Laptop Choice #2: Mac Air and pro, Dell XPS and Alienware? (Details inside)

[Alvorea]

The MBP's processor is clocked quite a bit higher than the Air, and WoW is very CPU reliant. No data though, ill try to find some and edit this. An SSD is a luxury and will help a lot opening programs and such, but you bring a valid arguement: Are they really that far apart? I'll count the Air back in, at least, versus the MBP.

http://www.laptopmag.com/review/lapt...ode=benchmarks has some data for WoW framrate and other stuff. (28 fps on native res with lowish native settings.) anddddd

http://www.laptopmag.com/review/lapt...43%2C2393%2Cpa Same site =D

Omg, you're so efficient, lol. Thank you very much you been helping me alot.
I dont want to abuse but... what is actually a benchmark? I might not be understand the english in that word or i just dont know what it means itself since i am not a pc expert like you guys.

I saw that:

MBP: 5534
MBA: 5860

What does it means in real world?

Thanks in advance!

[Deleted]

What does it means in real world?

It means the second machine is faster in the testing criteria their testing software uses. Benchmark = 'performance test' basically.

The test they use seems to be a general type benchmark, which tests the combined strength of the components in a specific artificial way. This has its uses, but is by no means guaranteed to translate into comparable real world results. Particularly the test they I believe use more favors light office/browsing use rather than gaming and the like; which means it gains significant amount of points from simply posessing a SSD - not because its fast at calculations.

The preferable benchmarks tend to individually test criteria (CPU, GPU, storage speeds, etc) - and them in turn often in multiple types of software, as different types of hardware have different strengths and weaknesses and different software requires different types of 'work'. NVIDIA cards favor one thing, AMD others. Quadcores favor some things, dualcores others.

[Alvorea]

It means the second machine is faster in the testing criteria their testing software uses. Benchmark = 'performance test' basically.

The test they use seems to be a general type benchmark, which tests the combined strength of the components in a specific artificial way. This has its uses, but is by no means guaranteed to translate into comparable real world results. Particularly the test they I believe use more favors light office/browsing use rather than gaming and the like; which means it gains significant amount of points from simply posessing a SSD - not because its fast at calculations.

The preferable benchmarks tend to individually test criteria (CPU, GPU, storage speeds, etc) - and them in turn often in multiple types of software, as different types of hardware have different strengths and weaknesses and different software requires different types of 'work'. NVIDIA cards favor one thing, AMD others. Quadcores favor some things, dualcores others.

I see, then do you know a source that can let me get a more complete performance test against both 13" i5 mba and mbp?

Its looks like the MBA is what I been looking for, light, good screen quality and good performance at average tasks

---------- Post added 2011-07-23 at 10:47 PM ----------

an HP desktop from my brother has the following spec:

processor core i3 540 3.07 Ghz
1tb hd
4 gb ram
no video card

And it runs wow VERY well, just with that.

Will i get a similar or even better gameplay with the current MBA spec?

Inside my newbie head, if the i3 can do it, the i5 can do it even better, both has the same ram anyway, wrong or right?

[Deleted]

Inside my newbie head, if the i3 can do it, the i5 can do it even better, both has the same ram anyway, wrong or right?

You're putting far too much stress on the meaning of 'i5'. And you are doing so not only between machines of different generations, but machines of different types. They are completely incomparable in that sense.

For example, the processors the MBA use are designed with a power limit of 17W in mind. Desktop processors on the other hand range between 65W to 130W, which simply allows them to do a lot more per cycle. Its also worth to note that even within the same generations - there are different 'groups' that carry thei3, i5, and i7 namings; typically being one low-wattage family, and one standard wattage family. In some cases there may even be an additional family - which was the case with the previous i7s.

For example, Apple used i7 branded dualcores. However architecturally, they were exactly identical to the regular i5s; and performd as such. The 'real' i7s used a different architecture, which meant that performance differences between a 'fake' i7 and 'real' i7 was absolutely massive, whereas the performance difference between an i5 and 'fake' i7 was tiny in comparison.

The MBA will certainly have a processor performance a fair bit below that desktop; though the graphics card performance may be be slightly ahead; particularly if your brother is running a higher resolution.

[Mulled]

^ Basically sums it up.

[tacoloco]

IMO, a 13" laptop is wholly inadequate for showing clients anything. I say this as a former working pro photographer.

OP, if you want a mac and you're not budget constrained, get one of the 15" models. It's got more than enough horsepower and is light enough for portability.

---------- Post added 2011-07-23 at 10:26 PM ----------

For example, Apple used i7 branded dualcores. However architecturally, they were exactly identical to the regular i5s; and performd as such. The 'real' i7s used a different architecture, which meant that performance differences between a 'fake' i7 and 'real' i7 was absolutely massive, whereas the performance difference between an i5 and 'fake' i7 was tiny in comparison.

I strongly suspect that if Apple were using those "i5 like" i7s that every other manufacturer was too.

[Damus Grayhorn]

Anything but an overpriced Mac.

[User has received an infraction for this post. - Cilraaz]

[Alvorea]

You're putting far too much stress on the meaning of 'i5'. And you are doing so not only between machines of different generations, but machines of different types. They are completely incomparable in that sense.

For example, the processors the MBA use are designed with a power limit of 17W in mind. Desktop processors on the other hand range between 65W to 130W, which simply allows them to do a lot more per cycle. Its also worth to note that even within the same generations - there are different 'groups' that carry thei3, i5, and i7 namings; typically being one low-wattage family, and one standard wattage family. In some cases there may even be an additional family - which was the case with the previous i7s.

For example, Apple used i7 branded dualcores. However architecturally, they were exactly identical to the regular i5s; and performd as such. The 'real' i7s used a different architecture, which meant that performance differences between a 'fake' i7 and 'real' i7 was absolutely massive, whereas the performance difference between an i5 and 'fake' i7 was tiny in comparison.

The MBA will certainly have a processor performance a fair bit below that desktop; though the graphics card performance may be be slightly ahead; particularly if your brother is running a higher resolution.

he runs everything at low-good settings.

I am keepin WoW as the subject just becouse WoW is probably the hardest thing it will run for pretty much all the time, keep it in mind.

And thank you so much for the enlightement, everything looks more clear now.

Anyway, anyone heard anything BAD about Dell XPS 15z? i red some bad stuff around xps ones....

[tacoloco]

Anything but an overpriced Mac.

When did you discover you don't know anything about computers?

[User has received an infraction for this post. - Cilraaz]

[BicycleMafioso]

I strongly suspect that if Apple were using those "i5 like" i7s that every other manufacturer was too.

It's in fact intels fault for branding them as such.
http://ark.intel.com/products/54645/...ache-1_50-GHz) http://ark.intel.com/products/54616/...ache-1_50-GHz) http://ark.intel.com/products/52231/...ache-2_70-GHz) http://ark.intel.com/products/54610/...ache-2_10-GHz) http://ark.intel.com/products/54618/...ache-1_70-GHz) http://ark.intel.com/products/54611/...ache-2_30-GHz) http://ark.intel.com/products/54642/...ache-2_20-GHz) http://ark.intel.com/products/54615/...ache-1_60-GHz) http://ark.intel.com/products/54617/...ache-1_80-GHz)
It's easy seeing the difference for someone who knows what they're looking for; Hard for anyone else.
i7-2620M
i7-2630QM
The Q representing Quadcore, M representing mobile.

[Bcons]

Honestly, after skimming through this thread and the last you had made, it just seems like you're trying to justify the price of the apple computer so you don't feel guilty about paying for the over-priced hardware because "people on the internet told you to" or some such nonsense.

I personally would choose the Dell with higher specs at the same price EVERY time. People will tell you the parts in the dell and the build quality are of a lower grade; this is a fallacy. People will tell you "AMGAWD MACS CAN'T GET VIRUS; this again is a fallacy. People will tell you apple software "just works, ALWAYS"; just look at the problems the new OSX lion is having and you will see how blatantly untrue this is.

Don't get me wrong, apple branded laptops are generaly good machines and their operating system is generally solid as well; however I will never understand how someone justifies paying the ridiculous markup prices for them without having a specific need for one, a need which a windows machine would not be better suited for.

And without question, for your needs a windows machine is sufficient if not better suited.

With all that said, if you really, REALLY still want the mac, as it seems these last couple of threads have shown (despite both polls showing a large favoritism towards the Dell you posted), then go for it. Who am I to tell you how to spend your money?

[Damus Grayhorn]

Anything but an overpriced Mac.

[User has received an infraction for this post. - Cilraaz]

Pro-tip: I wasn't trolling.
Mod Warning: If you disagree with the infraction you were given, use the PM function.

[ispano]

It's still a fanboy war inciting comment.

[tacoloco]

It's in fact intels fault for branding them as such.

I suspected as much. Thanks.

[vesseblah]

Its looks like the MBA is what I been looking for, light, good screen quality and good performance at average tasks

Just keep in mind that MBA is basically Apple's version of netbook. Low weight low cost low power toy, which will be really sucky for serious work compared to the other three choices you had in the poll.

[Deleted]

I strongly suspect that if Apple were using those "i5 like" i7s that every other manufacturer was too.

They were certainly an option; but the default option for most competitors 'i7' rigs was the 1.6ghz quad core, or 1.72ghz quad core - both members of the Clarksdale true i7 family; for the simple reason that they also offered a large upgrade path. The i7 arrandale was a dead end; and Apple's machines at the time weren't able to handle the additional 10W of power required by the clarksdale series.

[tacoloco]

I personally would choose the Dell with higher specs at the same price EVERY time. People will tell you the parts in the dell and the build quality are of a lower grade; this is a fallacy. People will tell you "AMGAWD MACS CAN'T GET VIRUS; this again is a fallacy. People will tell you apple software "just works, ALWAYS"; just look at the problems the new OSX lion is having and you will see how blatantly untrue this is.

Can we PLEASE not turn this thread into yet another Mac vs. PC thing?

The bottom line is that both PCs and Macs are great computers, each with some different strengths and weaknesses. In the end, the consumer should buy what they like, regardless of brand.

[Tyrianth]

I personally would choose the Dell with higher specs at the same price EVERY time. People will tell you the parts in the dell and the build quality are of a lower grade; this is a fallacy. People will tell you "AMGAWD MACS CAN'T GET VIRUS; this again is a fallacy. People will tell you apple software "just works, ALWAYS"; just look at the problems the new OSX lion is having and you will see how blatantly untrue this is.

People are having problems with Lion? News to me.

[Bryntrollian]

I have been hearing too many bad reviews on the Mac Air and it is actually overpriced but one of the other choices would be fine.

[dotOrion]

- As said in this thread, MBA is sort of a netbook equivalent, meaning it's really only meant for a bit of surfing and chatting. It's not suited for what you want.
- The macbook pro is better suited. If you'd like to choose Mac for the OS and the looks, go with this one, not the MBA. Keep in mind what others have mentioned though: 13" isn't a whole lot of screenspace if you're going to use it to show your work to clients. Battery life might be a bit better due to the lower specs.
- You noted it yourself in the previous thread: the Dell has better hardware for the same price. I would argue it doesn't even look that different from the macs you linked. More screenspace, too. Obviously, you won't get Lion here and will have to settle for Windows.
- The Alienware ... well. I would really not recommend taking an Alienware if you have any desire to look professional. It's a gaming laptop, and has no place in the business world.