 

[andreyush]

I don't know about the Dell, but the SB has a gorgeous display, and don't knock windows till you try it. Windows 10 has been stable, fast and great. I have no complaints with it, so much so, I'm agonizing over getting an iMac or a windows desktop

I came from Windows.. And i will not come back to it too soon ... It's a personal preference anyway.

Get an iMac ...and if you want you could install windows through bootcamp

 

[maflynn]

Get an iMac ...and if you want you could install windows through bootcamp

I'm leaning that way, but I'm vetting out the process of spending 2,000 vs. half of that for a windows machine.

 

[ctg7w6]

Why do people keep suggesting a Hackintosh without a disclaimer?

I'll provide one. Disclaimer: A Hackintosh is a pain in the butt to maintain.

Because some people still believe that having a computer gives you freedom, both in what you do with it and where you can "go" on it... This is not something that Apple believes... They think that once you enter their environment you must play by their rules and only do with your computer what they want you to.

Which is another reason a hackintosh is hard to maintain, btw.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Because some people still believe that having a computer gives you freedom, both in what you do with it and where you can "go" on it... This is not something that Apple believes... They think that once you enter their environment you must play by their rules and only do with your computer what they want you to.

Which is another reason a hackintosh is hard to maintain, btw.

Nonsense theer is nothing you can do an a windows computer that you can't do on a mac software wise, indeed macs run windows and all other OSes just fine.

 

[leman]

Because some people still believe that having a computer gives you freedom, both in what you do with it and where you can "go" on it... This is not something that Apple believes... They think that once you enter their environment you must play by their rules and only do with your computer what they want you to.

Well, you know, there is freedom and then there is freedom. Apple enforces a certain list of best practices (e.g. UI design guidelines), but it does not really affect your freedom to use a computer as a tool. Sure, they restrict your choice, but only in regards to cosmetics.

To elaborate this a bit further: I have freedom to use my Mac in any way I want. I can consume or create any kind of content on it, I can run any kind of software on it, I can develop using any kind of computer language and framework on it, and I can create automatisation workflows on a level that most Windows users wouldn't even dream of. That is the kind of freedom that matters to me, and not the "freedom" to "enhance" the system with a bunch of colourful stickers.

 

[jazzer15]

I'm leaning that way, but I'm vetting out the process of spending 2,000 vs. half of that for a windows machine.

I'm watching you closely to see what you do since, as you may remember from another thread, I'm in the same boat I keep trying to find the excuse/reason to get another iMac and the only real reasons I come up with is OS X and the memories of Windows horrors past. . Is that worth paying twice as much and losing the flexibility to upgrade/fix components easily? Maybe. But I'm not sure. Good luck!!

 

[maflynn]

But I'm not sure. Good luck!!

I'm definitely leaning towards the iMac

For example the Dell UltraSharp 27" 5k monitor is $2,200. The 27" 4k monitor is 600 dollars.
The XPS 8900 that I've been looking at is in the 800 dollar range.
5k monitor + 8900 = 3,000
4k monitor + 8900 = 1,400

 

[jazzer15]

I'm definitely leaning towards the iMac

For example the Dell UltraSharp 27" 5k monitor is $2,200. The 27" 4k monitor is 600 dollars.
The XPS 8900 that I've been looking at is in the 800 dollar range.
5k monitor + 8900 = 3,000
4k monitor + 8900 = 1,400

Me too. But if I went the other way, I would get the 4K monitor, because honestly I don't feel the need for 5k. That's where things get difficult. It's not really that the iMac is much (if any) more expensive if you compare similar hardware. It's just that you don't have a choice to configure it the way you might if you were putting it together yourself. So, it is likely that you pay for things that you might not otherwise.

The iMac I am looking at would probably wind up in the $2500 range before Apple Care and tax. Once you add that, plus an external HDD for more storage (because I am thinking of getting an SSD) and extra RAM, it's around $3000 -- much more than a Dell with 4K monitor and also considerably more than the last one I bought which, while pretty well loaded, was a refurb from the prior year. For some reason the 2014 refurbs aren't discounted nearly as much as the 2009 was when I purchased in 2010.

Once I can get over the sticker shock and the concern that in the event of a hardware issue after 3 years there is a possibility I might have to replace it sooner than I want due to the non-upgradeable nature of the computer, I'm sure I will move forward .

 

[ctg7w6]

Nonsense theer is nothing you can do an a windows computer that you can't do on a mac software wise, indeed macs run windows and all other OSes just fine.

Well, thanks to Apple it is very difficult to run Mac OS on any system except one built by Apple. Yet, Windows can be installed basically anywhere regardless of hardware. So... There is my example.

 

[ctg7w6]

Well, you know, there is freedom and then there is freedom. Apple enforces a certain list of best practices (e.g. UI design guidelines), but it does not really affect your freedom to use a computer as a tool. Sure, they restrict your choice, but only in regards to cosmetics.

To elaborate this a bit further: I have freedom to use my Mac in any way I want. I can consume or create any kind of content on it, I can run any kind of software on it, I can develop using any kind of computer language and framework on it, and I can create automatisation workflows on a level that most Windows users wouldn't even dream of. That is the kind of freedom that matters to me, and not the "freedom" to "enhance" the system with a bunch of colourful stickers.

Sure, you can do all of those things if you install Windows on it... i.e., "you can run any kind of software". But not from within Mac itself without third-party solutions.

I just want to say... I'm not a big fan of Windows... And I really like OSX... But there is little doubt that there is some restriction regarding Mac PCs, but especially quite a bit within iOS. Apple's philosophy is basically "Do whatever you want, as long as we say it's okay and allow you to do it, we don't want you to hurt yourself."

 

[leman]

Sure, you can do all of those things if you install Windows on it... i.e., "you can run any kind of software". But not from within Mac itself without third-party solutions.

I can compile and run a wide range of open-source tools natively on Mac, not so much on Windows.

Apple's philosophy is basically "Do whatever you want, as long as we say it's okay and allow you to do it, we don't want you to hurt yourself."

Right, so that's why they give you OS scriptability and a plethora of sophisticated command line tools

 

[ctg7w6]

I can compile and run a wide range of open-source tools natively on Mac, not so much on Windows.



Right, so that's why they give you OS scriptability and a plethora of sophisticated command line tools

I'll give you that, open source stuff is much easier on Mac... On the other hand, normal products are the Mac's downfall, in many ways. Microsoft Office may be a bad example because it comes from "the enemy," but only recently have we received a half-way decent Office. I will just mention games, because that is a given.

I like that Mac is Unix-based for the command line tools and all of that. Definitely a positive of Mac OS. On the other hand, things that should be relatively easy are "locked" behind a command line that you have to work with to use.

 

[HumpYourWayUp]

Look at the chart in the original post!
They are comparing the integrated chipset Iris 6100 to a full mobile Geforce GPU!
You don't compare an integrated chipset to a full mobile GPU - it is just not the same!
The comparison is flawed from the beginning - Ignore this thread! LOL