Would You Buy A Thicker MacBook Pro With a Better Video Card?

If a MacBook Pro model was announced that is 1.2"-1.3" thick (.25"-.35" thicker than the current 15" model), and it came with a 280M GTX, would you buy that over the thinner model with a slower video card?

 

cant answer.. you need to change the answers

what is "thicker" what is "faster"

if its like 10% thicker and 2X faster... yes!!!

its its like 25% thicker and 15% faster... no way!

 

Does it still have decent battery life and that switchable graphics? If so, then yes!!

 

Yeah, if it will have a Nvidia 200M series. Or better cards especially on the 13" MBP.

EDIT: Apple will not be using Nvidia...

 

For what price premium?

 

exactly

if apple was to make a laptop with a high end graphics card, get ready to shell out a lot more money for it

 

MB were not made to play... and a 280GTX would eat the battery in 1hour and a half

 

i voted no, but i'm not really sure.

maybe.

my gut says no. the macbook pro is not primarily a gaming machine to me, and I don't see myself giving up sleekness for additional gaming power. I'd need hybrid graphics to even consider it, and even then, do i really want to add 30% more thickness for faster games? games already *work* on my 8600m gt just fine.

i definitely image there exists a market for this, though. still, these people should get a real gaming machine from clevo / sager.

 

Voted no. I like my laptop the way it is. And a 280gtx would turn it into a beast, with lowered battery use, more heat, more weight, and 13 fans.

I am however considering this: ultimate alternative? Still waiting on a guinea pig to test it out on a 5th gen 17", but Palladin 44 seems pretty confident it'll work with Windows 7.

 

There are not enough games on OSX to justify the increased thickness.

 

i would definitely vote for thicker notebook in exchange of running cooler while gaming!!!

 

I'd vote thicker notebook if it meant an increase in the number of USB ports on them.

 

So what can of temps are you getting while gaming and are the fans loud.

 

Voted no, I don't game.. and weight, portability and battery life are far more important for my needs... thus I have no need for a better gpu then the 9400
a

 

mid 70's and low 80's with fans at full speed. i'm using w7 rc.

 

Is that a cpu or gpu temp.

 

it's the gpu temps

 

That`s quite hot 80-90c GPU temp with high fan

 

Are you kidding? ABSOLUTELY. The real weak spot in the MBP line is the graphics; the 9600 wasn't that great a card when Apple first offered it, now it's almost an antique in GPU terms. The switchable feature means nothing to me, and even to the battery-starved only adds 20-30 minutes. The 17" should be completely top-line, nobody is buying it for utmost portability anyway: people who want the big screen usually have some heavy duty pixel pushing to do on it, so come on, Apple, at least offer a choice!

 

What kind of temps does throttling kick in, and make the games unplayable.

Does it happen at 80-90c

EDIT : if the 9600m GT had problems Apple would have dropped it right, got mine coming in 7 days, don't worry now!

 

throttling for gpu is 105c and cpu is 80c. the maximum i've reached for gpu was 87c when windows took time to kick in the fans. i had became crazy with the temps when i had bought it. my dell vostro 1700 peaked in the 60's. gradually i became used with the fact that the mac had a metallic enclosure and it was thin and was bound to become that hot.

 

80-90 is totally ok if your notebooks is >1.75"

 

if it came with a bios and windows YES!

 

When I play a game in Windows, I set my fans to 5025 rpm and the hottest temp I've seen is 78 after gaming for a while. My max was 74, but recently its gone up those extra 4 degrees...its also hotter outside so that may be it. Fans at that rpm are very noticeable, but it really only needs them maxxed out playing games. Working in Adobe or 3D apps, I can set fans to 3000 rpm in Vista and temps range between mid 50's and low 60's (and the fans aren't really too noticeable for me). In OS X I rarely turn fans on, but thats probably because I use the 9400m almost exclusively. Right now I'm running mail, firefox, torrent client, itunes, and illustrator and my gpu temp is 43 and my cpu is at 48. The 9400m is really a quite capable integrated gpu.

 

Safe operating temperature is actually not related to notebook size. If 90 degrees is too hot for your part, 90 degrees is too hot whether the component is in a 1" case or a 10 foot case with 50 fans.

 

I wouldnt ever buy a mac, so i voted no

 

Just like I will never buy a Windows based PC, and I still voted no.

Man, you have to admit: laptop gaming will never be like desktop gaming. There's no way in hell they can fit all that power. Even with thicker notebooks and such...

 

What? lol ati is going in mbps?

 

...yes...they can...and it will happen sooner than you think.

 

That's what people were saying back in 2005 (and possibly earlier)

 

I say yes, but what happen to the price???

 

I say yes. but im sure it will be smaller in the future.

 

if laptops ever meet desktops in power under the silicon method of computing which we currently employ, it will be for economical reasons (they stop making desktop parts that outperform laptop parts because there isn't a market for it anymore)

Otherwise, given interest in both platforms, desktops will always be able to outperform laptops. They are exactly the same, but you have more thermal room less power constraint in the desktop, and those are the limiting factors.

 

desktops will surely be able to outperform laptops but for the first time last year, laptops have sold more than desktops.

 

Honestly, I do wish macbooks came in thicker, less breakable, and more substantial hardware packages.

Thin, light, and light on hardware and cooling is not for every user.

We have a couple of hardcore mac users here using PCs because quite frankly the macbooks either do not offer the hardware they need or just plain are too small for them to comfortably use.

Not every user is 4-5' tall with tiny hands... and some of us use our laptops for more than looking pretty...

 

I am 1.95 meters and weight ~90 k yet I love thin and light notebooks...

 

You sound like you're confusing Macbooks with netbooks

 

To act as a devils advocate. The need for a high end GPU is I think pretty much dead. My reasoning is two fold.
First is the death of the desktop for which there is a great blog article on at Gizmondo. So I won't go into it too much. But essentially the majority of people can now get what they want (spec's wise) in the form of a laptop, at about the same price as a desktop&monitor setup....with the added bonus of mobility. And this is the key point more and more people are liking this mobility, and anything that helps that (battery life, weight, size) is going to be a winner with consumers. Just look at the sales of iphone, netbooks and the MB air.

Second I think that the upcoming OnLive service combined with consoles will be the dominant force in future gaming, and lets face it Gaming is the last major reason to need a high end GPU. I'm really excited about the onlive thingo. For one there are hardly any native Mac games, and this has the possibility of opening up Mac to everything, with the added bonus on not needing a huge GPU.

Anyways that's my two cents. Apple will not put a high end gpu at and sacrifice of size, weight and battery life. Because for them and the majority of average consumers those 3 factors are more important (and will sell more), then the need to push polly's.
a




PS I'm 6 foot with v.large hands and work all day on a 13" mb. Never found it to be cramped... sure could do with more screen real estate but the keyboard and trackpad are perfectly sized.

 

You are making assumptions you have no basis for...
I have probably worked on more macbooks than you have ever seen.


Variety is good...

 

well, you said that macbook pro's were for tiny people with tiny hands.

macbook pro's have a spacious, comfortable keyboard and a giant trackpad.

 

Personally I wouldn't, nothing I do on the mac is massively video card intensive. I do basic video editing, graphics editing and lots of time in shells.

It's also against the Apple credos to make things larger, they are always about shrinking things and aesthetics. If I really needed the high end video card I'd buy a maco pro!

 

A Maco Pro. Sounds interesting, what does it do? The Mac Pro is Apple's fastest computer, but it's also their most overpriced. You don't even get a very good video card in the $2800 configuration.

 

Well, the Mac Pro is more of server workstation, than a desktop. Xeons aren't cheap, so I wouldn't say overpriced is completely true.

 

Mac Pro is not "overpriced" its just an overkill for people who want a standard desktop.... most people wanting a tower desktop do not need Xeon processors for one things.. that the biggest cost factor in those workstations. sure they seem "overpriced" when you have no understanding of the parts in the machine.... or you compare some Core 2 Quad to a Xeon and say "its just as good"

sure its just as good...

and I can say a Xeon Quad Core overclocked to 6ghz is just as good as a Pentium 3 800mhz .... and it would be true as well, if all I did was read ebooks. If you try to take a high end workstation, even if its a $10,000 one from Dell, and use it as a game machine, of course its gonna be "overpriced" but thats the fault of the purchaser, not the maker.

"The right tool for the right job!"

 

The 2.66GHz processor in the base $2500 model costs $280 for individual orders, meaning it's less for bulk orders. The price just isn't justified no matter how you look at it. Maybe if there were two GTX 280s included it wouldn't be a terrible deal, but Apple is making the most profit per system with the Mac Pro.

 

$280!!!!!! where are you finding a Xeon X5550 for that price!??!?!?!?!?!?!? holy hell you better buy a ton of them... lol Even at Newegg.com one of those processors is $1019

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117182

 

the mac pro isn't a gaming machine, it doesn't need gtx 280's.

where are you finding 2.66 Ghz Quad Core Nehalem's for $2xx on individual orders?

by estimation they cost about $1000 or so each.

 

If you consider overall performance it IS overpriced.
If you take a cheaper Core i7 or even Phenom 2 system.
Just by comparing how much you paid for it and the benchmark you get, it is overpriced.
So what if it is Xeon?
Ultimately you are paying for the performance, if it isn't value for performance it is overpriced.
Your Xeon is expensive argument is moot.
Xeon sounds impressive for marketing (Apple likes to do this) but performance is nothing out of ordinary compared to other quad core as it is just another quad core.
By mounting twin GTX 280 and using CUDA or ATi Stream(if you get the meanest ATi Card) the computing power will crush Xeon for certain GPU optimized applications.
If you are using such applications often, throw in a Tesla and you have a mini supercomputer instead of a lame Mac Pro.

 

NO, because if I want a thick and fast gaming laptop, then I'd get a Dell XPS or Asus.

 

Don't be ignorant. Even most PC fanboys agree that the Mac Pro is not overpriced compared to the competition, and by "competition," I mean branded PC makers, not DIY OEM, which is the route that most gamers, like myself, prefer to go.