OK, I'm considering a new laptop, and I have some questions for you more knowledgeable folk.

Oblivion requires 3 GHz Intel Pentium 4 processor (depending on what you want). Would a 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor be the equivalent of a 2.4GHz Pentium? Or, would it have an effective maximum capacity of 1.2 GHz for one application? Basically, I want to make sure this will run Oblivion fine (2.4 Pentium would be fine on medium settings), or for that matter, other games. I figure if it can run Oblivion relatively well, it can do about anything.

Actually, in this specific instance I'm considering a Mac. So if anybody games with Macs, your information and experiences might be helpful (I plan on getting Windows on it as well).


PS: Is a 2.4 GHz that much better than a 2.2? With Macbooks, that and 40 gigs costs an extra 500 or so dollars.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 6 2008, 7:23 am by frazz.

A Core2Duo 2.4ghz is 2x2.4ghz
I am pretty sure Oblivion only needs 2.0ghz to play
1gb ram
Geforce 7XXX
5gb hard drive space
Those are the recommended specs
Gaming Laptops are expensive..

OOf, where to start..

Well first off, let us clear up the idea that clock speeds are the same. 2.4ghz of a Core 2 Duo processor is not the same as 2.4ghz of a Pentium 4 processor. In this case, the Core 2 Duo can do work per mhz, thus making it the better choice.

Second, dual core doesn't mean their added frequency is combined, or something. A dual core means that the processor has two cores, running at the same speeds. Each core, in this case, would run at 2.4ghz. This does not mean they add up to 4.8ghz, they're independant.

Anyway, a 2.4ghz Core 2 is rather powerful for a laptop, and it will run Oblivion fine. At that point, I do not think your processor will be the limiting factor for you as far as playing Oblivion goes.

Finally, for $500, that extra .2 ghz along with 40gb of HDD space carries a very steep price. It all really falls on how you feel, but I'll tell you right now that you're not going to see any really noticiable performance gain going from 2.2ghz to 2.4ghz. Whether the extra 40gb is worth it to you, you can decide, but remember there are always options such as external drives that would cost a bit less if you are worried of not having enough harddrive space.

I'm not particularly worried about hard drive space (I can get externals, as you said). I'm jut curious why it costs so much more for 2.4 as opposed to 2.2, and if it would be worth it.


Oh, one more, should I get the glossy or regular screen? How much better looking is the glossy, and how much does glare, and how often? How much lamer does a regular screen look, and does it protect against glare very well?

It costs much more probably because some people want the best of the best and are willing to pay for it that way, because they can't get it any other way. Also, HDD space in laptops is more expensive than HDD space in desktops. Personally, I wouldn't pay $500 dollars for it.

As far as glossy vs regular, I would see what you like in real life at an Apple Store, if possible. Also, try googling "glossy vs regular screen", I'm sure there will be tons of results with user input aswell.

Im a mac user so I know about this stuff. Oblivion will run very well on a macbook pro, an imac, or a macpro, however due to the graphics card (or lack thereof) it will not work on a macbook, mac mini, or macbook air. If you are adamant on a notebook, I would get the Macbook pro. If you would be fine with a desktop, I would certainly get the iMac instead... however, there is a product upgrade coming soon (most likely to the processor and video card), because the update just came out for the MBP and the MBs. So let me recap:

iMac, Macbook Pro, and Mac Pro will run oblivion fine

macmini macbook and macbook air will not

if you didn't need a laptop get an iMac AFTER next hardware revision.

edit: by "fine" I mean amazingly well.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 7 2008, 3:37 am by Praetor.

I recommend getting a windows xp/vista ultimate!

Why?

About those processor speeds... A 2.4 GHz single core Athlon 64 was faster than or just as fast as a 3.0 GHz single core Pentium 4 for gaming, as far as I know. A Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz is just as fast as or faster than a 3.0 GHz Athlon 64 X2 (also dual core cpu), as far as I know. Now with those relative comparisons, think of how much faster a Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz cpu is than a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4.

Worst. Reply. Ever.

Ok thanks guys, I think I know enough to get to making a decision.

just remember, if you plan on doing ANY gaming or video editing, a MacBook/Air/Mini WILL NOT WORK. THEY DO NOT MEET THE REQS. They won't even just run games slowly; they won't run them at all.

Correct
Macbook Pro starts at 2000 USD Its Cheaper if you get a different brand..and OS

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 10 2008, 12:18 am by Dapperdan. Reason: Don't troll -- warning

AS IF YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT

Don't be a troll. We don't need a bunch of stupid Mac vs PC arguments to come up, especially where people have only used one or the other anyway.

And the MacBook Pro does from a different brand, and it only comes in one Operating system.

MJ: You're being really trollish. If you're going to make a claim like that, you'll look like a lot less of an idiot if you make some attempt to back it up. Fact is, if you've ever had a Mac, you know it's way better than the XP GUI. If you're concerned about compatibility or pricing, you need to say so instead of making yourself look like a troll.
This topic isn't about debating Macs. If you want to talk about that, go somewhere else, or make your own topic.

Also for your information, I'm getting Vista and XP if I get a Macbook, it's really important to have for compatibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth
That should help you understand things a little better.

Would you mind posting specifically which macbook you are looking at?

EDIT: I'm guessing the cheapest two Macbooks? Both of them have integrated graphics, which aren't very good. You'd do best to hop on an Apple forum and ask around to see if anyone has been able to play, and at what quality levels.

If you really want to play all the newest games, you should get a regular laptop. Apple charges huge markup for the same hardware as Dell or HP. If you really want OS X, go with the macbook.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 8 2008, 7:41 pm by dumbducky.

Actually now I'm thinking not a Mac (I was gonna get a Macbook Pro). The lowest end one is pretty good and not too horribly overpriced. My main problem is that it's another 500 to get 512 instead of 256 on the graphics card. I really want the 512, but I can't justify buying a Macbook at this point.

The difference between 256mb and 512mb as far as performance goes is nearly minimal. The 8600GTM isn't strong powerful enough to take use of all that memory, really. Also, you're quite limited as far as resolution goes.

I think if you're interested in the MacBook Pro 256mb, go for that one.

Theres more in comparing processors then just frequency, thats all I'm going to say.

Not when the only difference between the processors is the frequency.

Really? so front side bus and cpu cache and 64 bit support and how much it heats up doesnt matter?