- DusK
- |
- Noble Legendary Member
You posted nothing to address my point. You just found the most absurdly expensive Vaio you could find, linked it, and then linked the front page for Macbook Pro.
People would have to be as equally as retarded to buy that Vaio as they would for a Mac Pro, or as I explain later in this post, a Macbook Pro. You have proven nothing.
Now, if you had read my argument, you'd have noticed that I was addressing the stock Mac Pro specifically. A desktop. A stock Mac Pro has:
One 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon Nehalem processor
3GB DDR3 ECC SDRAM
Radeon HD 5770 1GB video card
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s hard drive
That costs $2,500. My PC, which only costed me a mere $1024, has:
One 3.3 GHz Intel Core i5 2500K quad-core processor (3.7GHz TurboBoost)
8GB DDR3 G.Skill Ripjaws X RAM
nVidia GTX 480 1.5GB video card
1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 6 Gb/s hard drive
Basically, all of these critical specs on my system are better than a Mac Pro. That's right. My system costs less than half of the starting point of a "state-of-the-art" Mac desktop and blows it out of the damn water.
Now for fun, let's compare your oh-so-precious MacBook to my laptop.
My 17" laptop, an MSI GX740 which cost me $1,200, has:
Intel Core i7 720QM
4GB DDR3 RAM
ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870
320GB HDD
The cheapest 17" Macbook Pro costs $2,500, and despite beating mine in terms of HDD space and processor speed (marginally), it doesn't even have a dedicated graphics chip. Not only that, but the i7 720QM TurboBoosts up to 2.8GHz, unlike the Macbook Pro's 2.4GHz quad-core. Recap: My $1,200 17" laptop is actually better for gaming performance than a $2,500 17" Macbook Pro.
So much bang for the buck, right? Your move, fanboy.
[Edited on 01.12.2012 3:19 AM PST]