2011 Macbook Pro owners
I'm looking to buy a new MBP and need advice concerning the 15" versus the 13". I have three questions.
1) Does Logos 4 automatically invoke the dedicated GPU or does it use the integrated?
2) Will Logos 4 use 4 cores (8 pipes) or just 2 cores?
3) How often does Logos 4 tax the processor? Is it just during indexing?
Thanks for your help!
Comments
-
Logos automatically benefits from the performance of the better MacBook. How much more it does so might vary. A discrete graphics card probably will be more beneficial than the processor, but you really do want that. If you can't spend the extra cash to get a 15 inch, put more money into RAM or an SSD.
The mind of man is the mill of God, not to grind chaff, but wheat. Thomas Manton | Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow. Richard Baxter
0 -
Macbook Pro 17" 2.3 GHz Intel Core i7 with 8GB 1333MHz DDR3
1) Don't know
2) Don't know... but I do know it hauls on reindexing when it kicks into turbo mode
3) Doesn't tax my processor unless indexing, even then the machine can comfortably run other apps
Dr. Kurt Trucksess
www.christ2Rculture.com0 -
Michael,
Logos 4 will only benefit from the dedicated graphics card if it automatically kicks in which I'm not sure it does. Also, I always thought graphics cards helped in the video/3D areas. Logos 4 isn't doing any of that is it?
Kurt,
How often does indexing/reindexing occur? Thanks!
0 -
1) Yes it does. Whenever you start Logos, the dedicated GPU takes over. You can tell by using a freeware program called gfxCardStatus.
2) It does use 4 cores.
3) As far as I can tell, the processor is never taxed. I have a 15" and notice no slowdown in other applications while running Logos - even when it is indexing I can hum along without any slowdown.
I would, without a doubt, go with the 15". The 13" will do what you need it to do, but it is not nearly as "future-proof" as the 15. Also, coming from a 13" Macbook, the extra screen real-estate is awesome. You get a much better resolution on the 15" when you get the BTO high resolution screen. Will you spend a lot more money? Yeah. Is it worth it? Absolutely.
0 -
Lankford - you'd be surprised what applications cause the machine to switch over to the dedicated GPU. Applications like Sparrow Mail and Skype, which you would not expect to need a graphics boost utilize the dedicate GPU. In fact, relatively few applications use the integrated graphics. Safari and TextEdit use the integrated graphics, but for the most part, everything else will cause your machine to switch.
Indexing only occurs when you get updates from Logos - either software or resources.
0 -
Lankford Oxendine said:
How often does indexing/reindexing occur?
Initial installation of Logos 4 Mac builds a complete Bible and Library indexes (several hours). If automatic downloads are enabled and updated resource file(s) are downloaded, the updated resource(s) are indexed and incrementally merged into Bible and Library indexes (many minutes). Also, purchasing resource(s) should be followed by resource download and incremental indexing (minutes).
Likewise, some Logos 4 release updates need to rebuild Bible and Library indexes. For example, Logos 4.2a needed to completely rebuild Bible and Library indexes (several hours). Logos 4.2a SR-4 included a note that index rebuild may be needed; since had rebuilt indexes in Logos 4.2a SR-3 to index recent purchases, Logos 4.2a SR-4 did a complete index rebuild. Logos 4.2a SR-1 and Logos 4.2a SR-2 did not need to rebuild indexes.
Lankford Oxendine said:I'm looking to buy a new MBP and need advice concerning the 15" versus the 13".
For screen size, recommend visiting an Apple Store to look at both screens http://www.apple.com/retail/storelist/ The 15" Mac Book Pro has 2 screen resolutions: 1440x900 (default) OR 1680x1050 (high-res option)
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
I appreciate the replies. Andrew thinks the extra money for the 15" is worth it. I would be interested in other opinions. Thanks!
0 -
Lankford Oxendine said:
I appreciate the replies. Andrew thinks the extra money for the 15" is worth it. I would be interested in other opinions. Thanks!
Opinions: 2nd Generation Intel Core i5 or i7 is attractive. Also like Solid State Disk (SSD). For screen size and resolution, needs to be comfortable for your eyes (personally prefer 17" screen size and resolution).
Logos 4 Mac wiki page includes "Logos 4 is resource intensive on Mac & PC – benefits from fast processor, graphics, and disk along with adequate memory (i.e. newer hardware since Logos 4 being designed for use over 5 to 8 years)."
Mac Rumors has a Buyer's Guide => http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
Mac OS X Lion ships in a couple months => http://www.appleinsider.com/topics/Mac_OS_X_10.7.html
Observation: if wait to buy from Apple (new or refurbished) until Mac OS X Lion ships, a Lion installer could be included with purchase.
Apple's WorldWide Developer Conference is June 5-9 => http://www.appleinsider.com/topics/WWDC.html
Apple offers refurbished Mac models with same 1 year warranty as new => http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/specialdeals/mac (watching for 2011 Mac Book Pro models; not know when).
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Andrew Hanson said:
I would, without a doubt, go with the 15". The 13" will do what you need it to do, but it is not nearly as "future-proof" as the 15. Also, coming from a 13" Macbook, the extra screen real-estate is awesome. You get a much better resolution on the 15" when you get the BTO high resolution screen. Will you spend a lot more money? Yeah. Is it worth it? Absolutely.
Would you consider 1920x1200 on the 15" Mac if it were available?
I may get a 15.6" PC with 1600x900, though 1920x1080 is available - but I have a feeling the 1920x1080 would be too much for a 15.6" laptop and make things like icons too small - i.e., it would be unnecesarily high resolution.
So, would you go 1920x1200 on your 15" Mac if you could?
Thanks!
Optimistically Egalitarian (Galatians 3:28)
0 -
Hey Eric, I'd have to look at it to give you a good answer. What I can tell you is that my current MBP runs at 1680X1050, and I do not have any problems reading anything. Zooming in on webpages with a Mac is really easy - all you have to do is pinch to zoom - so when I run across something that is hard to read, I just pinch. The bottom line is that you should look at the display yourself before you purchase it. Personally, I'd much rather have a anti-glare screen at 15" than a higher resolution.
0 -
Eric Weiss said:
Would you consider 1920x1200 on the 15" Mac if it were available?
Yes, caveat: currently using a Windows 7 laptop with 16" LED backlight screen that has 1920 x 1080 resolution. Normal font display in a browser is about same size as my handwriting, which is comfortable for my eyes to read. Also know a friend who tried using 1920 x 1200 resolution on a 17" screen that returned the laptop because icons and text were too small (hard to read so eyes hurt). Hence recommend visiting an Apple Store => http://www.apple.com/retail/storelist/ to compare reading comfort; Apple employees are rated on quality time with customers (no sales pressure), yet Apple Store revenue per square foot is quite impressive (in Top 5 retailers).
After couple dozen Blue Screens of Death (BSOD) in Windows 7, hoping laptop hardware lasts long enough so can replace in few months with Apple Mac running Mac OS X Lion, preferably with 2nd Generation Intel Core i5 or i7, fast drive(s), and adequate memory for Logos 4 Mac (ideally with virtual machine running Logos 4 PC). For desktop use, like 27" iMac with massive 2560 x 1440 screen resolution, which is enjoyable to use with Logos 4 Mac.
For 15.4" screen on Mac Book Pro, Apple currently offers 1440 x 900 and 1680 x 1050 resolutions (easier to read for most people).
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
I discovered the value of a discrete card that I installed on my PC. It genuinely boosted the performance of Logos 4. We tend to think of graphics in terms of images. Anything being displayed on a modern computer makes use of graphics.
This happened to me also with another program a few years back now that I think of it. Nothing particularly heavy in imaging, but an inexpensive graphics card installed by my company's Help desk made an immediate improvement.
The mind of man is the mill of God, not to grind chaff, but wheat. Thomas Manton | Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow. Richard Baxter
0 -
I decided to go with the 15", 2.2 Quad, 8GB, 120GB SSD. Will be downloading Logos 4 tomorrow. Thanks for all your help!
0 -
Lankford Oxendine said:
I decided to go with the 15", 2.2 Quad, 8GB, 120GB SSD. Will be downloading Logos 4 tomorrow. Thanks for all your help!
How does it run L4?
0 -
It takes 12 seconds to launch with a simple layout. I have the Vertex 3 with 500MB/s reads so this is disappointing to me. There seems to be a slight delay and lag with most things but nothing extreme. I'm sure compared to most other computers my MBP runs L4 with great speed but L4 is definitely the slowest program on my machine. The dedicated graphics card does automatically kick in but the quad core cpu generally does not (indexing, searching only uses one core). I have also had several crashes at startup depending on the layout I'm using. To be honest, I'm considering getting a refund for L4 and going with the competitor but I'm sure there are downfalls with that program as well.
0 -
Lankford Oxendine said:
It takes 12 seconds to launch with a simple layout. I have the Vertex 3 with 500MB/s reads so this is disappointing to me. There seems to be a slight delay and lag with most things but nothing extreme. I'm sure compared to most other computers my MBP runs L4 with great speed but L4 is definitely the slowest program on my machine. The dedicated graphics card does automatically kick in but the quad core cpu generally does not (indexing, searching only uses one core). I have also had several crashes at startup depending on the layout I'm using. To be honest, I'm considering getting a refund for L4 and going with the competitor but I'm sure there are downfalls with that program as well.
Let us know how the Mac competition is for you. I'm going that way myself. See you on the other side. [:)]
0 -
Lankford Oxendine said:
It takes 12 seconds to launch with a simple layout.
Please post a screen shot of simple layout (curious what items are included).
Lankford Oxendine said:To be honest, I'm considering getting a refund for L4 and going with the competitor but I'm sure there are downfalls with that program as well.
A seminary professor shared thoughts to ponder => http://community.logos.com/forums/p/23527/175885.aspx#175885
Appropriate Bible Study program(s) depends on personal needs. Some Logos users also use other program(s).
Keep Smiling [:)]
0 -
Lankford, just another data point...my simple layout of one commentary and one Bible takes 12-13 seconds to load as well. I have a new 2.2 GHz with 8GB RAM and a 750GB 7200 rpm hard drive.
0 -
Thanks Brian! This would seem to indicate that the SSD makes no difference with startup time which seems odd. What do you think about the general performance of L4 on your machine?
0 -
0 -
Lankford Oxendine said:
Wonder if launch time would be faster if change Bible search to Grid (vis Analysis):
along with turning off Reverse Interlinear Pane in King James Version:
Observation: in New Testament, personally prefer to display Greek in one panel with English in another, often using visual filters to highlight Greek morphological usage in both. Also like Louw-Nida pop-up with semantic domain (contextual) gloss:
Keep Smiling [:)]
0
