17" unibody benchmarking

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by mmalto, Feb 24, 2009.

  1. mmalto macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    #1
    let's post benchmark scores from xbench in this thread instead of cluttering up the delivery thread. i'll post mine as some as leopard is reinstalled.
     
  2. mmalto thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    #2
    17 matte, 8gb memory, higher performance, 500gb 7200, leopard

    Results 141.21
    System Info
    Xbench Version 1.3
    System Version 10.5.6 (9G2141)
    Physical RAM 8192 MB
    Model MacBookPro5,2
    Drive Type ST9500420AS
    CPU Test 170.17
    GCD Loop 276.86 14.59 Mops/sec
    Floating Point Basic 146.18 3.47 Gflop/sec
    vecLib FFT 123.73 4.08 Gflop/sec
    Floating Point Library 201.16 35.03 Mops/sec
    Thread Test 343.79
    Computation 478.64 9.70 Mops/sec, 4 threads
    Lock Contention 268.23 11.54 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
    Memory Test 170.51
    System 187.50
    Allocate 204.78 752.01 Kalloc/sec
    Fill 170.44 8287.14 MB/sec
    Copy 190.51 3934.90 MB/sec
    Stream 156.34
    Copy 147.35 3043.55 MB/sec
    Scale 158.07 3265.64 MB/sec
    Add 155.73 3317.46 MB/sec
    Triad 165.26 3535.39 MB/sec
    Quartz Graphics Test 199.53
    Line 184.56 12.29 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
    Rectangle 230.85 68.92 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
    Circle 190.00 15.49 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
    Bezier 189.31 4.77 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
    Text 209.93 13.13 Kchars/sec
    OpenGL Graphics Test 151.81
    Spinning Squares 151.81 192.58 frames/sec
    User Interface Test 342.89
    Elements 342.89 1.57 Krefresh/sec
    Disk Test 49.00
    Sequential 95.58
    Uncached Write 93.76 57.57 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write 110.90 62.75 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read 68.94 20.17 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read 130.51 65.59 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Random 32.95
    Uncached Write 10.98 1.16 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Write 127.10 40.69 MB/sec [256K blocks]
    Uncached Read 71.02 0.50 MB/sec [4K blocks]
    Uncached Read 119.08 22.10 MB/sec [256K blocks]
     
  3. NightSailor macrumors 6502

    NightSailor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #3
    SSD Benchmark


    2.93GHz CPU 4 GB RAM SSD

    I ran this test three times with all results very close to this +/- 1.0

    Based on this, I am a bit disappointed. I expected better performance. I don't see anything close to the quoted maximum at the Toshiba website.

    However, the performance is still fairly good, but I'd strongly consider the Single Layer SSD's like Intel's if the price drops and size goes up.

    Note for the overall score, these results were for the embedded graphics. I changed to the discreet graphics with no noticeable change--I think it dropped .5 or so.


    [​IMG]
     
  4. NightSailor macrumors 6502

    NightSailor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #4
    Interesting

    It will be interesting to see how the benchmarks change based on memory, CPU and drive type. I hope we see more in here soon. I'm particularly interested in gauging the effect of increasing memory to 8GB for my configuration.
     
  5. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #5
    Everyone should change their power settings for "BEST PERFORMANCE" or whatever it's called. Otherwise, you're not going to get meaningful results.
     
  6. mmalto thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    #6
    if i get industrious, i'll take the 8gb of memory out and plop the 4gb back in just to see what the difference is. honestly, i would of thought it would of been higher. looks like the .3 difference in cpu surely does. i have the 2.66. not sure it's worth the extra money right now for ssd though.
     
  7. NightSailor macrumors 6502

    NightSailor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #7
    Best Performance

    "Best Performance Setting"
    2.93GHz 256GB Toshiba SSD 4 GB of RAM
    I am a bit happier. My goal was to XBench 200. 194.62 is not
    far from that goal.



    [​IMG]
     
  8. NightSailor macrumors 6502

    NightSailor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #8
    It is not be worth the risk of stripping your screws. Someone will come along and post the data.

    The extra RAM is nice. I'm thinking that 8GB or Ram might push me over 200! I will wait a bit on that as I have lots of bills this time of year.

    As for the SSD. You will have more information to make a decision soon, and prices will keep falling in the next few months as the competition for this market heats up. People will realize that they can make an old machine jump, just by adding a fast SSD. I predict actual SSD sales will outpace predicted sales.
     
  9. NightSailor macrumors 6502

    NightSailor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #9
    Variation on SSD Benchmarks

    I though the SSD benchmarks would be fairly constant. There is some variation. I think we might have to do some averaging.
     
  10. Dreamail macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Location:
    Beyond
    #10
    Thanks everyone for posting the benchmarks!


    Hmm, the SSD test results seem rather erratic. In many cases actually quite a bit less throughput than the 7200rpm HD.
    Shouldn't this be mostly faster?

    If on average the SSD ends up about the same speed or even less than a 500GB 7200rpm drive then it's definitely not worth the extra money IMHO.
     
  11. isaki87 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    Location:
    Santa Monica, CA
    #11
    I dont think that there is a consistent benchmarking tool for SSD's on a mac.

    The best that I have used so far is quickbench.
     
  12. mmalto thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    #12
    i'll have my benchmarks up later tonight with snow leopard.
     
  13. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #13
    Here's mine with a 2.53ghz 15" unibody mbp + 4gb of RAM + 80gb intel x25-m SSD drive.

    [​IMG]

    205 points! Not bad. :p
     
  14. hammten macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    #14
    xbench

    well mine is a 15" 2.8ghz mbp unibody w/intel ssd and xbench reads 235 average after 3 tries :p
     
  15. losal macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #15
    17" Uni, 2.93, 4GB RAM, Intel 160GB SSD

    There's no question the Intel is the best MLC SSD out there right now ;-)

    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

  16. Quu macrumors 68020

    Quu

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    #16
    Uni 17" 2.93GHz - 4GB - 320GB 7,200RPM (Apple BTO)

    My results seem in-line with the thread starters and our specs are similar. The 9400m was active in this Benchmark.

    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

  17. NightSailor macrumors 6502

    NightSailor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #17
    Thanks for posting that information. It is indeed impressive.

    So what are those drives selling for now?

    When they come out with something bigger-- around 512GB I will get one.
     
  18. DAMNiatx macrumors 6502a

    DAMNiatx

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2009
    #18
    :eek:
    best laptop ever....
     
  19. mmalto thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    #19
    snow leopard benchmark

    wow, this sucks. i'm beginning to wonder if 8gb of memory isnt that great. think i'm going to go back to 4gb just to see what happens. a score of 106? damn, that's ugly.
     

    Attached Files:

  20. NightSailor macrumors 6502

    NightSailor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #20
     
  21. NightSailor macrumors 6502

    NightSailor

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #21

    This doesn't make any sense. Something is broken internally in SL, or deliberately crippled. Did you see what happened to the CPU score? Why would that decrease? On the plus side the memory scores were interesting
    .
     
  22. mmalto thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    #22
    i'm wondering if it has to do with this app being 32 bit and not 64? i ran geekbench and received the scores below:

    32 bit:
    2289 main
    2180 memory

    64 bit:
    2587 main
    2300 memory

    not a big difference. ssd seems to make a huge difference. i cant imagine your proc being that much faster for a .3 speed bump. maybe i'm wrong. if so, i should of ordered the 2.93, because now i'm jealous.
     
  23. kastenbrust macrumors 68030

    kastenbrust

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Location:
    North Korea
    #23
    Yes its only 0.3 Ghz, but thats an extra 1/8th speed.
     
  24. mmalto thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2008
    #24
    yeah, i'm thinking i should of went with the 2.93 now. darn it. seems to make a huge difference in the xbench scores. i can't imagine SSD helps it that much.
     
  25. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #25
    Intel x25-m are indeed the best.. but sadly I sold mine a few days ago because of the 2 problems that these drives have...

    1) Cannot install windows via bootcamp (which was minor to me) but still want to test out some games on this fast drive.

    2) *most important* there seems to be a flaw with the algorithm that intel used on these drives to keep the rewrite level to over a 100 hours per day life cycle for 5 years. The problem is that after prolong use the write levels degrade and even in tests done shows that it crawls to below 22 mb/s write speeds much worse than conventional hdds.

    I sold off my 80gb model for $400 (losing about $100 off from my original purchase, I think about it as a rent fee:D). But I will wait until it is perfected. The speed is there but write speed isnt quite there yet and the life cycle as well.

    http://arstechnica.com/news/2009/02/sector-remap-fragmentation-slowing-intel-x25-m-ssds.ars
     

Share This Page