Geekbench result for my 13" 2.7 4M RAM)... 7524
compared to previous 13" 2.66 (8M RAM)... 3696
compared to previous 13" 2.66 (8M RAM)... 3696
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
13" i7 2.7Ghz Geekbench, Cinebench scores + others
- Thread starter aznguyen316
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What is the difference in running in 32bit vs. 64bit? Just curious, as I don't much feel like paying the 13 bucks for an ambiguous number....I just bought the 17" stock (2.2 i7 quad) and ran the "Free" version, non-Rosetta 32bit and it came up with a number of 9986. Would a 64bit "test" be any different? I'm so curious, I may just pull the 13 bucks out of my wallet
Thanks for the test! Appreciated
J
On load yeah there's some heat that can be felt resonating through the chassis. Like if I'm gaming on WoW or encoding or something. The fans definitely ramp up. I feel they come on even stronger than the 320m even though at the same rpm. Sounds more "forceful" haha. but the heat is there on load, I wouldn't recommend gaming or CPU intensive things while it's on your lap. I use a laptop cooler at home on the desktop to help alleviate any heat also.
I'll run the 32bit geekbench test and will report back shortly.
I did high view distance and high details, then fair shadows, water, enabled projected textures, mostly fair/good rest of the way. Avg flying around org was 30-40 and then I went into tol barad and same around 45fps average @ native resolution windows (full screen). My main concern was projected textures for my own little range indicator as well as boss aoe indicator, and I must have view distance up =D
I've also really cleaned up my UI since recording that this morning lol
Oh well, I did chose the wrong resolution. D'OH! Thanks for the heads up! Gotta re-run the test when I'm back home.
So we can ignore the whole sata II vs sata III? Sorry I am not the most computer literate person around.
I just noticed something...
my SSD (main port) shows Sata link speed 6gbps.. the optibay link speed is 3gbmps
so does this mean the main drive is SataIII capable??
anyway here's a picture of WoW with ultra view distance and high detail distance. note I purposefully capped my FPS at 25.
Attachments
Last edited:
What is the difference in running in 32bit vs. 64bit? Just curious, as I don't much feel like paying the 13 bucks for an ambiguous number....I just bought the 17" stock (2.2 i7 quad) and ran the "Free" version, non-Rosetta 32bit and it came up with a number of 9986. Would a 64bit "test" be any different? I'm so curious, I may just pull the 13 bucks out of my wallet
Thanks for the test! Appreciated
J
I ran the 32bit non rosetta test and it pulled up a 6836 so yeah there's a drop in "performance" I guess with 32bit vs 64bit. I wouldn't worry about the 64bit number though but I would guess you'd be in the 10,000's with geekbench and your system =D
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; nb-no) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Haha my old 2010 13 core 2 duo 2,4ghz with a 320m scored 4912 In 3dmark 06. Even with a much better cpu. It gets lower score in 3dmark.
And those frames are bad. I got 36fps average In the just cause 2 demo.
Thats all i remember since i sold the 13. But damn the gpu is bad In the new mbp.
Haha my old 2010 13 core 2 duo 2,4ghz with a 320m scored 4912 In 3dmark 06. Even with a much better cpu. It gets lower score in 3dmark.
And those frames are bad. I got 36fps average In the just cause 2 demo.
Thats all i remember since i sold the 13. But damn the gpu is bad In the new mbp.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; nb-no) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Haha that's why you should give a **** about syntethic tests. And do real benchmarks. No CPU gets 2 times better jumping from a generation to a new one.
But with cinebench. Apple can say it's 2 times faster. But you will never experience it like that. Heck most programa still only use 2 cores.
Don't believe marketing stunts. Sandy bridge CPUs are 30-40% better then core 2 duo.
And about 15-20 compares to last arrandale
Transporteur said:
Haha that's why you should give a **** about syntethic tests. And do real benchmarks. No CPU gets 2 times better jumping from a generation to a new one.
But with cinebench. Apple can say it's 2 times faster. But you will never experience it like that. Heck most programa still only use 2 cores.
Don't believe marketing stunts. Sandy bridge CPUs are 30-40% better then core 2 duo.
And about 15-20 compares to last arrandale
=) yet you sold it. As did I. I think it's safe to say the GPU is bad in both MBPs lol, I loved the 320m when I first got it, but come on, what do you expect from these IGP? If I remember my 2.4c2d scored around 4700, so it's not perfect, just for reference.
I'm really happy with the machine. The new SB has really pushed me to do some minor video processing today and it's been fun. Made a youtube video with a couple of cuts. If I was a hardcore gamer, I would be upset, but since I'm only playing WoW what's there to complain about? That if I had a better GPU I could squeeze out a few more frames? I could come in and say damn the old C2D was really bad in the new MBP last year, but what good is that? I guess if I had $2200 and they made the high end 15" fit into a 13" we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Geez we understand you need a reason to rationalize your new big time purchase, but maybe trying too hard
. best of luck with your new gaming laptop, I'm sure its a monster 
Wow, these new MBPs are monsters.
My MBP listed in sig just ran a 3352 on Geekbench. I've ordered a new 7,200RPM drive and 4GB of memory, hopefully that will boost my score a bit!
My MBP listed in sig just ran a 3352 on Geekbench. I've ordered a new 7,200RPM drive and 4GB of memory, hopefully that will boost my score a bit!
dont mean to hijack but I just bought a mba ultimate 11 in a few days ago and have been debating if i i want to just upgrade to the 13mbp and throw in a ssd for snappiness like the mba. i know im taking a hit in portability but the way i see it i can have i decently portable mac with the cpu muscle and speed of a ssd. best of both worlds. to compare my 11mba has the opengl fps of 11.51 but a cpu score of only 0.88 pts ine cinebench and 2237 on the GB. guess i might go exchange for the i7 13
FWIW, in Windows 7 Ultimate 32 bit, my Windows Experience Index scores are:
Processor 5.8
Memory (RAM) 5.5
Graphics 5.4
Gaming graphics 6.1
Primary hard disk 5.9
So, the 2011 13"MBP beats it in all scores but the hard disk, which is odd because I only have a 7200 RPM drive compared to the SSD of the OP.
Rest of the specs in sig.
Processor 5.8
Memory (RAM) 5.5
Graphics 5.4
Gaming graphics 6.1
Primary hard disk 5.9
So, the 2011 13"MBP beats it in all scores but the hard disk, which is odd because I only have a 7200 RPM drive compared to the SSD of the OP.
Rest of the specs in sig.
Naw the score of my Windows is from the 5400RPM drive as that's what my bootcamp is on (caddy) and only OSX + mac apps are on the SSD. My SSD would score a 7.8 or 7.9 to be honest..
anyway, above, I would certainly trade in the MBA for the MBP. These sandy bridges are just straight NUTS.
I just recorded an SC2 video and am editing it now in imovie. Did I mention this new CPU really makes me feel good about editing flicks due to the speed of the i7 to import/render/encode the videos? All in all a great upgrade.
Its to bad that they had to go with the Intel 3000HD graphics card. To bad they couldn't put the Nvidia 1GB 335m in it like the Alienware M11x. That would make for one killer laptop. Heck you can get an M11x with the i7 2.26Ghz, 500GB 7200RPM drive, 8GB ram and Nvidias 1GB 335m all for $1164.
yeah i wanst sure how the igp 300hd from intel would stack up, thats why i posted the cinebench scores. now that i see that it is comparable. I mean if im only losing about 5-10 in graphics then its not a big deal. the gains i make from the i7 would outweigh it. on a side note, how do you like the vertex 2 in the mbp? i was debating between the the vertex 2or the crucial c300 because of the sata III.
Crucial C300 is turning up with bad reports in the new MBP if it has the latest firmware. I'd look at OWC or OCZ.
Just 2 weeks ago, that same model was going for $800. I grabbed the i5, 8GB model for $636
My thoughts exactly on the loss in 5-10 frames to the HUGE gains in the CPU and you gotta remember you're not gaming 100% of your time with the MBP. If that was the case, guessing you wouldn't be owning a MBP lol. Anyway, my point is, the new i5/i7 in the 13" has really opened the door for me to really WANT to make use of it. Right now I'm editing 720p ipod video of SC2 in iMovie just to upload to youtube. I've learned video editing is really fun! Exporting/importing doesn't take that long, I'm sure it's much faster than it would've been on my 2010 model. But all that is b/c of the new CPU's. I'd trade in frame rate in games that I'm only playing as 5% of my computer usage for that.
but yeah, I am LOVING the vertex 2. The SF1200 makes me worry free with garbage collection, ALTHOUGH the newer Vertex 2 are not as good. there's a 25nm fiasco if you google it. Basically, slower and less writes for lifetime and smaller capacity (lose like 5GB off the 120GB). Started shipping late January.
As I briefly mentioned, I am uploading to youtube right now, my DSL up speeds are terrible so it'll be awhile before I can link it. But the gameplay of SC2 within OSX has improved, and I'm not just saying that as a new 2011 MBP buyer. The CPU has really helped keep UP frame rates, not necessarily improve them. There's less dips, lag, even fast forwarding the replays isn't too bad until 8xFF. There's a few settings in game that are CPU dependent as well. Anyway, SC2 really helped me feel good about the GPU debate as the CPU is really shining through.