Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2011,2.3 ghz-mbpro speed test comparison

Nice. I found the following paragraph interesting.



The BTO iMac’s individual test results show that Macs with processors that have fewer cores but faster clock speeds still outperform Macs that have processors with more cores but slower clock speeds in many tasks. Our Finder, Pages, iPhoto, and Photoshop tests were faster with the dual-core iMac, but applications like Mathematicamark, Cinebench, and HandBrake that can take advantage of the quad-core i7’s eight virtual cores were significantly faster on the MacBook Pro.
 
yes buddy,so did i,that may account for why the mba has quite good performance with games,even tho its only 1.4-1.6 cpu,
i still think tho,here in aus we pay 300$ for the 2.3 upgrade,too much i reckon.thanx for response too.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

Just read these results. Not happy about spending that extra £200. I guess my resale value will be higher than the base model. Still, could have used that wedge on SSD & RAM.

sh*t.
 
This absolutely shows that most of us who dont do video editing would benefit more from a higher clock speed and NOT more cores seeing as most of our normal tasks dont take advantage of the multiple cores. Geekbench is really misleading alot of us.

Apple knows this hence the reason a refurb C2D 2.8ghz 2009 Macbook Pro still sells for almost 1,500. Alot of you guys look at a C2D and think its outdated when in fact a higher clocked C2D would smoke the new SB processors in alot of tasks that dont take full advantage of all those cores. Most programs still dont take advantage of multiple cores.
 
Not really, most video encoding software takes more advantage of more cores and a, say, 2.0 Ghz Sandy Bridge dualcore i5 would smoke any 3.06 Ghz Core 2 Duo because of the better architecture and of course the turbo-boost
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)

I'll be doing music production & DJing (Reason, Ableton, Traktor) which I'm sure will benefit from those extra cores or could someone enlighten me?
 
Scarrus said:
Not really, most video encoding software takes more advantage of more cores and a, say, 2.0 Ghz Sandy Bridge dualcore i5 would smoke any 3.06 Ghz Core 2 Duo because of the better architecture and of course the turbo-boost
Click to expand...


Did you not read my post before posting? I stated that video work will take advantage of more cores.....otherwise a higher clock speed will benefit most everyone else.

This test proves that but it's a well known fact to begin with. Clock speed still matters seeing as most applications don't take advantage of more than 2 cores at the most.....forget about 4 cores and 4 more virtual cores being used for most peoples tasks.
 
mackage said:
Did you not read my post before posting? I stated that video work will take advantage of more cores.....otherwise a higher clock speed will benefit most everyone else.

This test proves that but it's a well known fact to begin with. Clock speed still matters seeing as most applications don't take advantage of more than 2 cores at the most.....forget about 4 cores and 4 more virtual cores being used for most peoples tasks.
Click to expand...

You might be right, but it's important to make the distinction that clock speed really only matters when used to compare between identical architectures. Otherwise, you won't get any meaningful conclusions by comparing clock speeds between the CPUs.

Also, these benchmarks that show the dual core to be "faster" for less core-intensive tasks are just as flawed as benchmarks that show the quad core to be "faster" for core-intensive tasks. I think its conceivable that someone can be doing multiple minor tasks simultaneously (small tasks that don't use all 4 cores at once), and the quad core will be better equipped to handle those tasks at once than a dual core. So the answer as to what's better isn't always clear, but I would say more cores is never a bad thing and because software is gradually approaching supporting more and more cores, I can't rationalize ever choosing a dual core over a quad core.

Now all of that being said, I have a mid-2010 dual core i7 MBP, so I'm not trying to justify a 2011 MBP purchase or anything. If anything, I'm still a little jealous =D
 
karohan said:
You might be right, but it's important to make the distinction that clock speed really only matters when used to compare between identical architectures. Otherwise, you won't get any meaningful conclusions by comparing clock speeds between the CPUs.

Also, these benchmarks that show the dual core to be "faster" for less core-intensive tasks are just as flawed as benchmarks that show the quad core to be "faster" for core-intensive tasks. I think its conceivable that someone can be doing multiple minor tasks simultaneously (small tasks that don't use all 4 cores at once), and the quad core will be better equipped to handle those tasks at once than a dual core. So the answer as to what's better isn't always clear, but I would say more cores is never a bad thing and because software is gradually approaching supporting more and more cores, I can't rationalize ever choosing a dual core over a quad core.

Now all of that being said, I have a mid-2010 dual core i7 MBP, so I'm not trying to justify a 2011 MBP purchase or anything. If anything, I'm still a little jealous =D
Click to expand...

I purchased a 2011 Macbook Pro 2.3ghz and ended up selling it to a friend because it wasn't even a BIT faster at anything I use it for. The SSD I ordered made a difference in booting and opening applications for the first time, but it didn't show any noticeable improvement over my late 2008 C2D 2.8ghz. I realized this myself so when I saw these comparisons it really hit home. I am not saying more cores aren't nice. I am saying that clock speed still matters in tackling most everyones daily activities. Most people think a geekbench score and the addition of more cores are worth upgrading every year.....they are sorely mistaken and are throwing money down the drain.

As far as programs using more cores; do you realize how long multiple core processors have been out and most applications and programs don't take full advantage of them? It will be some time before 4 cores AND 4 more virtual cores are utilized in programs most of us use on the daily.
 
Last edited:
Interesting article.

Still on the fence about the 2.2GHz vs. 2.3GHz CPU for my next MBP.

On the one hand, the performance gains are marginal at best, even with 2MB more cache and more aggressive Turbo Boost.

However, as a Logic and VM user having a more powerful CPU is well worth the cost.

I am aware that the savings could go to 8GB RAM and an SSD but I plan to get the former and already have the latter, anyway, so the savings (even more if I opt for a high-end 15" instead of 17") could go to software (Flash CS5.5, Aperture, FCP X maybe) instead....
 
It's a benchtest...it means nothing. Depending on your applications, you may see a difference. With what I do, I see a substantial difference, likely from the larger cache. Even if the 2.3 is only 3-5% more capable that the 2.2, that is still a statistically significant gain. Increasing your computers speed by 5% for only $200 is not a bad price at all. I'm glad I got the 2.3 and I would still buy it again, even if it was a $500 upgrade. Some users will see huge differences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back