MACBOOK faster than MACBOOK PRO

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by MRU, May 19, 2006.

  1. MRU macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #1
    EDIT: LET ME CLEAR THIS UP!!! This is not a bash at the MacBookPro as the thread title would have you believe. Its to stop the bloody whingers going on and on about how rubbish the MacBook is.

    The results below or with a macbook 2 against a 1.83 macbookpro. Basically it beats it in most departments, but of course had that been a 2ghz macbookpro results for test would be even....

    But it shows that the MacBook is a very capable laptop and extremely competative with laptops of the same price.

    Hope that clears up the missunderstanding...........


    --------------



    This was already posted admid another post as a subfix, but it deserves its own thread.

    Look at these results and stop slagging off the macbook because of intel GMA950. It's as much a pro machine as you want it to be


    http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/macbook.ars/5

     
  2. Josias macrumors 68000

    Josias

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    #2
    Extreme! Remeber though, that the 1.83 MBP has now 2.0 GHz, so they are the same now. It has been proven though, that the MacBook has graphics inferior in any type of performance to the MBP's total powner X1600!:cool:
     
  3. shadowmoses macrumors 68000

    shadowmoses

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    #3
    This is really cool, shows that so many people slagging off the intergrated graphics are wrong....also makes a purchase of a MBP seem pretty dim unless you really need the extra screen size,

    ShadOW
     
  4. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #4
    LOL are you kidding me? Perhaps you've seen these benchmarks.

    I'll give you the short version: the macbook barely beats the ibook G4 and actually LOSES to a G4 powerbook playing UT2004. The intel imac and MBP have about 3x the FPS of the macbook and the G4s (depending on exactly which one you're talking about).

    Integrated graphics are complete and total ****. Any machine with 2.0 core duo should absolutely tear a single processor G4 apart. After all, that's why we went to intel, right? Instead, much lower clocked single processor G4s are running roughly equal in gaming because even the outdated card in the G4 ibook is leaps and bounds better than the GMA950.

    xbench graphics scores mean nothing in terms of real world games performance.
     
  5. xyian macrumors 6502

    xyian

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Location:
    PDX
    #5
    "Well, that's just like, your opinion, man."

     
  6. rjgonzales macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Location:
    Texas
    #6

    i love that movie:p
     
  7. odedia macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    #7
    The X1600 is underclocked on the MBP. So it makes sense that it would be about the speed of the GMA950.

    Oded S.
     
  8. telecomm macrumors 65816

    telecomm

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Location:
    Rome
    #8
    Uhhh.... except that it's not. See the benchmarks posted above.
     
  9. andiwm2003 macrumors 601

    andiwm2003

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2004
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #9

    i'm getting tired of this. could you please put a qualifier on statements like this? like: Integrated graphics are complete and total **** for 3d games.

    games are completely useless (although they are fun for some people). nobody really needs them (although of course many want them). therefore they are not the only standard to judge a machines performance.

    the 950 is fine for everthing that's not 3d with the added benefit of creating less heat and costing next to nothing.

    so your statement is correct if limited to 3d games. for the rest of the applications it's not correct.
     
  10. macenforcer macrumors 65816

    macenforcer

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #10

    FINALLY! Thank you. Games should only be played on Xbox 360. This macbook ROCKS!
     
  11. decksnap macrumors 68040

    decksnap

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #11
    It's unfortunate that there is a disproportionate amount of people on this board whose priority is games...

    but thank you. So sick of hearing about the graphics card.
     
  12. MRU thread starter macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #12
    Agreed. Feck Games, look at the other bench results... For getting the job done the macbook rocks.

    all the people grumbling over integrated & games, could you all just gather together in the corner and SOD OFF!

    There's more to life than poxy doom 3 :rolleyes:

    :p :p :p
     
  13. jacobj macrumors 65816

    jacobj

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Location:
    Jersey
    #13
    XBench is the most useless benchamarking tool I have enver had the misfortune to be exposed to. If a review uses it then the review must be ignored.
     
  14. telecomm macrumors 65816

    telecomm

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2003
    Location:
    Rome
    #14
    ...Which wouldn't run very well on a MacBook ;) :D
     
  15. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #15
    Good post, you also can read about the cheapo Intel graphics at Inside Mac Gaming they also did a review and mind you non of these guys are even using new games but old ones like UTK4. Start throwing HL2 or Doom3 on those integrated graphics and folks will be crying that they have integrated graphics, then try throwing a new game on it like F.E.A.R. or some of the titles coming out this summer and those folks will be screaming. Integrated graphics is Apples way of making sure you will want another machine in a year or so.
     
  16. iKwick7 macrumors 65816

    iKwick7

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2004
    Location:
    The Wood of Spots, NJ
    #16

    Fantastic quote! :)
     
  17. decksnap macrumors 68040

    decksnap

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    #17
    Apple does not assume, like you gamers do, that the majority of their target market is gamers. And they are correct. The system they put together gives the average user the biggest bang for the buck.
     
  18. MRU thread starter macrumors demi-god

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #18
    Lets face it if it wasnt for bootcamp, there would be no HL2, FEAR etc....

    MAC Gaming remains unaffected.
     
  19. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #19
    Sorry but there just isnt any Bang! in any Integrated graphics machine, please continue the spin.
     
  20. Eric5h5 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    #20
    That's a very narrow and unhelpful view. Maybe you don't, but lots of people want to play games on their computer. If Apple used a real graphics card (even a relatively low-end one), the gamers would be happier, and it wouldn't negatively affect non-gamers in any way. Nobody could seriously think that cutting out part of their market for no good reason (other than some shmoozing with Intel) is a good idea, surely?

    --Eric
     
  21. ManchesterTrix macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    #21
    Expense, more heat, less battery life. There's machines with solid GPUs for those that need them and machines without for those who have no need. Perhaps there is a product gap by not offering a 13.3" machine with a GPU but hell there's a product gap with the lack of a sub-notebook. Apple has always had gaps.
     
  22. atari1356 macrumors 68000

    atari1356

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2004
    #22
    and as was already pointed out in that other thread, the reason the MacBook is faster in some tests is because it's the 2GHz model, and they tested it against a 1.83GHz MacBook Pro.

    Your thread title is very misleading...
     
  23. Core Trio macrumors regular

    Core Trio

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #23

    I really dont think the X1600 is underclocked THAT much, just enough to reduce heat, if it was never found out by someone actually seeing the numbers I'm sure 99% of people would never even notice it was underclocked to begin with.
     
  24. ManchesterTrix macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    #24
    I know how much some hate to hear about games, but I did notice the underclocking when playing Oblivion. It was very unresponsive until I bumped up the clock and memory. It was also noticeable in Inventor. But you're right, the underclocked x1600 is still heads and shoulders above the GMA.
     
  25. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #25
    oh boy how did anyone ever live with their mac before intel since you know they couldn't play hardley any games. i think it's funny that once intel and THEN bootcamp, people all of the sudden judge a system on its gaming capability. quite funny on how this mindset has changed so quickly
     

Share This Page