17" MacBook Pro 2.3GHz, 8Gb 1600MHz, 240Gb Vertex 3 *Benchmarks*

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by SpitUK, Apr 14, 2011.

  1. SpitUK macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2010
    #1
    Hi Guys, received and upgraded my MBP.

    Thought I would post some benchmarks and I will try and add other things over the next few days.

    Specs:

    17" MacBook Pro 2.3GHz Matte Screen
    8Gb Kingston 1600MHz DDR3
    240Gb Vertex 3

    The RAM actually runs at 1600MHz which is pretty cool.

    Some screens:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    This MBP is to replace my iMac desktop. It flies!! Seriously!!

    After a lot of agonising I went with the Matte screen, very happy so far and easy on my eyes.
     
  2. legreve macrumors regular

    legreve

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2010
    Location:
    Denmark
    #2
    Comparison...

    2.2ghz, 8gb crucial 1300, 750 wd black 7200 rpm

    I'm beginning to wonder if I need that vertex 3 anyways :S 400 points apart.
     

    Attached Files:

  3. odedia macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    #3
    I doubt Geekbench does any hard drive intensive tests. You'll benefit from an SSD more than any other upgrade to your computer, in most real-world scenarios.
     
  4. odedia macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    #4
    What's the exact model you're using?

    I wonder if there is any point in upgrading to 8GB 1600 vs 8 GB 1333? I still didn't open my Crucial RAM box, so I can still return it.
     
  5. SpitUK thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2010
    #5
  6. SadChief macrumors regular

    SadChief

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Location:
    Montpellier, France
    #6
    17" MacBook Pro 2.3GHz Matte Screen
    8Gb Apple
    256Gb Apple SSD

    [​IMG]
     
  7. JasonH42, Apr 14, 2011
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2011

    JasonH42 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    #7
    Similar spec:

    2011 15" 2.2GHz MBP
    8GB 1600MHz RAM - Kingston KHX1600C9S3K2/8G
    240GB Vertex 3

    The 1600MHz RAM actually makes a difference! 552.83 is with original Apple RAM, 593.49 is with Kingston.

    The SATA 3 controller doesn't seem to get the best out of the Vertex 3 however so I'm going to buy another when they're back in stock and put it in the optical bay (yes, SATA 2) and configure them as RAID0 like johnnj suggested. Should be awesome, we'll see.
     

    Attached Files:

  8. ghostlyorb macrumors 6502a

    ghostlyorb

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2010
    Location:
    Virginia, USA
    #8
    I'll get the SSD when it's cheaper =/
     
  9. johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000

    johnnyturbouk

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Location:
    on the yellow [oled] brick road to tech nirvana.
    #9
    my MBP 17" 2011 i7 8gb RAM and 120gb ssd

    geek bench score is only 9448 :mad:
    most ppl gettin consistently over 10000


    if it makes any difference - i am using the trial 32bit quickbench app
     

    Attached Files:

  10. SpitUK thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2010
  11. aznguyen316 macrumors 68020

    aznguyen316

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #11
    For comparison purposes and since I just installed 8GB ram I figured I'll go ahead and do some GeekBench 32bit and 64bit. Also here's my Vertex 2 for whatever comparisons via xbench.
     

    Attached Files:

  12. johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000

    johnnyturbouk

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Location:
    on the yellow [oled] brick road to tech nirvana.
    #12
    wonder why i have such s.h.i.t.e CPU benchmarks, any suggestions?

    my ssd is lightening fast - quickbench attached?

    i have got quite a lot of background processes and widgets running in dashboard - just curious as to why im not hitting the 10000 mark
     

    Attached Files:

  13. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #13
    ^^If your SSD is an Apple one, that's why. It's only running at SATA2.

    I am around the same place on these scores, although I doubt these scores really mean anything, given these programs were designed long before SSDs, quad core processing, and hyperthreading (post Pentium 4). Also the variation between runs makes me curious to accuracy. Furthermore, I really doubt that any of these programs can measure a SSD speed like the Vertex 3 upwards of 500MBPs, as that is just astronomically high compared to anything ever seen before, and about double what the fastest of the fast SSDs were only a few months ago. I'll play with this with 16GB of RAM, but I really doubt that the scores will change much.
     
  14. johnnyturbouk macrumors 68000

    johnnyturbouk

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2011
    Location:
    on the yellow [oled] brick road to tech nirvana.
    #14
    phew... was about to throw my toys out my pram....:p
     
  15. NickZac macrumors 68000

    NickZac

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    #15
    That sounds painful... :p

    And yet pleasurable at the same time! :eek:
     
  16. johnnj macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Not here
    #16
    Johnnj here. Clever name, right? My name is John and I live in NJ.

    Ah.. we's breakin' out the benches, b*tches. We have a female showdog, so I use that in the technical sense, but just in case I'll put the asterisk in there anyway.

    I downloaded that Geek thing and got the same results as anyone with 2.3 and 8 gigs 1600 ram. I see that if you pay them $13 you can run the 64 bit version and get a thousand more points. I think I'll save that money for a well appointed sandwich from the Italian deli tomorrow.

    I've noticed that my Xbench disk bench results have a lot a variance. Sometimes I run it and my reaction is "M* F*" and sometimes my reaction is "M* F*", except with a different level of enthusiasm.

    This one I just ran now and is about average for what I've been getting. The config is in the sig.

    [​IMG]

    I will be very curious to see results when people start raiding up those Vertex X drives, if any of them dare....

    Oh, and OT... I installed my old Vertex 1 drives in my gaming PC and it had about the same benefit as throwing a live trout in the case. I used to run a pair of Raptor 10k rpm drives in there at RAID0, and I expected these to be better. I point of fact, they sucked, worse than the normal 1.5 seagate drive I took out.

    John
     
  17. SpitUK thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2010
    #17
    This MBP is amazing. It truly feels like a computer from the future. Everything is just instant and silent. It runs like my ipad 2 but its running a full blown OS!!

    Incredible stuff. Im so impressed.
     

Share This Page