Macbooks

Unimpressively.

>>55435354

I suppose a better question would be what is better:

A ~1300 Macbook or a ~1300 Laptop

>>55435368
Laptop generally, by far.
Apple barely has any options for dedicated GPU. It's Intel Iris for most of their models.

File: 1436922731609.png (137KB, 636x727px)

137KB, 636x727px

>>55435330
Worse than Acer.

>inb4 that guy who always aggressively baits "mactoddlers" shows up

>>55435368
I could potentially find a ~1300 monies non-Apple laptop that is less capable than the comparably priced Macbook. But I could also find something more capable.

By the way, the word "better" is the Macbook of English. You could use less capable words, to be fair, but you might also consider using more capable ones.

File: DSCF4304.0.0.jpg (131KB, 1280x854px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1280x854px

>>55435368
It all depends on what you need. If you compare a macbook to a Windows laptop that tries to be a macbook, it'll be awfully close. Like Asus's Zenbook 3 (pic related, guess which one is the macbook kek) has a better processor, worse batter life, and a lower screen resolution than the baseline macbook, but is slightly cheaper than it as well.

What you should be asking yourself is if you fit in that small niche that the macbook is suitable for. Probably not because I don't know what use case scenario Apple is thinking of with the design of their new macbooks (and what PC manufacturers are thinking by copying them). You only get one port and a processor that's incredibly under powered because they went with a fan less design to be as thin as possible, as well as a shitty keyboard. So unless you need a macbook for whatever reason, $1,300 will get you a windows laptop that suits your needs much better.