17" unibody benchmarking

[mmalto]

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.

 

[mmalto]

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]

 

[NightSailor]

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.

 

[NightSailor]

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.

 

[Abstract]

Everyone should change their power settings for "BEST PERFORMANCE" or whatever it's called. Otherwise, you're not going to get meaningful results.

 

[mmalto]

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.

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.

 

[NightSailor]

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.

 

[NightSailor]

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.

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.

 

[NightSailor]

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.

 

[Dreamail]

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.

 

[isaki87]

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.

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.

 

[mmalto]

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.

i'll have my benchmarks up later tonight with snow leopard.

 

[jjahshik32]

Here's mine with a 2.53ghz 15" unibody mbp + 4gb of RAM + 80gb intel x25-m SSD drive.

205 points! Not bad.

 

[hammten]

xbench

well mine is a 15" 2.8ghz mbp unibody w/intel ssd and xbench reads 235 average after 3 tries

 

[losal]

17" Uni, 2.93, 4GB RAM, Intel 160GB SSD

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

 

[Quu]

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.

 

[NightSailor]

17" Uni, 2.93, 4GB RAM, Intel 160GB SSD

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

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.

 

[DAMNiatx]

17" Uni, 2.93, 4GB RAM, Intel 160GB SSD

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

best laptop ever....

 

[mmalto]

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.

 

[NightSailor]

17" Uni, 2.93, 4GB RAM, Intel 160GB SSD

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

Intel is Single Layer--hence the better performance.

 

[NightSailor]

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.

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.

 

[mmalto]

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.

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.

 

[kastenbrust]

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.

Yes its only 0.3 Ghz, but thats an extra 1/8th speed.

 

[mmalto]

Yes its only 0.3 Ghz, but thats an extra 1/8th speed.

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.

 

[jjahshik32]

17" Uni, 2.93, 4GB RAM, Intel 160GB SSD

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

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). 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