Linked by mjhi11 on Thu 16th Sep 2010 20:13 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 441562
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by Tuishimi
by kaiwai on Sat 18th Sep 2010 03:13
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Tuishimi"
The the issue here are the XXXes in the model number. There are plenty of (cheaper) gaming laptops with far more powerful gpus and much greater space and heat dissipation constraints...
Yes, which means that some of us don't want a laptop that is over two inches thick, horrible battery life and like carrying around a tank in ones bag all day. I'd sooner have a machine that has a good battery life that is slightly less powerful than the alternative offered by pc vendors.
RE[6]: Comment by Tuishimi
by _txf_ on Sat 18th Sep 2010 18:17
in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Tuishimi"
That is true but you didn't see the my point. What I meant to say was that there are no technical reasons to but anemic gpus in an imac, especially considering macbook pros can have much more powerful gpus relative to its tiny size, why can't imacs. If you want a powerful gpu in a desktop mac you have to get a mac pro (which sometimes comes with exceptionally bad gfx cards relative to it's other specs and price).





Member since:
2008-03-17
So a Radeon 5XXX series video card and 4GB of RAM as standard is considered horrible these days?
The the issue here are the XXXes in the model number. There are plenty of (cheaper) gaming laptops with far more powerful gpus and much greater space and heat dissipation constraints...