Luckily, I have a lowest end MBP 13" with upgraded HDD, which most of us have. If you have a better MBP (15" and 17"), you won't have to worry about it.I'll post some pictures with built in FPS.
View 1 Replies
I'm just curious, though, as to whether there are any actual differences at all between the aluminum enclosure for the 2010 model and the mid-2009 one. For example, I'm positive the lid on my new MBP feels much heavier when I close it / open it than my previous one did, but I can't wondering if that's just my imagination ("it's new, therefore it must be different somehow").
Having gotten this one as a free replacement for my previous faulty machine (and had AppleCare thrown in too, talk about customer service!), I obviously no longer have my old one, so I can't compare the two side-by-side... so my question is, has anyone who has both models noticed those sorts of little differences, or am I convincing myself there are changes that don't exist?
According to Apple's Synthetic Performance Tests, Mac Pro 12-core beats the previous generation Mac Pro 8-core by 1,3 (1,2). Which seems pretty normal.
But by doing quite a simple equation, comparing the power of the new MP 8-cores to the previous generation MP 8-core (based on these ∆ 1,3 / 1,2), the new 8-core system seems to be about 0,87 / 0,8 of the previous one, which is considerably less powerful.
I don't play games. Would this card give a noticeable speed improvement vs the slow stock Geforce GT 120?
Apple claims this card is 5 times faster.
I use Photoshop and do a lot of video-editing.
I'm still hanging in there with my powermac g5 from 2004 (dual 1.8 g5, 2gb ram, ati 9800xt 256mb).
I do a lot of photo processing, and some video editing. This summer i'll be upgrading my SLR (10mp to 15mp), and I'll also be shooting 720p 30fps video.
I'm thinking I should upgrade my computer the same time as the camera. The g5 has leopard and CS3, Apeture, Final cut pro. these programs are really chugging along (sigh, the g5 used to be SOOO fast).
SO my question is... will the new imac (3.06, 4gb ram, ATI HD) be a noticeable bump in performance, worth the upgrade? Also, how much should I sell my g5 for (including the aluminum 20" apple cinema display).
I am trying to decide whether to get the 2010 model or the cheaper 2009 model. These are the differences that I've found so far for the base model. For arguments sake, let's say they both have 4gb ram (most people selling them have upgraded to 4gb)
2010: 2.4ghz, longer battery, nvidia 320m
2009: 2.26ghz, (slightly) shorter battery, nvidia 9400m
Having a slightly slower cpu, less battery life (about 7 hours rather than 9) and a slightly weaker gpu don't bother me so much, as I will be mostly using the macbook pro for internet surfing and writing word documents
My question is, are there any other differences? (that would make me go for the 2010 rather than the 2009 model) - maybe differences in the display? shape? something else?
I am curious if the 2009 Mac Pro with (2) ATI 4870 cards in bootcamp under vista64 . I hope that it does Xfire becasue i need to get the HELL out of my normal desktop but need the power to game on my 30" monitor.
View 3 Replies View RelatedIs there a difference? Anything at all? I would expect Apple to make the 2010 standard res. screens worse in quality and earn more money since they have the higher res. available. I really like the 2009 glossy screen, but i have to be sure it is exactly the same this year. If they did something like that it's typical Apple.
View 2 Replies View RelatedJust curious as to how much of an improvement in performance I would see upgrading my system as it states above, since my 2006 machine is 3 years old and getting close to the end of my apple care, figured I would trade it in and upgrade.
View 8 Replies View RelatedCurrently, I installed windows xp via Bootcamp and it's having no issues. However, I also have parallels 5 and windows 7 so i was wondering if I should delete the bootcamp partition and install win7 via parallels instead?
View 9 Replies View RelatedI just (finally) ordered Starcraft II and was wondering what the latest word was on its playability under 10.6.5 on a 15" MacBook Pro 2.66 i7 with the 330M. I would like to play it on the built-in hi-res 1680 x 1050 screen or on an external 1920 x 1200 monitor. Is there a big difference between gaming on OSX 10.6.5 vs. Windows 7 x64 bootcamp? I read that 10.6.4 was horrible performance wise, but I haven't heard much regarding 10.6.5 and Starcraft II.
View 5 Replies View RelatedDoes the new macbook pro perform much better with Starcraft 2? Right now I'm using the old macbook (unibody still) that has the 9400M. How much of an improvement is it to get the new macbook pros with the 320M?
View 6 Replies View RelatedDo you think it will run? Everything on low?
View 15 Replies View Relatednefew wants something lite for college,that can play starcraft II......
can it be played on a 11" mba?
if so, what model config do you use?...and what setting can be set in game...also does mba run hot and would fan run non stop...
anyone has any idea how StarCraft 2, released in a few days, will run on a MacBook Pro with a 9600M GT. I understand this game is largely CPU intensive so I am hoping that for once it will run as well as you'd expect on a less-than-2 year old laptop.
I have seen some footage of the beta running on a MBP 9600M GT, and very nicely at that, so that leaves 2 questions (they may be very difficult to answer):
1) Are we expecting the game to run a lot slower on OS X than XP as games usually do (including WoW)
2) Are we expecting performance to be significantly better in the final over the beta
Games are more GPU hungry, so can we expect to play Starcraft 2 nicely on the new MBA 13' ?
I saw some videos on youtube showing a MBP 13' playing SC2 nicely. But keep in mind the screen is 1440x900 and the processor is 1.86Ghz, so how worse would that be?
I have Macbook with GMA 950. I have Starcraft 2 beta (don't ask me to give you the beta ID and Password), and I have been playing around with it on Windows Bootcamp. It fairly works well in lowest settings besides some lagging with 6 fps when there is a big battle. I am planning to get new Macbook Pro today, and do you think Medium settings will work on the nVidia 9400?
View 14 Replies View RelatedYes, and as you can see in my signature, I have the previous model which I have bought less than 25 days ago. I will go to Apple store this friday (Japan, and these people should be nice) and try to convince them that they shouldn't have given me the inferior ones.
Back to the point, will Starcraft 2 work well with nVidia 320m? Apple's website says there will be a 80% boost, but what about Starcraft 2?
i have a question the new macbook pro can handle starcraft 2 in high settings? with the new video card 1gb?
View 2 Replies View Relatedthese are the games i plan on playing when i purchase my new macbook i5 15inch. i know the processor difference between the i5 and i7 is barely noticeable especially for someone like me who doesnt do all that high-end rendering stuff. the only thing thats freaking me out is the difference in quality between these games with the nvidia 330m 256 mb vs 512 mb. some have said it'll make no difference as most games these days just use the speed of the card and not the space, and that the 330m is not even fast enough to take advantage of the 512mb....what would the quality difference be between the two for these games? i plan on getting the high-res screen, does that change anything?
View 6 Replies View RelatedSo I have a 1.8ghz dual G5 with 3gb of ram for work. I mainly work in Adobe CS and do a far amount of Photoshop work. At any given time I may have all of Adobe CS plus Office and a few other apps running -- and a gazillion fonts. Went to the store and saw the new 24" iMac. How would a new iMac compare to my late '04 1.8DP G5? On that same note, how would a new MacBook Pro compare to the above?
View 5 Replies View Relatedi'm going to be picking up a Mac Mini in a couple days and wanted to know if starcraft 2 would run on it. i did a lot of searching it seems that all the posts were from 2011 and 2010 and a lot of them were running SC2 in Windows on the mac mini. i want to run the Mac Mini in OSX and i heard it doesn't run quite as well as it does in Windows and blizzard aren't great with fixing bugs in the Mac version. i'll be buying the current low end mac mini, i can get more RAM on it and i believe the CPU is more than enough, but the graphics card does worry me. i don't want to play on high settings, i just want to get great performance even if it runs on the lowest detail settings.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI'm looking for a new monitor to go with my MBP, and I'm stuck trying to choose between the ones listed above.
The 2407WFP is a couple of years old now I guess, but it's the rev A04 version, which supposedly fixed the (few) problems with what was otherwise meant to be a great screen. It's an sPVA screen.
I've heard good reviews of the G2410, with its LED backlighting. It's still a TN panel and I hear so much bad stuff about them.
The 2209WA is an eIPS panel which I like the sound of, but it's smaller and lower resolution.
The F2380 is a cPVA panel, the image quality looks better but I've heard bad things about blacks on this panel.
How does StarCraft 2 perform on the current lineup of the iMac? I'm most interested in the 21.5" model, as I cannot afford the 27" version. Specifically, I'd like to know what resolution and settings the 4670 and 5670 models can handle...
View 10 Replies View Relatedhowever, installation doesn't work because i dont have the actual "disk" in my mbp when i try to install (i'm simply running the application install off the mounted image). is there any way i can take the cdr and turn it into a mountable volume that shows up as a CD and not just any old volume?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI have found a ibook g4 I am considering buying. It is a 1.07 mhz 768mb 80gb superdrive. I am getting it for a good deal and it has all the software I will need for school Microsoft office photoshop. I was just wondering what are the capabilities of this machine. Could I play warcraft 3 and starcraft on this and do normal everyday tasks with ease. Or are the stats not good enough to do much of anything
View 4 Replies View RelatedI'm pretty satisfied with the Marware cover, although it can be a little frustrating when typing quickly..I'm wondering if I should go back, return the Marware cover and pick up the iSkin.
So, for those of you that have any of these in comparing..which do you think is the best?
And yes, I did search and am aware threads like this exist..but I couldn't find any comparing all three, only iSkin vs. Moshi.
I'm trying to decide which product to buy and I was hoping for some advice.
First and foremost I want a device so that I may transfer my VHS tapes to DVD.
Live TV recording is secondary but for the price, I'd like to find the device that suits me best so I can continue to use it after i've transferred all my VHS.
Here are my concerns:
1) I'm going to be moving from the US to Ireland in a couple of months (not sure for how long, could be years+) Obviously there's the whole NTSC vs. PAL, ATSC vs. DVB.
I know with EyeTV 250 it's either or, any ideas if buying some sort of converter is an option (prices, quality)? If I bought just a PAL one, would I still be able to convert VHS or would it be completely unusable in the US?
2) I'd like some sort of HD/Digital abilities. From what I can tell TVMax is analog only and Blackmagic may also be but I can't find more specs on that.
Does this mean they'll be useless once the US undergoes the conversion?
So as of now I'm leaning towards EyeTV 250 but the question are there any forseeable problems with using a PAL to NTSC converter or using a PAL EyeTV in the US just to convert VHS.
I am planning on purchasing a new display for use (currently) with my imac. I am completely torn between these two models, and cannot make a decision. Any thoughts? I like the Dell because it is LED backlit, thus good blacks and little to no backlight bleed. But I like the Samsung because of the (supposedly better panel and (supposedly) better color reproduction. I like the simplistic look of both of them (though they could look a little better ) so I'm not sure which one to buy.
View 5 Replies View RelatedI ran some tests on my 2009 Quad Nehalem to try and determine what was up with the triple Vs dual memory "brouhaha".
I posted the results as a new thread because I think it will be useful information for a lot of quad owners, but it was originally going to be a reply to this thread: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=735845
Here we go. Tesselator suggested 3 tests that could show the differences in speed between triple and dual channel bandwidth.
Quote:
As one idea I would maybe try creating a few very large images (16-bit, blank white, blank black, gradient fill) and then duplicating and deleting that layer repeatedly a few hundred times.
So I did them, 10 times each. I could have gone on, but the results were very very stable after the first 2 attempts.
Set-up: a 40Mpx, 16bit image (8000*5000). First test it was simply filled white; second test: black; and third test a black to white gradient. I added a fourth test, using a real (photo) 12Mpx RAW image from my Nikon D300.
I created (took a while!) an action with 350 repetitions of "duplicate layer" and "delete layer", followed by a red fill to let me know the action was done. The same action was used in all four tests.
The computer was restarted before each of the four tests, which may explain the irregularities on the first 1-2 attempts. Nothing else but PS4 was launched.
The results are interesting:
We can clearly see that the simple white and black fills show a speed difference of around 10%.
We can also clearly see that this difference disappears when a more complex image is used. The use of more complex images represents a much more realistical use of PS.
To make things even more realistic, I also tested RetouchActions's speed test on my own 12Mpx image. I use nearly all of the operations of that action on a daily basis, so it's a lot more representative of the work I do on PS.
Here are the results:
The results are clear: 11% increase in performance using 8GB of ram (Vs 6GB) when working on a 12Mpx image.
Added info: number of page-outs after running the 10 test series (after about 45 minutes of intense PS work):
-17K when using 6GB (1.7K page-out avg).
-10K when using 8GB (1K page-out avg).
For me the results are definitive: unless I plan on working only with full black or full white images (not even black and white!), having 8GB is better, even when working on smallish 12Mpx files. I imagine the differences would have been even greater using bigger file sizes of actual complex images.
What would now be interesting: someone with a 2009MP Octo doing the same tests at 12GB and 16GB.
