Linden LAN » Macbook

9600M GT versus 8600M GT versus 9400M

Brian — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:14:17 +0000

I’m in the market for a new laptop and I purposefully waited for the new MacBooks to be released. I priced out a Dell XPS M1330 and once the features are matched up as close as I can make them, there’s a $60 price difference in favor of the Dell. $1599 vs $1533. The MacBook comes out ahead in GPU, FSB, and operating system (OS X > Vista because of Unix) and the Dell comes out ahead in terms of connectors (HDMI, Firewire, card reader, ExpressCard slot, etc.). I tried to configure a comparable Ubuntu machine, but the processor speed is fixed at 2.0 GHz and easily went over compared to the $1299 MacBook. The only competitor now is a late model 15″ MacBook Pro which for refurb starts at $1349—a very tasty price indeed. The MBP matches the advantages of the m1330 and has a better GPU, screen size, and resolution than the new MacBook. How much better is the GPU? Let’s see.

Based on the numbers provided by the keynote, the 9400M is 82% as good as the 8600M GT at best and 55% as good at worst. Looking at the numbers on the Apple website, comparing the new MacBook Pro to the new MacBook, the 9600M GT is 1.5 to 2.3 times better than the 9400M. I also looked at the benchmarks at Notebookcheck.com which say that the 9600M GT is 25% better than the 8600M GT and the 8400M is only 44% as good as the 8600M GT. So with all these relative numbers, the ranking is approximately:

9600M GT	100%
8600M GT	80%
9400M	67%	44%
8400M GS	35%

If you’re not convinced, here’s the sanity check… 67/80 ~= 82%. 44/80 = 55%. 100/67 ~= 1.5. 100/44 ~= 2.3. (100–80)/80 = 25%.

So is having 1lb less weight and faster FSB and memory at the cost of having a GPU that’s 55% to 82% as good, smaller screen/resolution, and less connections worth an extra $250? I don’t plan to travel much, but when I do I like to travel light. I don’t plan to game, and I’m more likely to do more computationally intensive tasks than graphic intensive tasks. I also don’t own that many peripherals. While home, the laptop will be hooked up to an external monitor. The new MacBook fits my needs better, but the late model MacBook Pro seems to be the better value. I’ve got the money sitting in the bank. Decisions, decisions.

UPDATE (04 Jan 2009): Two and a half weeks ago, I was hired by a company as a contractor and they are predominantly Macs. The fan on my old Compaq seemed to be dying since the laptop overheats and freezes, so it had to be replaced. So I settled on purchasing a 15″ early-2008 MacBook Pro. My primary reason was lighting in the office was not conducive to a glossy screen and I got more bang for the buck with the MPB since there was very little performance advantages between the old and newer models. Then of course I hear it’s not easy to drag & drop and use graphic editors with the new trackpad. Plus I didn’t have to go through the added hassle and expense of purchasing an adapter for hooking up to my monitor. For resale value, I opted to get the 2.5 GHz with 512MB video ram for $1499 since the hard drive and memory can be upgraded later. In any case, it’s still cheaper than the 13″ 2.4 GHz Macbook. However, having traveled with this laptop to LA and back, I have to say, a 13″ version would have been more comfortable to use on the plane. Here’s hoping Apple, brings back matte screens and lowers the price on the 13″ models.

Apple Fell Too Far From The Tree This Time

Brian — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:25:17 +0000

So the keynote has come and gone. My prediction like many others didn’t pan out as expected. The MacBook Air is yet one of Apple’s many love-it-or-hate-it products. It appeals to some but certainly not all. I think the biggest problem Apple made is in the pricing. The price just isn’t in line with the raw specs. The general consumer isn’t going to care or even necessarily understand that a hard drive with a smaller form factor is more expensive than a larger one with the same capacity. (e.g. The MacBook Air packs a 1.8″ hard drive and not a typical 2.5″ one.) Especially considering their own base MacBook is 67% faster with 20% more battery life (user-replaceable) for 39% less money and only for 67% more weight (not that 5 lbs is really all that heavy to begin with). Would it really have been that hard for Apple to iMac-ify their entire notebook product line, upgrade the touchpads to use the new multitouch features, put LED backlights across the product line, apply some of the MacBook Air design ideas like dropping the super-drive? That would probably shed a pound off the base MacBook in which case it’s 4 lbs versus MBA’s 3 lbs in the same footprint if not the same volume. Perhaps like the Newton, the MacBook Air is ahead of its time. Then again it may be so off the mark it’ll die a slow death unlike the Palm Folio. Judging from the comments at various sites and forums, I wasn’t the only one hoping for a MacBook redesign which is arguably long overdue. Consumers weren’t the only ones who were disappointed. Wall Street saw a drop in the stock price which I’m sure will be made up sooner or later. On a good note, the Apple TV is more appealing, but I would still rather get a Mac Mini and turn it into a MythTV frontend. So much more versatile. But before that happens I need to finish outfitting my MythTV server.

Will The New Mac Be An Ultraportable?

Brian — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 04:58:31 +0000

Tomorrow is the infamous Macworld keynote. More than likely a new Mac will be introduced. As the date slowly approaches, the rumor mill has been buzzing about a potential product name called Air—Macbook Air, AirBook, what have you. Of note, is that there was confirmation that Apple had ordered a bunch of 13″ screens. Now, 13″ screens are certainly on the large side when it comes to screen real estate even if a notebook comes in under 4 lbs. Personally I think it needs to have small dimensions, not just be lightweight to be considered an ultraportable. You can’t exactly slip a 13″ notebook as easily as a eeePC into your (man) purse. There’s also the fact that the standard MacBook looks so out of place with its brethren right now, even if it got a token hardware refresh a few months ago. Personally, I’m hedging my bets that the new Macbook will most likely be just a redesigned Macbook and will be a stepping stone for design queues to move up into the Pro line. I’m not the only one who thinks this. (Others speculate that it may turn out to be an iTouch-esque tablet.) It’ll certainly be lighter, faster, and every inch as beautiful as the other aluminum SKUs, but certainly no eeePC matchup. Imagine Apple putting out a $500–600 subnotebook. Would that cannibalize Mini sales? Probably not. As the eeePC has shown, niche markets can work. But still, would Apple even shoot for that price point? And if you can’t wait for Apple to come out with a subnotebook (assuming one isn’t announced tomorrow), you could always hack your eeePC to run Mac OS X.