Alex Posted April 14, 2010 Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) haha, I expected some sort of desktop replacement hate. I definitely have to plug my ass in if I game, but hey, you can find an outlet anywhere nowadays, I have 3 switchable GPUs, two is for gaming, one is for power saving, I can run for around 2-3 hours browsing or using Word, it's not that bad. Plus having one machine is nice, no file transfers. I have some sort of bad habit about being able to move where I game, took advantage of our campus classrooms with projectors, easy to move to cafeterias, coffee houses, friends' houses, vacations, short trips, basically anything and everything It's just a luxury you choose to spend money on? You do admit there's less performance in general then. About extra battery-life, you can always use that extra 100+ dollar you're paying if you got a Mac on extra battery packs, I understand that reduces portability just a little more, but isn't that just another preference thing where would you rather spend more money for convenience or less money and do a little extra work? Personally I've never had a need for even 4+ battery life. I don't know if it's just me, but the Macbook pros aren't that much lighter than a windows laptop by feel. Batteries have their lifespan, I know some macbooks have irremovable permanent batteries, then again you might already be getting a new macbook by the time that battery is even anywhere near the end of its lifespan. I do like the concept of the Mac batteries though. I should find those pages I read about an IBM thinkpad vs Macbook Air, it really made you see what's up, but that would be redundant because even some Apple fans hates Macbook Air. The problem is apple sells their brand, just because there's an apple on the thing, it's more expensive than it should be. Because it's "the cool thing to have". Not to mention those Apple commercials made by FOX. In the end you should get what suits you the most, they all have their pros and cons, some just have more of one or the other. Edited April 14, 2010 by Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUMERIAN BLOOD GOD Posted April 14, 2010 Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 Buy what you like; fuck what you don't. This shit's for you so screw what everyone else thinks. As long as it pleases you, then it was a good purchase. By the same token, who cares what anyone else is using? Why do you want them to change to what you like when it goes against what they prefer? What are you getting out of all the time you spend trying to convince them that your opinion is the best one? Everyone should just shut up and play Starcraft; it works on everything. Except Linux, I think, but they knew what they were getting into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom Posted April 14, 2010 Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 Yeah it's such a grand scene when I go to my college lectures. You'll notice all the people with windows-based laptops hugging the wall and end-row seats as they're always plugged in to their outlets. You look around some more, and you see anybody with a macbook/pro sitting anywhere they want and never once plug in their computer, so dope! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachis Posted April 14, 2010 Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 Yeah because sitting wherever you want is one of the most amazing qualities about owning a laptop of any kind... You don't buy a gaming laptop to be comfortable or have battery life. You buy a gaming laptop because you want to game from wherever you want. Complaining about heft, battery life, and location is nonexistant in that niche. Those "sacrifices" are not a problem. So generalizing the entire subject and comparing how convenient it is to run a high battery life, low profile laptop that lets you take it absolutely everywhere isn't a logical argument. You can't generalize this topic like you guys are. Laptops are a niche of computing machine that has to work on individual terms. It's impossible to really knock gaming laptops and multimedia laptops when you compare them to each other and to their desktop counterparts because they aren't even used for the same reasons. Yeah the performance differences are there, but that is a debate for talking pure performance. Not lifestyles or convenience factors. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR Posted April 14, 2010 Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 Yeah because sitting wherever you want is one of the most amazing qualities about owning a laptop of any kind... Especially for a "gaming laptop" in a class hahaha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rachis Posted April 14, 2010 Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 "Excuse me Mrs. can I sit next to the wall? Yeah my gaming laptop is dying. Thanks." *thumbs up* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom Posted April 14, 2010 Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 I'm in to other guys. And no the kids at class thing was just a funny little scenario I observed in my daily life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR Posted April 14, 2010 Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 Yeah I always plug mine in unless I can't. It doesn't bother me and frankly it was never even a concern when I looked for new laptops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Video Vixen Posted April 14, 2010 Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 yeah, but i'll admit my laptop isn't very portable to begin with. i really just use it to have a computer of my own instead of the desktop i share with my mom. even though my mom brings my laptop to work normally. hm. oh well, its coming with me when i go to college, so it's mine XD its just a little heavy. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hentai Maid Posted April 14, 2010 Report Share Posted April 14, 2010 (edited) My laptop used to get near 3 hours, which isn't the ZOMG 10 HOURS thing the iPad gets, but it was decent. It's getting old now and dying faster, but that's just what Li-Ion batteries do with age. I can, however, change that battery without sending it in and losing my laptop for 3 weeks, which is a plus. Edited April 14, 2010 by Hentai Maid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted April 15, 2010 Report Share Posted April 15, 2010 Do you still have that same old laptop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hentai Maid Posted April 15, 2010 Report Share Posted April 15, 2010 Yeah I do. It's aging pretty well though, considering I don't use it for gaming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neko Arc Chaos Posted April 15, 2010 Report Share Posted April 15, 2010 I'm still torn between microprocessors. Clarksfield is good for high end gaming (Somewhat) and the Arrandales are great for ultra low voltage. =/ Which one would be better for a laptop's battery life-span? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom Posted April 15, 2010 Report Share Posted April 15, 2010 Clarksfield is probably the worst for high-end gaming. I can't think of all that many games that support 4 cores-- more important things are tripple-channel memory bandwidth and raw processor speed. Clarksfield being a mobile quad core, it has pathetic cpu speed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harakiri Tiger Posted April 15, 2010 Report Share Posted April 15, 2010 ...more important things are tripple-channel memory bandwidth and raw processor speed. He is correct. EDIT: And an ATI Radeon HD 5970. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 Regarding quad core support, in the end its really what you want to play, more and more high end games are taking the 2+ core approach when they're coding. You should probably drop the idea of dual cores especially if you're on laptops. Battlefield Bad Company 2 for example, will be bottlenecked by even high clocked dual cores Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harakiri Tiger Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 Quad core support is what's dropping. Most programers program for single core stuff. It's a basic tennet of todays programs, not coding for dual core/quad core. Coding for a dual/quad takes far more immense resources and work, it's just not practical. So no. Don't do Quad Cores unless you just feel like having a large e-penis. Your performance won't increase over a high power dual or single core proc in any game. Dual Core w/Hyper Threading is just about the single most intelligent and efficient decision you can make. It gives you 4 threads at a potentially 3.2 or higher natural clock speed. That's what you want for gaming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 (edited) Or listen to Niji, Niji's really resourceful in this kinda stuff, guess I should have done my homework. I was thinking about StarCraft 2 and how overclocking my CPU gave it around 5FPS increase in BFBC2 According to Niji's theory, the Arrandale would be a better choice, since it's a dual core with Hyperthreading technology, but the 3MiB L3Cache you gotta be careful with. Unless you want to encode stuff that takes advantage of more cores. Edited April 16, 2010 by Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harakiri Tiger Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 5FPS increase, but what was its FPS already at and how much did you overclock? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 (edited) Around 30FPS or so in battle, from 2.9 to 3.2GHz Niji please send me the source of your readings, specifically about the dropping quad core support, IF you still have it. I only get mine from forums like tomshardware and stuff(they don't really post their sources either... but people tends to say quad core is the future), call me lazy but I don't see the necessity to reinvent the wheel and google my way around, I was wondering if you could be a kind person and help link me to the right place Edited April 16, 2010 by Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom Posted April 16, 2010 Report Share Posted April 16, 2010 (edited) I went and bought a dual sandybridge 8core iMac, so that's 16 cores and 32 virtual cores-- with 2 extra photoshopped in. My ePenis is to the max, I can brag to other friends and gamers about how my computer has 34 cores. My video encodes are a blistering OVER 9000 frames per second for high profile x264-- and look at how many of them are being used for the SC2 beta that is currently hidden and playing on OSX, but is not out for OSX yet! http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c104/twisted_metal_2/Screen-shot-2010-04-16-at-1.jpg Intel's racing for more and more cores with every new release, sometimes you even wonder if developers could even keep up. Edited April 16, 2010 by TMRaven Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neko Arc Chaos Posted April 26, 2010 Report Share Posted April 26, 2010 Quad core support is what's dropping. Most programers program for single core stuff. It's a basic tennet of todays programs, not coding for dual core/quad core. Coding for a dual/quad takes far more immense resources and work, it's just not practical. So no. Don't do Quad Cores unless you just feel like having a large e-penis. Your performance won't increase over a high power dual or single core proc in any game. Dual Core w/Hyper Threading is just about the single most intelligent and efficient decision you can make. It gives you 4 threads at a potentially 3.2 or higher natural clock speed. That's what you want for gaming. that's pretty much what my current build is for lmao. Giant ego boosting meh e-penis, but to be honest I don't like it (although I am greatful for it as it was a Kwanzaa gift) it tends to heat up when not in a well-ventilated room, and I get random BSoD whenever something moves (but not often at all. My last one was last night and the one before that was in december). So i'm thinking it might be hardware rather than software related. My graphics card has a biggun penis (nVidia 250M !GIGABITEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mom Posted April 29, 2010 Report Share Posted April 29, 2010 bad ram maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUMERIAN BLOOD GOD Posted June 21, 2010 Report Share Posted June 21, 2010 I don't think the new Mac Mini is worth it as an HTPC. I managed to make Dell's Zino HD for $100 cheaper. The mini had a better processor and a bigger HD but the Zino had a better graphics card and a Bluray drive. Still, $500-$700 is a lot to pay for an HTPC when a PS3 can do most of the same for cheaper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diablos Posted September 22, 2010 Report Share Posted September 22, 2010 necro post clearly. but no need for new topic. where all the linux users at?! im currently chuggin away on the spartan OS. arch linux. boot time is 18 seconds on my desktop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.