PDA

View Full Version : MacBook Pro 2.6GHz Performance


MacBytes
Nov 26, 2007, 09:17 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Benchmarks
Link: MacBook Pro 2.6GHz Performance (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20071126101659)
Description:: Primate Labs takes a look at the performance of the new build-to-order MacBook Pro processor (the Intel Core 2 Duo at 2.6GHz) and determines whether or not it's worth the extra cash.

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

shadowfax
Nov 26, 2007, 09:26 AM
duh?

Manatee
Nov 26, 2007, 09:30 AM
Utterly predictable. I'm waiting for the next major update (not just speed bump) to upgrade from my first-gen MacBook Pro.

jonny
Nov 26, 2007, 09:48 AM
and I'm still holding my breath for a graphics driver update, to bring my sr mbp up to the standard it shouldve been at when i bought it.

justflie
Nov 26, 2007, 11:38 AM
and I'm still holding my breath for a graphics driver update, to bring my sr mbp up to the standard it shouldve been at when i bought it.

Boy, would that be nice. Since I just started playing COD 4 in Windows, I've begun to "overclock" the GPU to its correct clock speeds. It is noticably underclocked by default (I can't remember the values off the top of my head) which is really lame. Heat nor stability is an issue when I clock it to the correct rates (per nvidia's specs), but obviously the fans do kick up a bit. But you can barely hear them while you're playing such a loud and fun game as COD 4! :cool:

montex
Nov 26, 2007, 12:10 PM
and I'm still holding my breath for a graphics driver update, to bring my sr mbp up to the standard it shouldve been at when i bought it.

I'll second that! My new 17" MBP w/SantaRosa chip and 4GB RAM got spanked by my Mini C2Duo in xBench, with 106 to 120 rating. I was especially shocked that the Mini's graphic chip was twice as fast as those in the MBP. It might just be xBench has a problem with the graphics in the MBP, but to have it's ass handed to it by a Mini is just embarrassing.

Consultant
Nov 26, 2007, 01:13 PM
I'll second that! My new 17" MBP w/SantaRosa chip and 4GB RAM got spanked by my Mini C2Duo in xBench, with 106 to 120 rating. I was especially shocked that the Mini's graphic chip was twice as fast as those in the MBP. It might just be xBench has a problem with the graphics in the MBP, but to have it's ass handed to it by a Mini is just embarrassing.

That's highly unlikely. Integrated graphics will not outperform the best mobile video card (when it was introduced). It is almost certain a software bug or there is an issue with your MBP.

jonny
Nov 26, 2007, 04:49 PM
That's highly unlikely. Integrated graphics will not outperform the best mobile video card (when it was introduced). It is almost certain a software bug or there is an issue with your MBP.

Crappy drivers which I think every MBP SR has. It's friggin' ridiculous. If it's a software bug, I hope it's fixed soon, and if it's an isssue, I should be sending this back.

mklos
Nov 27, 2007, 06:30 PM
I'll second that! My new 17" MBP w/SantaRosa chip and 4GB RAM got spanked by my Mini C2Duo in xBench, with 106 to 120 rating. I was especially shocked that the Mini's graphic chip was twice as fast as those in the MBP. It might just be xBench has a problem with the graphics in the MBP, but to have it's ass handed to it by a Mini is just embarrassing.


I wouldn't use Xbench to do any testing. It hasn't been updated to be up to par with the latest Macs. There's no way in hell a stand-alone video card is getting spanked by an integrated video card. Its the X-bench software thats the issue there. Try another benchmarking app....