Graphics of 2.0 ghz vs. 2.4 ghz models? Thoughts?
103863
The graphics on the 2.0Ghz model are perfectly fine for your purposes. I have one of these machines and it is excellent for just what you plan to do. Enjoy!
1313634
As I know the A8 has between 2.4 thru 2.9 Ghz rating and not 4.3 as you have related unless you are looking at extreme overclocking. Also, the HD graphics has a lower rating of 7550D and 6550D AMD graphics integrated into the processor. The A10 series graphics 7660HD graphics with 512MB DDR3 capability. If you want to really go for the gold then try checking out the A10-6800K APU. This is new to the market and even faster. It can max to 4.4 Ghz per core and has an even bigger graphics array. Hope this helps.
1512108
Mine is an XPS15 / 9530, CPU is an I7-4702HQ running at 2.20GHz, 500GB SSD, 16GB DDR3. Native display resolution is 3200x1800 -- absolutely gorgeous. The vast majority of the apps I use are fully supported in this resolution and look great. So far, only the Foxit PDF suite doesn't "know" how to scale properly. Movies look great, the laptop boots in seconds, is extremely fast -- beautiful form factor. I've had this for several months, use many hours every day, and take it on planes twice a week. Very happy with the choice -- best machine I've owned.
138397
Since you plan on keeping it a long time (more than 5 years), it might be best to get the i7. However the difference between them does not appear to be significant. I too am about to buy a Pro. I was gonna get the i7 but after watching countless Youtube videos and reading reviews about it I decided paying $400 more from the 2.4 ghz i5 was not worth the miniscule bump in power. From what I gather on youtube, the 2.4ghz is capable of playing all current games on high or close to high settings (not extremely high though). I've seen videos of people playing everything from Modern Warfare 2 to Mass Effect 2 to Crysis with relative ease. I've also seen a video of someone testing how capable the i5 was at multitasking by running multiple programs at the same time. He had 3 VMware windows open + itunes + email + Dreamweaver and a few others open and it ran very smoothly. If you are planing on keeping your Pro for at least 10 years (not impossible) then you may as well get the i7. If like me you predict you might upgrade in 5 years or so, then I would get the 2.4 ghz i5. The difference between that and the i7 is rather small and not worth the extra $400. Check out this video for more info: www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0-l37pgqa0 In case the link isn't working just go to Youtube and type in "2.4 GHz Core i5 or Core i7 2.66 GHz MacBook Pro". Also, according to this review, the 2.4 ghz i5 is faster than the 2.8 ghz mid 2009 macbook pro: www.macworld.com/article/150146/2010/04/15inch_macbookpro_corei5i7.html
1580580
I'd say look more into the new r9 graphics line that recently came out, i believe they arent that much more but otherwise it works great for me, all the power I require
1597732
Yes, I have it overclocked to 4.0GHz in my system and it runs great for video editing and rendering in addition to gaming, definitely worth the money.
1450405
you can go either way, if you need to use onboard graphics though, you need to have a CPU with that capability... check Intels site for which CPUs support onboard graphics
1572220
I have not noticed that the colors or graphics are inferior so they must be o.k. It has actually been a good computer for my needs, fast and responsive. I use it for autocad which is pretty graphics heavy and haven't had any problems.
1910069
Yes it does, but it's the basic Intel graphics. It's not even as powerful as Intel's HD 2000 graphics. It's pretty terrible for gaming, but for basic things it should work pretty well.
2224464
Honestly, the speed means very, very little. You're talking differences of less than 1% performance under most circumstances. 1600MHz is enough for basically everything.
468031
The i5-3470t has integrated on the die Intel 2500HD graphics on the processor. My windows experience index (WIE) for this is rated at 5.0, which is respectable.
1058334
Edison Sandoval knows what he's talking about his answer is correct. John Livingston does not know on board graphics vs. the 880M. The on board graphics will share the system memory not the 880.
1513472
that is correct. My friend has one with the NVIDIA chipset built upon the board. It produces stunning graphics on screen and with Corel Photoshop it breezes right thru picture manipulation.
2224202
I have this model but it all depends on which model you get. Some come with a Core i3. I have the i5 model and I can play most 3d games on medium to high settings well.
1628631
supports opengl 4.2http://www.evga.com/Products/Product.aspx?pn=02G-P4-3653-KR
2189677
I'm running a 2.something card so I'm not 100% sure. If it doesn't say so in the specs I'd keep looking for one that specifies 3.0
1498825
Surprisingly hard to find o the Intel site. Unless Intel Celeron 847 has changed it looks like Intel HD Graphics 2000:http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=143433&pid;=1224234#pid1224234