Mr. Gibs Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I bet you won't be able to find a laptop with a battery that lasts as long as the MacBook's though. Currently? Apple macbook pro 17 is only dual core so it has an integrated GPU hence the power sucking nvidia GPU can be disabled. Most other laptops use an i7 quad core, with no integrated gpu (mine gets about 4 hours battery life which isn't bad but doesn't make a difference to me..pretty much anywhere I am, there's a power port unless its like a 20 hour car journey). However, the sandy bridge quad core i7s do have an integrated gpu and according to andantech benchmarks gives 6-8 hours battery life. Here's the battery life graph for heavy flash web surfing: Yes I know it says HD3000 graphics, and that's probably assuming that the GPU won't be on (nVidia optimus or w/e) during web surfing since the HD3000 is actually a pretty dam good integrated GPU (finally Intel!). Yes, those figures are accurate. Best-case, running at 100nits, quad-core Sandy Bridge still lasted nearly eight hours on a single charge! What’s more interesting is that our standard Internet battery life test that loads four pages with Flash ads every sixty seconds still checks in just shy of seven hours. Finally, H.264 playback also comes in at the top of our charts, providing more than four hours of demanding video playback. If 240 minutes of content off your HDD/SSD isn’t enough, we also were able to watch a Blu-ray disc and still get 220 minutes of 35Mbit VLC playback. Wow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
COKid Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 2 words: Caveat emptor :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fsX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I thought it was known fact like the world is round that you don't buy you're memory from Apple. I'm memory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillAholic Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I believe the reason for such a high price has already been mentioned. Any upgrade over the standard costs Apple more money to product, needing additional workers and time to be put together. Apple also does not come out with near as many products as other PC makers, and often doesn't update their prices as often either. I think you've stumbled upon a time where those prices have fallen a lot, and Apple hasn't adjusted it's pricing. Back in 2004, Dell was the same when it came to RAM. The ram upgrade from dell was 3-4 times more expensive then getting actual faster RAM on newegg. I don't see why Apple should be ashamed when the entire industry does this. It's always going to be cheaper to buy your parts separate. My new system is over 1k less then if I would have bought it from Dell. It's the Industry. Speaking of Apple users, a few friends of mine who are total mac fanboys also buy upgrades, be it ram or hard drives on newegg, but I'm sure those that are not tech savy would just as easily buy through Apple, just like they would if they had a Dell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rudy Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I though it was pretty well known that if you want more memory in your mac you should upgrade it yourself :unsure: (unless you're getting the MBA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azure.sapphire Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 True, all vendors will rip you off to some degree. However, charging $600 for 8gigs is insane. The most expensive seems to be the Mac Mini. The price standard seem to be $400 to go from 4gig to 8gigs, though some iMac configurations can be upgraded from 4 to 8 for $200. As for Dell, the typical experience is (though expensive, a bit more realistic): Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evo_spook Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Currently? Apple macbook pro 17 is only dual core so it has an integrated GPU hence the power sucking nvidia GPU can be disabled. Most other laptops use an i7 quad Eh? Apple macbook pro 17 is either i5 or i7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Southern Patriot Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Eh? Apple macbook pro 17 is either i5 or i7 You do know that there are both dual and quad core versions of both the i5 and i7, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iKenndac Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Didn't someone say that Apple full-on claims that ONLY "Mac memory" works in their products? Because if that's the case, then I think people have every right to be upset at this kind of bs. Le sigh! Ok, here are some relevant quotes from the iMac user guide: Your iMac comes with at least 4 gigabytes (GB) of Double Data Rate 3 (DDR3) Dynamic Random Access memory (DRAM) installed as two 2 GB memory modules. You can replace or install additional 2 GB or 4 GB memory modules for up to a maximum of 16 GB. Memory modules must meet the following specifications: Small Outline Dual Inline Memory Module (SO-DIMM) format 1333 MHz, PC3-10600, DDR3 compliant (also referred to as DDR3 1333) Unbuffered and unregistered WARNING: Apple recommends that you have an Apple-certified technician install memory. Consult the service and support information that came with your iMac for information about how to contact Apple for service. If you attempt to install memory and damage your equipment, that damage isn?t covered by the limited warranty on your iMac. Then, a few pages later: If the memory you installed doesn?t meet specifications (see page 36), your iMac will sound three tones every five seconds. If this happens, shut down your iMac and check the installation instructions again to make sure that the memory is compatible with your iMac and that it?s installed correctly. If you still have problems, remove the memory and consult the support information that came with the memory or contact the vendor who provided the memory. At no point do Apple say that Apple memory is required. The guy who said the Apple Tech he spoke to told him that is either lying or was speaking to a tech who was lying or misinformed. You can check out the manual here (PDF link). The memory pages are 35-42. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorbing Posted February 13, 2011 Author Share Posted February 13, 2011 Le sigh! Ok, here are some relevant quotes from the iMac user guide: Then, a few pages later: At no point do Apple say that Apple memory is required. The guy who said the Apple Tech he spoke to told him that is either lying or was speaking to a tech who was lying or misinformed. You can check out the manual here (PDF link). The memory pages are 35-42. I said it and I have NO reason to lie about that. He DID say that to me on the phone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Neo Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 I said it and I have NO reason to lie about that. He DID say that to me on the phone. Then he was misinformed. These things happen. Time to move on. You can make a huge drama out of this, but in the end you do have a choice. The memory Apple provided you with isn't from some cheap poor quality brand either like you make it out to be, as explained earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Gibs Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 Eh? Apple macbook pro 17 is either i5 or i7 Yes and they're both dual core. Most other laptop manufacturers go with the quad core versions. Now all the i5s have an integrated GPU (essentially if I went with the i5 and a 435M my battery life was tested to be about 5-6 hours) but only the dual core i7s have one. The arrandale / clarksfield i7 quad cores do not have an integrated GPU...however the new sandy bridge ones do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis W. Veteran Posted February 13, 2011 Veteran Share Posted February 13, 2011 Currently? Apple macbook pro 17 is only dual core so it has an integrated GPU hence the power sucking nvidia GPU can be disabled. Most other laptops use an i7 quad core, with no integrated gpu (mine gets about 4 hours battery life which isn't bad but doesn't make a difference to me..pretty much anywhere I am, there's a power port unless its like a 20 hour car journey). However, the sandy bridge quad core i7s do have an integrated gpu and according to andantech benchmarks gives 6-8 hours battery life. Here's the battery life graph for heavy flash web surfing: Yes I know it says HD3000 graphics, and that's probably assuming that the GPU won't be on (nVidia optimus or w/e) during web surfing since the HD3000 is actually a pretty dam good integrated GPU (finally Intel!). ... That's amazing. Guess I should've waited for SB then. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyX Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 ... That's amazing. Guess I should've waited for SB then. :/ I would wait for official graphics benchmarks before saying this. Processor-wise, you should have waited. Graphics-wise, I will need to have proofs when they?re out. Anyways, when did you buy it? Recently or... ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tha Bloo Monkee Posted February 13, 2011 Share Posted February 13, 2011 And by buying that Mac in the first place you're supporting practices like that. Are you honestly that surprised? It's RAM, nothing super special about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CronicHazel Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 As much as I respect Apple's hardware and overall build quality, even the most die-hard fan of Apple should at least admit that a $600 ram upgrade is one of the most outrageous overprices ever lol You know that there is some poor nice, albeit wealthy, bloke that wouldn't have thought twice about researching and plunked down the cash for the upgrade D: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Gibs Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 I would wait for official graphics benchmarks before saying this. Processor-wise, you should have waited. Graphics-wise, I will need to have proofs when they’re out. Anyways, when did you buy it? Recently or... ? Graphics wise? For dedicated GPUs I'm pretty sure you can figure out the benchmarks for yourself, but as for the integrated GPU (HD 3000): http://www.anandtech.com/show/4084/intels-sandy-bridge-upheaval-in-the-mobile-landscape/5 http://www.anandtech.com/show/4084/intels-sandy-bridge-upheaval-in-the-mobile-landscape/6 As for processor, really you only should have waited if you wanted better battery life. In terms of performance...while the new sandy core mobile chips are pretty dam good, real world usage you wouldn't notice too much of a difference (unless you encode large amounts of videos or something). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PyX Posted February 14, 2011 Share Posted February 14, 2011 Graphics wise? For dedicated GPUs I'm pretty sure you can figure out the benchmarks for yourself, but as for the integrated GPU (HD 3000) The HD 3000 and the 320M are pretty much on par. Not so bad, but a year late. It?s sad to see Apple going back to an integrated GPU though. And if I remember well, it?s Intel that forces this with their Sandy Bridge architecture, Apple couldn?t go with nVidia or ATI. Yay... :pinch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
While You Were Art Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 A couple of points before I go off on a rant about alarming memory problems with the current iMac. Though I detest brand loyalty, reviews of the 2010 model generally state that it is competitively priced when you take into account the quality of the panel and the case. Apple computers sell on a formula of aesthetics on top of a solidly reliable operating system without fear of viruses, time spent chasing malware, defragging, etc. So, okay, if Steve 'gets it' where other manufactures stubbornly think people want yearn to put a bland plastic box in their living rooms that they spent time and effort decorating... how come he doesn't get, or care, that Apple create poor public relations and reduced sales by fleecing people over memory upgrades? And yes, I know there are instances where HP and Dell do this, too, but with Apple the image sticks because of a certain arrogance from the Apple community. With the 2010 model of the iMac you have to be careful when selecting memory even if it conforms to the correct specification. The most reported frustration with that model is the computer crashes when using 16GB of ram. At first the assumption was a faulty production run of 2010 iMacs. With ram being so cheap at the moment people have been going out and maxing out their new iMac. Having worked my way through huge threads about this it seems that only Samsung and Hynix memory works where memory from otherwise reliable vendors like Crucial and Kingston, etc do not. The other brands reportedly work fine up to 12GB, or at least are less prone to specific crashes. This is frustrating for me. Buying memory cheaply online is a lottery from some vendors who state their memory is sourced from a variety of manufacturers to ensure cheapest price. Unlike Crucial and Kingston, etc, I can't find specific customer websites for Samsung and Hynix, or am I missing something? There are some companies who state specific brands but, bar one unrated company, I haven't been able to find anyone in the UK who specifically sells the stated Samsung or Hynix memory. I like to buy from a local vendor or at least someone based in the UK. I feel sorry for people who bought memory, found it didn't work and went through the process of RMAing it over and over. What a mess. So, without wanting to defend Apple or HP or Dell or whoever people want to bash, I can see why some people are willing to pay way over the odds for something guaranteed to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Neo Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 Though I detest brand loyalty, reviews of the 2010 model generally state that it is competitively priced when you take into account the quality of the panel and the case. Yup, stand-alone monitors with the same quality panel found in the 27-inch iMac sell for around $1000. http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=224-8284&~ck=baynoteSearch&baynote_bnrank=5&baynote_irrank=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon_ Posted February 17, 2011 Share Posted February 17, 2011 I'll start by saying yes, i'm an Apple fan. The 27" imac i'm typing this from doesn't have any competitor that even comes close to the quality. Same as my 13" MBP. However, is the RAM a rip off? Completely. That's a given shopping with Apple. Hence I go for as low as I can, and then buy 3rd party from Crucial and install myself. 2x 4gb sticks for £28? Yes please. Their ram prices are outrageous, there isn't a Mac user out there who could justify it. I don't know why they have such an obscene markup on it, but trolling comments like "it's what apple do, death to apple, blah blah blah" is just ignorance. Yes, Apple charge a lot for their machines. But the quality is the reason - any Mac user could tell you and you'd have to own / try one to understand. Ram on the other hand is a mystery. No excuse. Just don't buy it from them, it's simple enough to install yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts