Replacing the MacBook RAM, Hard Drive (Video) and Benchmarks

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif

With the introduction of the Apple MacBook, one of the new features offered to end users is the ability for users to replace the internal hard drive. Typically, Apple laptop hard drive replacement has required the involvement authorized technician in the past.

Both the MacBook's RAM and Hard Drive are accessible through a panel under the battery and the process has been detailed in this Video from MacWorld.

MacWorld also provides the first benchmarks of the new MacBook, comparing it to the G4 iBooks it replaces as well as the current MacBook Pro and iMac.

[amateurmacfreak]

Cool. Makes it look very, very easy.

EDIT: Benchmarks look great too, but I'd go for MBP for looks and graphics.

[Temujin]

The "ram-levers" is quite ingenious IMO.

[yankeefan24]

Wow. Can't wait until tomorrow night (when I might get one)! Looks so easy.

[Pokeon]

Benchmarks arent as good as a I hoped but are alittle better then I expected

[runninmac]

Wow that Hard Drive is amazing!

[Heb1228]

I didn't think upgrading RAM could get much easier than it was in the Powerbook and iBook G4s. Little stuff like this is one of the many reasons I love Apple.

[jeremy.king]

Are all those apps Universal? Why even bother comparing PS in Rosetta on an Intel vs. native on a G4?

[Xephian]

Did better than I expected in C4D.

[yankeefan24]

Originally Posted by kingjr3

Are all those apps Universal? Why even bother comparing PS in Rosetta on an Intel vs. native on a G4?

I don't know about all of them but PS is not universal. I repeat not universal.

[dagger01]

I want to know why a 2GHz Core Duo iMac and a 2GHz Core Duo MacBook don't give the same results? The only thing different about them is the hard drive speed and that certainly shouldn't impact these tests enough to skew the results that far.

EDIT: Except the Zip file creation and the graphics test, I'd see that as obvious.

[emaja]

Originally Posted by Temujin

The "ram-levers" is quite ingenious IMO.

As is the ease by which the DS can be replaced.

Apple trumps everyone in ease of use.

[GeoffRuth]

Originally Posted by kingjr3

Are all those apps Universal? Why even bother comparing PS in Rosetta on an Intel vs. native on a G4?

For a couple reasons:

(a) The Intel is significantly faster in raw clock speed, and has has two cores. Thus, it's reasonable to think that the Macbook version might match the iBook G4 version.

(b) For people who NEED to use Adobe app's, knowing whether it matches the G4-optimized version is an important thing to know.

[MrCrowbar]

I guess the hard drive (5400 rpm) is what slows the Macbook down compared to the iMac 20". The iMovei Filter is on the GPU, right? Kinda impressed about that GMA thingie. Really seems to handle 2D stuff well. And it ouperforms the iBook on 3D by little.
Face it, gaming mashines are expensive. If you want a thing for gaming, Falcon Northwest has some nice stuff. I'll stick with Apple for the useful every day stuff.

[dongmin]

I found this interesting:

UT2004 test:

21.4 fps: PowerBook 15" 1.67ghz (Mobility Radeon 9700)
17.8 fps: MacBook 13" 1.83ghz x2 (Intel 950)

So, compared to the old PowerBooks, the integrated Intel graphics is actually not that bad. I imagine the significantly faster CPU helps somewhat.

[X5-452]

Originally Posted by dagger01

I want to know why a 2GHz Core Duo iMac and a 2GHz Core Duo MacBook don't give the same results? The only thing different about them is the hard drive speed and that certainly shouldn't impact these tests enough to skew the results that far.

EDIT: Except the Zip file creation and the graphics test, I'd see that as obvious.

They give very similar results in several tests. The only difference between them, aside from hard drive speed, is that the MacBook has integrated graphics, while the iMac has a dedicated card.

[tonyl]

Originally Posted by dongmin

I found this interesting:

UT2004 test:

21.4 fps: PowerBook 15" 1.67ghz (Mobility Radeon 9700)
17.8 fps: MacBook 13" 1.83ghz x2 (Intel 950)

So, compared to the old PowerBooks, the integrated Intel graphics is actually not that bad. I imagine the significantly faster CPU helps somewhat.

Right, Macbook is great for regular use, not for gaming.

[gael.deest]

Wow. Non-gamers really don't need to go pro. Or does the integrated noticeably affect the responsiveness of the GUI ?

--------------------------
http://www.fifth-essence.net: OS X, Qt and Ruby programming, and much more !

[Capt Underpants]

Depressing framerates... exactly what was expected though

Otherwise it's an awesome machine. I'm still deciding whether it's worth it (for me at least... I was hoping to consolidate my mac and gaming PC, but the macbook won't do it). It would make my mac experience much better, but I'd have to keep the PC. Decisions decisions...

[nem3015]

MacBook 2.0 White with 2Gb Ram and 120Gb disk

Apple Store $2049
Do it yourself $1620

and doing it doesn't void your warranty

just hurts Apple feelings maybe a little bit lol

[QCassidy352]

Originally Posted by dongmin

I found this interesting:

UT2004 test:

21.4 fps: PowerBook 15" 1.67ghz (Mobility Radeon 9700)
17.8 fps: MacBook 13" 1.83ghz x2 (Intel 950)

So, compared to the old PowerBooks, the integrated Intel graphics is actually not that bad. I imagine the significantly faster CPU helps somewhat.

Are you kidding me? Those benchmarks convinced me once and for all just how unbelievably horrible the integrated graphics are. A 2.0 core duo edges out a 1.42 Ghz G4 (which itself only has a 32 MB card!) and loses to a 1.67 G4?? Absolutely disgusting. Look at what the core duo can do with a decent chip (imac and mbp)... the integrated graphics are totally hamstringing a fantastic processor.

[ulyssespdx]

you know, every time see see a new Apple product, i wonder about the benchmarks.

i have a 12" Aluminum Powerbook G4/1.33GHz, w/1Gb RAM. i opened MS Word 2004.

it took about 12 seconds.

i went to the Apple store yesterday, found a MacBook Pro Core Duo 2 GHz, and opened MS Word 2004.

it took about 9 seconds.

i repeated this for Excel, Photoshop, and GarageBand. all were within a few seconds of each other.

operating the programs on both machines, i noticed very little difference in operating speed and snappiness.

up to five times faster than my G4? bull.

that said, i want the new black MacBook.

[bwanac]

Replacing hard drive was never difficult... but this is a cakewalk!

[j-a-x]

It's weird that they didn't compare it with a 12" powerbook, since that's the machine it's replacing.
I want to know whether upgrading would be worth it (even though I can't afford that right now).

[Mainyehc]

Originally Posted by ulyssespdx

you know, every time see see a new Apple product, i wonder about the benchmarks.

i have a 12" Aluminum Powerbook G4/1.33GHz, w/1Gb RAM. i opened MS Word 2004.

it took about 12 seconds.

i went to the Apple store yesterday, found a MacBook Pro Core Duo 2 GHz, and opened MS Word 2004.

it took about 9 seconds.

i repeated this for Excel, Photoshop, and GarageBand. all were within a few seconds of each other.

operating the programs on both machines, i noticed very little difference in operating speed and snappiness.

up to five times faster than my G4? bull.

that said, i want the new black MacBook.

Do you even know that the new Macs have INTEL PROCESSORS inside them? The x86 architecture is entirely different from PowerPC so all of those apps except Garageband, being PowerPC apps, have to be translated on the fly by Rosetta (and they are all really heavyweight... PS? Whoa!). The simple fact they even run at all should seem as miracle in itself! So stop trolling and read before you post:

http://www.apple.com/rosetta/
http://guides.macrumors.com/Rosetta

Oh, and btw, FreeHand 11 absolutely FLIES on a 17'' iMac CoreDuo 1.8 GHz, when compared with my Rev. A 20'' iMac G5 1.8 GHz, and that's under Rosetta... go figure!