Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="chas_m" data-source="post: 1627814">The one thing I will add to this is that the lower-rated processors you mention in your post all &quot;boost&quot; to higher speeds when needed, so between that and OS X's more intelligent management of resources such as RAM and GPU handoff, I'm not sure that it's wise to say that &quot;this&quot; machine's spec sheet is obviously better than &quot;that&quot; spec sheet. The way Apple seems to be approaching this is VERY dependent on how the machine is going to be used by the user rather than just stuffing a box with X amount of power.MOST users, let's bear in mind, are not computer nerds like us. Their #1 app is Facebook or other light-duty apps that make no serious demands on any processor. Thus you get the MBAir, for example, which is a completely awesome portable for easily 80 percent of typical notebook buyers but &quot;only&quot; has a &quot;1.4GHz dual-core Intel Core i5&quot; but with a (Turbo Boost up to 2.7GHz when needed, with 3MB shared L3 cache).So in fact it's a quite powerful machine, but extremely energy-efficient (thus, a typical 10-to-12-hour battery life in a computer so thin and light, with no fan noise etc).Photoshop artists, gamers and other people who lean on their CPU and GPU pretty hard aren't going to like the MBA very much, but that's really a far smaller percentage of users than I think most of us power-users (being that we surround ourselves a lot with like-minded compatriots) realise.What I'm getting at is that the spec sheet only goes so far in helping you figure out what's right for each customer: really getting to know their skill level and expected needs is probably a better approach. It's not just about framerates or GPU RAM, it's how it will be used and what provides the best bang for that particular person's buck.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="chas_m, post: 1627814"] The one thing I will add to this is that the lower-rated processors you mention in your post all "boost" to higher speeds when needed, so between that and OS X's more intelligent management of resources such as RAM and GPU handoff, I'm not sure that it's wise to say that "this" machine's spec sheet is obviously better than "that" spec sheet. The way Apple seems to be approaching this is VERY dependent on how the machine is going to be used by the user rather than just stuffing a box with X amount of power. MOST users, let's bear in mind, are not computer nerds like us. Their #1 app is Facebook or other light-duty apps that make no serious demands on any processor. Thus you get the MBAir, for example, which is a completely awesome portable for easily 80 percent of typical notebook buyers but "only" has a "1.4GHz dual-core Intel Core i5" but with a (Turbo Boost up to 2.7GHz when needed, with 3MB shared L3 cache). So in fact it's a quite powerful machine, but extremely energy-efficient (thus, a typical 10-to-12-hour battery life in a computer so thin and light, with no fan noise etc). Photoshop artists, gamers and other people who lean on their CPU and GPU pretty hard aren't going to like the MBA very much, but that's really a far smaller percentage of users than I think most of us power-users (being that we surround ourselves a lot with like-minded compatriots) realise. What I'm getting at is that the spec sheet only goes so far in helping you figure out what's right for each customer: really getting to know their skill level and expected needs is probably a better approach. It's not just about framerates or GPU RAM, it's how it will be used and what provides the best bang for that particular person's buck. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Name this item 🌈