MacBook benchmarks

[MacBytes]

http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Benchmarks
Link: MacBook benchmarks (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060516235330)
Description:: Geek Patrol posted a number of MacBook vs MacBook Pro benchmarks using their cross-platform benchmark Geekbench. Worth a look!

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

[slooksterPSV]

Way to go Apple

[truz]

performance is nice.. video card kills the entire product ;/

for the macbook.. I wish they put in a x600 or something from ati.. not an intel 64mb pos. oh well..

[AvSRoCkCO1067]

performance is nice.. video card kills the entire product ;/

for the macbook.. I wish they put in a x600 or something from ati.. not an intel 64mb pos. oh well..

eesh. If they did that they'd have no one purchasing those MacBook Pro's :rolleyes: .

I could see it if they did a 1.66 GHz core solo - but not with their current feature set. They have to differentiate their lines somehow.

[iamhammill]

As a music users, my purchase feels great.

Can't wait to get some more RAM in this beast.

[DMann]

eesh. If they did that they'd have no one purchasing those MacBook Pro's :rolleyes: .

I could see it if they did a 1.66 GHz core solo - but not with their current feature set. They have to differentiate their lines somehow.


Nevertheless, this little Book outdoes most laptops
in terms of speed and power.

[DMann]

performance is nice.. video card kills the entire product ;/

for the macbook.. I wish they put in a x600 or something from ati.. not an intel 64mb pos. oh well..


Gotta keep the price down, and don't want to
cannibalize MacBookPro sales.....

[dashiel]

i'm so tired of people complaining about the integrated graphics card. get over it, these are consumer level machines. they're not gaming rigs, they're not final cut studio rigs, they're not maya stations. the mac books are designed for people who want to e-mail, surf the web, work in iLife, maybe run a small business from with keynote, quicken and pages...

those user neither know, notice, nor care they're using an integrated graphics card.

there's no way in hell i'd use one, i need the extra power for my work, but that's why i charge enough to justify the more expensive macbook pro. for people like my mum, my girlfriend and even my dad who runs his own software company the macbook is more than enough.

[kev0476]

there doesn't seem to be any difference besides the GPU, a little more hard drive space, a bigger screen, who will pay for the macbook pros now?

[IJ Reilly]

there doesn't seem to be any difference besides the GPU, a little more hard drive space, a bigger screen, who will pay for the macbook pros now?

People who want the GPU, larger screen and a bigger hard drive? Also, the aluminum enclosure and the backlit keyboard?

Anyway, I hope the people who were totally prepared to hate the MacBook are at least a little disappointed.

[MacBookDJ]

there doesn't seem to be any difference besides the GPU, a little more hard drive space, a bigger screen, who will pay for the macbook pros now?

The video card is a very big deal to video and graphics professionals, who make up a large section of Apple's "Pro" market. The screen resolution isn't trivial either. Those extra pixels make a world of difference when you're working with several windows and pallets at the same time. For audio and music pros, which is my field, the MacBook pretty much eliminates the need for the MacBook Pro. :D

[Scarlet Fever]

im stoked with the new macbooks! I was expecting a solo chip in the low end model, and maybe a dual 1.83 in the higher, but dual 1.83 as the baseline is awesome!

Maybe this shift into glossy displays is showing what will come with the iPods... hmm...

[BakedBeans]

1.5gb more ram in the MBP

unfair test in comparison.

Also, not GPU test - unfair again.

[Voidness]

i'm so tired of people complaining about the integrated graphics card. get over it, these are consumer level machines. they're not gaming rigs, they're not final cut studio rigs, they're not maya stations. the mac books are designed for people who want to e-mail, surf the web, work in iLife, maybe run a small business from with keynote, quicken and pages...
I'm also tired of people ignoring the fact that there are people who would appreciate a semi-decent graphics chip in a consumer notebook, and also ignoring that fact that the Macbook's graphics chip is a downgrade from the one used in its iBook predecessor.

No hard feelings though :)

[kugino]

I'm also tired of people ignoring the fact that there are people who would appreciate a semi-decent graphics chip in a consumer notebook, and also ignoring that fact that the Macbook's graphics chip is a downgrade from the one used in its iBook predecessor.

No hard feelings though :)
it's a downgrade for some uses, an upgrade for others. as my ibook's graphics chip was not core image ready, the 950 is an upgrade in that area. i love how people are so fixated on the graphics chip that they can't see all the pretty sweet upgrades that have been implemented...glass half empty, i guess.

[jaxstate]

How is the Macbook faster on any of the test? Seems like it should be slower on all test.

[iJed]

i'm so tired of people complaining about the integrated graphics card. get over it, these are consumer level machines. they're not gaming rigs

You just stated that they are consumer machines. Therefore they should be able to at least run (at a playable rate) all the current titles. The sad truth is that they are simply not capable of this.

Benchmarks from people who know what they are talking about (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427) show just how pathetic the GMA 950 is. It seems that this is about the worst possible graphics chip available today and ruins what is otherwise one of the best computers Apple has ever released.

I have ordered a MacBook but I'm not under any allusions on the performance of this joke of a GPU. What really sickens me is the way that the Apple apologists are willing to defend every stupid decision Apple make. Claiming a consumer system should not be used for casual gaming is just crazy!

[SPUY767]

You just stated that they are consumer machines. Therefore they should be able to at least run (at a playable rate) all the current titles. The sad truth is that they are simply not capable of this.

Benchmarks from people who know what they are talking about (http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2427) show just how pathetic the GMA 950 is. It seems that this is about the worst possible graphics chip available today and ruins what is otherwise one of the best computers Apple has ever released.

I have ordered a MacBook but I'm not under any allusions on the performance of this joke of a GPU. What really sickens me is the way that the Apple apologists are willing to defend every stupid decision Apple make. Claiming a consumer system should not be used for casual gaming is just crazy!

Let's follow this chain of logic for a minute. It is a consumer grade machine plain and simple. All consumer grade machines have integrated graphics. That fact is practically a given. You can buy an 800$ desktop from dell and still get an integrated graphics chip. I mean, the top of the line Dell Dimension is $600 and still has integrated graphics. Hell, dell's inspiron 710 has a smaller screen, slower single core processor, integrated 950 graphics, a smaller HDD, and still costs 1602$! Stop whining, please.

[ricksbrain]

If the new Macbook can play 2 HD videos at the same time, how is this a downgrade from the ibook? This is by no means intended to be a gaming laptop...

[Core Trio]

there doesn't seem to be any difference besides the GPU, a little more hard drive space, a bigger screen, who will pay for the macbook pros now?


I probably will sometime in January, i think with the next real update of the MBP (ie Merom) the line with show its worth and stick with its current price points. (although a price drop would be nice too :) )

[decksnap]

Seriously... thank you dashiel- this whining about the graphics card is really out of control. Why don't you go buy Dell's $10,000 gaming machine if you want to play games so bad? For most everything else, I'm sure this card is more than adequate.

[sparkleytone]

Whats that now? Lame whining about a new Apple product? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO....

[iJed]

Let's follow this chain of logic for a minute. It is a consumer grade machine plain and simple. All consumer grade machines have integrated graphics. That fact is practically a given. You can buy an 800$ desktop from dell and still get an integrated graphics chip. I mean, the top of the line Dell Dimension is $600 and still has integrated graphics. Hell, dell's inspiron 710 has a smaller screen, slower single core processor, integrated 950 graphics, a smaller HDD, and still costs 1602$! Stop whining, please.

Maybe if you could choose a better graphics chip (or upgrade) then this wouldn't be an issue. YOU CAN'T DO EITHER.

[decksnap]

Maybe if you could choose a better graphics chip (or upgrade) then this wouldn't be an issue. YOU CAN'T DO EITHER.

UPGRADE to the mbp.

[iJed]

UPGRADE to the mbp.

To large.
To expensive.

[decksnap]

Why don't you just email Steve and have him whip up exactly what iJed wants?

[iJed]

Why don't you just email Steve and have him whip up exactly what iJed wants?

Or they could just offer a proper GPU for the MacBook as a BTO option. Every other spec is excellent. Unfortunately the GPU is the second most important part in a computer.

[decksnap]

:rolleyes:

They could add a lot of things.

[IJ Reilly]

:rolleyes:

They could add a lot of things.

And for free, too. Why not for free?

By now we all should know that any Mac that isn't good for playing games is worthless at any price. Apple should not have released it, and nobody should buy it.

[decksnap]

I like it. We'll call it the MacBook Free- now at 7Ghz. Has a 20" screen but remarkably only measures 10 inches in width. Oh, and a top of the line graphics card!

[mkaake]

I like it. We'll call it the MacBook Free- now at 7Ghz. Has a 20" screen but remarkably only measures 10 inches in width. Oh, and a top of the line graphics card!

Sorry. The resolution is way too low... every other company sells a laptop like that with twice the resolution! Not to mention it's too slow.

[PCMacUser]

it's a downgrade for some uses, an upgrade for others. as my ibook's graphics chip was not core image ready, the 950 is an upgrade in that area. i love how people are so fixated on the graphics chip that they can't see all the pretty sweet upgrades that have been implemented...glass half empty, i guess.
It's more about driving a market... I would like to see dedicated graphics in the Macbook too, but I think it's a reasonable package as it stands - particularly for the non-gaming crowds out there. The CPU speed is very impressive. In true Apple style they're a little behind with the RAM standings (the standard at that price range really is 1Gb). The 2x256mb configuration is even less convenient than my G4 ibook's.

It is a shame to have to spend an extra £500 to get a dedicated GPU (based on the 2ghz white macbook@£899 and the 2ghz macbook pro@£1399)... I don't think it's so unreasonable to have expected a Radeon 1400X in there... but at least there won't be severe heat problems with the GMA950.

[mkrishnan]

People who want the GPU, larger screen and a bigger hard drive? Also, the aluminum enclosure and the backlit keyboard?

That kind of crazy talk will not be tolerated around here! :eek: ;) :D

[dubnluvn]

so how much more are you willing to pay? Assuming apple would only offer such BTO options on the top of the line model we must start at $1499. the x600 is $100 more, $1599, but still not dedicated. Having a dedicated card would bring he price up to around $1699-1799. So then why not then spend $200 more on the larger monitor and other Pro goodies like the express port?
Apple has done well here by including a lot of features in the Macbook that are seen in the Pro, making it affordable, and making a distiction between the two product lines. Would it be nice to have a dedicated GPU on a $1200 machine, sure. Not happening though and for good reason. There needs to be incentive for consumers to upgrade not excuses to downgrade.

[mkrishnan]

Would it be nice to have a dedicated GPU on a $1200 machine, sure. Not happening though and for good reason.

I don't really care about the integrated graphics much.

But that being said...don't you think there's an awful lot of hindsight is 20-20 going on with this comment? Macs costing $1200 (and substantially less) *did* have dedicated video up until the past few months.

[IJ Reilly]

That kind of crazy talk will not be tolerated around here! :eek: ;) :D

As always, I am deeply ashamed of myself. :o

[auxplage]

To large.
To expensive.

I am not being and ass and am sure that you realize your mistake.

Too large.
Too expensive.

'Tis easier to win a debate if correct grammar is used.

I agree that Apple should have given an option to upgrade the graphics to an x1300 or something, which would have caused me to buy the MacBook, although for an exhorbant price of $200 to make it closer to the price of the MacBook Pro; however, they did not. Therefore, we can do nothing but buy the MacBook Pro. :)

[dubnluvn]

Therefore, we can do nothing but buy the MacBook Pro. :)


Exactly...reason for upgrading.

If you could get EVERYTHING you want in Macbook, and be it cheaper than the pro it would give people a reason to downgrade.

Apple gave us almost everything we wanted from the Pro, at a very nice price.