Notebookcheck

Post reply

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 120 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.
Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
Anti-Spam: Bitte NBC eingeben / Please enter NBC:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: chrb
« on: October 15, 2013, 21:24:19 »

I usually like notebookcheck reviews but I noticed this one contains:

Quote
"If gaming is important, it might be better to spend 1750 Euros on a more powerful Windows multimedia and gaming system with a dedicated GPU."

That's a really weak analysis. No benchmarks, just a recommendation to buy a Windows desktop instead? The 15" Macbook review has a gaming performance section.  Seriously? What happened here - lazy reviewer?
Posted by: Milano
« on: May 31, 2013, 15:57:36 »

Quote
"The MacBook Pro reached 4772 points running 3DMark 06 (Boot Camp)(...) The MacBook Pro 15 Retina utilizes an Nvidia GeForce GT 650M and scores about 70 percent higher (14848 points)."

70%? The 15" rMPB score is 211% higher.
Posted by: marcaux
« on: December 02, 2012, 11:07:00 »

@dit: business. to make the gap bigger between the 13" and the 15".
Posted by: Dit
« on: December 02, 2012, 06:57:55 »

well, why isn't apple use a discrete graphic card? at least 1 gb ddr3 is enough. it's more worth for about $1500++ then only using gma 4000 :|
Posted by: marcaux
« on: December 02, 2012, 00:57:39 »

@bubster:
it's perhaps because of the fast ssd. you don't need a quad for not so intensive tasks.
but yes a pro laptop should have a good performance in pro apps like intensive photoshop or premiere / finalcut works. at this point i also think 96% is way to much.
Posted by: bubster
« on: December 01, 2012, 23:33:19 »

how does this thing get a 96% for application performance? Other laptops on this site have a quad core and they only have 90%.
Posted by: Jeffrey
« on: December 01, 2012, 05:18:26 »

no freaking kidding, they cant even add a stinkin 640m card in this, who are they kiding trying to pull out 2k for a machine without dedicated graphics.  I think all notebooks should come standard with dedicated graphics, this is 2012 people not 2002 when there was no dedicated graphics for laptops!!

I read every review and am the biggest notebook enthusiast but its sickening to see this laptop getting 90% just cause its a $$2k++ apple product.  I love apple but as they say in NFL C'mon, seriously C'MON!!
Posted by: marcaux
« on: November 30, 2012, 17:28:05 »

90% is a little bit high i think. surely the slimmer form factor and the display are very attractive but when it comes to hardware replacements or upgrade capability it's not built for a long life span. 1 year warranty is over in notime and after that there is no chance to upgrade the ram, the ssd, replace the battery by myself and things like that what i always do over time.
because of this, this notebook is sadly a nogo (no dedicated gpu or quadcore also have to be mentioned)

hope to get some reviews of the vaio s13p with linux. that would be a nice little powerhouse.
Posted by: Jerry
« on: November 30, 2012, 13:41:50 »

I still think apple should have used a dedicated graphics chip, at least the nvidia GT 640m considering this is a "pro" ... the next macbook air, i assume, will have nearly identicle specs in an even thinner and lighter package.,Other notebooks offer significantly better value for money.
Posted by: Redaktion
« on: November 30, 2012, 08:55:04 »

Hot stuff. The Apple MacBook Pro 13 is now available with a high-resolution IPS display, a slimmer chassis, and new ports. The newcomer demands a price premium of 500 Euro (~$650) above the cost of the time-tested standard model. Do the changes really warrant the lofty starting price of 1750 Euro (~$2275)?

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Apple-MacBook-Pro-13-Retina-2-5-GHz-Late-2012.84584.0.html

 
» Impressum     Sprachen: Deutsch | English | Español | Français | Italiano | Nederlands | Polski | Português | Русский | Türkçe | Svenska