LosOjos Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 I genuinely have not cared for CPU speed in a long time. Since SSDs came out and operating systems started being designed more efficiently it really has not been a concern. I have the cheapest 2 year old macbook air here with (I think) and i3 processor in. Not once have I thought to myself it is slow. Everything is instant. I have a really handy miniature laptop with an SSD in it here I'll sell you for £200? Don't worry about the specs, it has an SSD. 2
psydii Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 You haven't cared about CPU speed in 10 years? You're truly unique then. I don't care about cpu speed either, I care about getting stuff done. How well the cache can keep the cpu fed is all that really matters, and how long the battery lasts.
abillybob Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 It should be said though that the Intel Core M-5Y31's Benchmarks are pretty much on par with some i5 Processors benchmarking scores, seen here Intel Core M-5Y31 - Benchmark & CPU Comparison - compare CPU at cpu-monkey so it's still not that bad of a processor. Though I think part of this is because I'm trying to persuade myself to buy a new shiny toy
Quackers Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Though I think part of this is because I'm trying to persuade myself to buy a new shiny toy Buy it! buy it! buy it! buy it!
abillybob Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Buy it! buy it! buy it! buy it! Hmmm should I though when I already have a 15" MacBook Pro from work....
Quackers Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Hmmm should I though when I already have a 15" MacBook Pro from work.... Thats work, you need a personal device. 1
LosOjos Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 I haven't cared about CPU speed in 10 years, get a grip people I genuinely have not cared for CPU speed in a long time. Since SSDs came out and operating systems started being designed more efficiently it really has not been a concern. This has been bugging me. Your statements do not add up. AFAIK, consumer SSDs have been around since 2007ish (less than 10 years). Here are some rough ideas on prices of SSDs over time: http://royal.pingdom.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/hdd-ssd.0022.jpg Source So let's just say SSDs were available to consumers in 2005, and for simplicity's sake let's just say the price remained the same as it was in 2007 (roughly $40/GB). For your claims to stand up RE caring more about an SSD than CPU speed, even a measly 64GB SSD would have cost you around $2,560 ten years ago. Are you really claiming that at those kinds of prices, you've been opting for SSDs over a better CPU for all that time? Or are you in fact just talking poop? 1
abillybob Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Thats work, you need a personal device. I have a Note 4 and a Gaming Rig at home though
Quackers Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 I have a Note 4 and a Gaming Rig at home though You work hard, you can justify treating your self. If you find you really don't have a need for it you can sell it after a few months and still get back 75% of its value.
abillybob Posted March 10, 2015 Posted March 10, 2015 Damn you @Quackers. Now I'm thinking about it,,, STOooooOOOOOOoooOOOOP!
zag Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) This has been bugging me. Your statements do not add up. AFAIK, consumer SSDs have been around since 2007ish (less than 10 years). Here are some rough ideas on prices of SSDs over time: So let's just say SSDs were available to consumers in 2005, and for simplicity's sake let's just say the price remained the same as it was in 2007 (roughly $40/GB). For your claims to stand up RE caring more about an SSD than CPU speed, even a measly 64GB SSD would have cost you around $2,560 ten years ago. Are you really claiming that at those kinds of prices, you've been opting for SSDs over a better CPU for all that time? Or are you in fact just talking poop? *Rustles around in desk drawer to find the old SSD's. Here are the first batch of SSD's we used (OK in 2007 I'll admit thats not quite 10 years but its still a while ago, they had an awesome PATA interface and 16gb capacity!!). And yes I've never looked at the CPU model since. I realized a long time ago the constant bump in components of computers with faster cpus, different motherboards, faster ram, more storage was just a complete joke. Its just a marketing department somewhere trying to sustain refresh cycles. Who needs a 0.5% increase in RAM speed, seriously! It always makes me laugh when I look at benchmarking sites and they show these graphs that the cpu is 20% fast and is an absolute "must buy" then the small subtext shows that it actually uses 20% more power and you need a new motherboard and memory type for it to work. I'd be far more inclined to buy a CPU based on power usage/battery life these days, rather than speed. 95% of computer use is launching apps or a chrome web browser for which SSD's made a huge improvement. Edited March 11, 2015 by zag
JRowley Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 To be honest CPU hasn't made a major difference in a long time for general day to day tasks, the real advances for CPUs have come in the form of specialised task improvements (such as physics, encoding/decoding video, encryption), reduced power consumption, reduced heat production. But upgrades come in cycles anyway, 12 years ago it was CPUs, then came RAM, now SSDs. We are running out of bottlenecks that need solving to be honest, I guess the next one will just be power consumption/battery capacity and overall component size.
zag Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 But upgrades come in cycles anyway, 12 years ago it was CPUs, then came RAM, now SSDs. We are running out of bottlenecks that need solving to be honest, I guess the next one will just be power consumption/battery capacity and overall component size. Yep, Apple has realized this and is way ahead of the pack. Next few years is all going to be about battery life, biometric security and style I think.
JRowley Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 Yep, Apple has realized this and is way ahead of the pack. Next few years is all going to be about battery life, biometric security and style I think. Sort of, but the idea of reducing overall size would be to fit more in, not reduce the size for the sake of reducing the size. All that's filled the space is batteries, it feels like a waste since I can't think of a time when I would be without a charger for 9 hours.
zag Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 Some nice new peripherals being released as well. USB-C sounds live a revolution! LaCie snuggles up to Apple’s slim 12-inch MacBook with fat HDD • The Register
localzuk Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 Sort of, but the idea of reducing overall size would be to fit more in, not reduce the size for the sake of reducing the size. All that's filled the space is batteries, it feels like a waste since I can't think of a time when I would be without a charger for 9 hours. I can. I've needed to take multiple spare batteries in the past whilst travelling. My trip home to see my parents is 13 hours, and often there's no access to any charging points.
JRowley Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 I can. I've needed to take multiple spare batteries in the past whilst travelling. My trip home to see my parents is 13 hours, and often there's no access to any charging points. Perhaps though plug sockets on airplanes and trains are becoming increasingly common, in fact where I am I can't get on a train without it having a plug socket by the seat, well except on the local service, but that's not long distance travel.
Roberto Posted March 11, 2015 Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) Oh no I know Style sells, but what happened to Apple producing high quality hardware which 'just works', now it 'just works' if you buy a load of extra stuff because they couldn't make it 'just work' to begin with because it wouldn't look stylish enough. Despite the fact that having a massive adapter hanging off the side looks ridiculous. You know, this is the sort of stuff that people said about the macbook air, which now looks like an entirely reasonable platform for the age we're in now. Apple might well have some things wrong here and there(*) but they're basically predicting where they think the market will go and are trying to get ahead of the curve. As for the extras/adapters - if you need an adapter plugged in all the time because you need whatever feature then Apple would doubtless suggest that you should be looking at the MB Air or MB Pro instead. It's almost like they're trying to sell a range of laptops at different levels to meet the requirements of different groups of people. Stupid Apple - such a thing will never catch on. (* I certainly think they should have added another USB 3 port, but the issue here may be that they're waiting for Thunderbolt 3 to be ready, which it isn't quite yet) Edited March 11, 2015 by Roberto
Popular Post Arthur Posted March 12, 2015 Author Popular Post Posted March 12, 2015 @synaesthesia. You'll enjoy this video. 5
rich_tech Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 I find myself in the market for either an air or a rmbp here in the coming weeks I think, I agree with a point made earlier in the thread, I just fancy a different system at home compared to work I think and I have had a chromebook for a year now and would say that it does not cut it by comparison as you can't do everything on it its about 80% compatible with what I use a PC for as it lacks gaming and connectivity to iphone/ipod (I know thats a two way street there though with it pretty much closed off). I looked at the MacBook when it was announced the other day and the USB-C connection seems an annoyance to me, I understand that this is the early adoption end of it so it will be expensive, but I think that device there has a chronic lack of ports with the one, I don't fancy having to bridge the gap in the interim to get devices to plug in would just frustrate me, compared to the connectors on the other machines which are abundant, its impressive technology and high end marketing bs as you always get from apple to be fair, Its interesting and offputting as well that the keyboard is supposed to be awful from reviews I am reading, I also felt that it was too expensive comparative to the other models available, considering you can get retina on a mbp for cheaper.
Norphy Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) I think, on reflection, the thing that annoys me most about the new Macbook is its screen resolution. Sure, it's a 2304x1440 screen which sounds nice on paper but then you have to think of how Apple Retina displays work. By default, they don't do 100/125/150% scaling like Windows boxes do, they are merely pixel doubled screens. So that means that these screens have an "effective" resolution of 1152x720. FFS. That's worse than an 11" MacBook Air. That's worse than my old early 2008 13" Macbook. That's worse than the fracking 8" Dell Venue Pro 8 sitting on my desk. Apple haven't sold a screen with that poor a vertical resolution since god knows when. Could they have not given us a 2560x1600 screen so that it doesn't seem like that you're using a laptop with the same usable screen area as something from 1997? Sure, everything will be pin sharp but you'd have less room to actually do anything! (Yes, I know that you can turn scaling on so you could get a 1280x800 or 1440x900 equivalent working area but that's a performance compromise in itself) Edited March 12, 2015 by Norphy
mac_shinobi Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 There's nothing wrong with the Core M. It depends what you want to use the machine for - the Core M is a lot lighter on your battery than an i5 and is equivalent to a bottom end 4th gen i5 (just - if you get the wind behind it). If I had to have a Mac though, I'd get the one with the the 5th gen i5 and put up with the extra weight (which is all batteries by the looks of those stats for battery life). Which year apples use the 5th gen cpu's ? 2012 ??
Arthur Posted March 12, 2015 Author Posted March 12, 2015 (edited) Which year apples use the 5th gen cpu's? 2012? 5th gen. Intel Core CPUs have only just been released. The only Macs that have the Core M are the Early 2015 Macbooks (Core M-5Y31 & 5Y51). The MacBook Air has a Core i5-5250U (also 5th gen.). Edited March 12, 2015 by Arthur Corrections
mac_shinobi Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 5th gen. Intel Core CPUs have only just been released. The only Macs that have them are the new Macbook and MacBook Air. Doh , ok
Ric_ Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 The new 13" Macbook Pros are 5th gen dual-core i5s and i7s with Iris 6100 graphics too.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now