2011 MacBook 13" benchmarks are here!

[jp700p]

http://www.techyalert.com/2011/02/25/macbook-pro-2010-vs-macbook-pro-2011/


Hmmm.. even though the new MBP got beat in the 3dmark test, I was expecting a heck of alot more. Not bad..

I hope it benchmarks some games.

 

[henrikrox]

Well you can read this two ways

one:

2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 = 4629

2010 MBP with nVidia 320m = 4754

Wow the intel hd 3000 is almost as good as the 320m. wooooho


two:

wait, doesnt 3d mark also factor in cpu peformance? yes it does, and still with a better cpu score then the core 2 duo, it still looses overall because of the bad gpu.

 

[Oetam]

But this still is a graphics performance benchmark right?

 

[twkidM3]

^Interesting take on this! haha...

 

[arcite]

LOL. Really, if you have one of the 2010 macbook pros, there is little reason to upgrade, better to wait another 6-12 months eh?

 

[henrikrox]

But this still is a graphics performance benchmark right?

No 3d mark has plently of physcis test which tests the cpu and factors that in the overall score.

so in those tests the 2011 will win, but it looses so heavily in the gpu tests

 

[Davichi]

Are you serious...?

Sandy bridge processor is two times faster than Core 2 Duo and it cannot triumph the 1 year old MBP?

Sad...

Intel fails.

2010 MBP is way cheaper right now than 2011 one.

Intel graphic card is absolutely garbage.

 

[slumpey326]

No 3d mark has plently of physcis test which tests the cpu and factors that in the overall score.

so in those tests the 2011 will win, but it looses so heavily in the gpu tests

definitely want to follow this thread

 

[314631]

Wow the intel hd 3000 is almost as good as the 320m. wooooho

I'm surprised Apple didn't use wording along those lines in their press release. It definitely sucks that Apple is forced into using Intel's integrated crap in their smaller MacBooks.

 

[Oetam]

No 3d mark has plently of physcis test which tests the cpu and factors that in the overall score.

so in those tests the 2011 will win, but it looses so heavily in the gpu tests

Well, that sucks. I just ordered one earlier.

 

[Davichi]

It's obvious that 13 inch MBP is just a name. 15 inch and 17 inch are for real pro users.

 

[mashsensor]

http://www.techyalert.com/2011/02/25/macbook-pro-2010-vs-macbook-pro-2011/


Hmmm.. even though the new MBP got beat in the 3dmark test, I was expecting a heck of alot more. Not bad..

I hope it benchmarks some games.

2011 13 inch, is vastly superior in practical benchmark running practical applications, the dual core i7 bench higher than the top end 2010 i5 and i7
http://www.9to5mac.com/53810/new-macbook-pros-get-geekbenched

And the 3d rendering is only slightly worse than 320M, which matters in running 3d games.

sounds pretty awesome to me, if your 2010 is running fine, then enjoy it and wait for the next upgrade.

 

[henrikrox]

Are you serious...?

Sandy bridge processor is two times faster than Core 2 Duo and it cannot triumph the 1 year old MBP?

Sad...

Intel fails.

2010 MBP is way cheaper right now than 2011 one.

Intel graphic card is absolutely garbage.

you shouldnt believe marketing stunts telling you something is x faster.

Ofcourse a cpu cant be twice as fast as a old generation cpus. 30-40% max. So no the sandy bridge isnt two times faster, but apple can say it is due to cinebench benchmarks etc, but that matters little to nothing when it comes to real life peformance.

always said the intel igp was bad, and now we know. Its quite bad that with such a stronger cpu, it still gets outpeformed by a combined force of the 320m/core 2 duo. When you know how good the cpu is on the new 2011 mbp 13, then that tells you how bad the intel 3000hd gpu is

 

[Oetam]

2011 13 inch, is vastly superior in practical benchmark running practical applications, the dual core i7 bench higher than the top end 2010 i5 and i7
http://www.9to5mac.com/53810/new-macbook-pros-get-geekbenched

I don't see the 13 inch?

 

[henrikrox]

2011 13 inch, is vastly superior in practical benchmark running practical applications, the dual core i7 bench higher than the top end 2010 i5 and i7
http://www.9to5mac.com/53810/new-macbook-pros-get-geekbenched

And the 3d rendering is only slightly worse than 320M, which matters in running 3d games.

sounds pretty awesome to me, if your 2010 is running fine, then enjoy it and wait for the next upgrade.

Is it weird that the new i5 and i7 sandy bridge dual core is faster then a 2010 i5 and i7 lynnfield dual core? No its not.

Remember that we didnt have quad core cpus in macbook pros last year. I think you forgot that. Top end 2010 i5 and i7 were dual core.

Also the intel igp is worse then you think compared to the 320m. the intel igp is better then the 210m, but not the 320m. And the intel gpu scales so bad. So if you want play in medium settings, the 320m pulls even more ahead.

 

[mashsensor]

I don't see the 13 inch?

while the new dual core i7s hit about 6000. Interestingly, that’s a lot higher than last year’s top end models which were closer ro 5000 (below)! In fact, have a look at where these new laptops fit in Apple’s lineup:

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/361104

 

[henrikrox]

while the new dual core i7s hit about 6000. Interestingly, that’s a lot higher than last year’s top end models which were closer ro 5000 (below)! In fact, have a look at where these new laptops fit in Apple’s lineup:

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/361104

Again, top end models last year were dual core still.

You now have a higher clocked, improved artichture cpu, ofcourse its going to be better then last years high end (since those cpus were also dual core).

just a shame the gpu is so bad.

 

[mashsensor]

Is it weird that the new i5 and i7 sandy bridge dual core is faster then a 2010 i5 and i7 lynnfield dual core? No its not.

Remember that we didnt have quad core cpus in macbook pros last year. I think you forgot that. Top end 2010 i5 and i7 were dual core.

Also the intel igp is worse then you think compared to the 320m. the intel igp is better then the 210m, but not the 320m. And the intel gpu scales so bad. So if you want play in medium settings, the 320m pulls even more ahead.

Dude its game specific, games are written differently, the bench mark varies both ways. No need to nitpick only the ones that shows 320M doing better

plus, you are just hang over 320m vs hd3000, when what really matter is MBP 13 2010 vs MBP 13 2011. CPU and GPU and other parts of the laptop work together.

Its not like the 320M is a good 3d gaming gpu anyways relatively speaking in terms of laptop gaming. If someone is this obsessed over 3d game performance, both 2011 or 2010 MBP 13 is probably not the right laptop to begin with

 

[macmac88]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Is it weird that the new i5 and i7 sandy bridge dual core is faster then a 2010 i5 and i7 lynnfield dual core? No its not.

Remember that we didnt have quad core cpus in macbook pros last year. I think you forgot that. Top end 2010 i5 and i7 were dual core.

Also the intel igp is worse then you think compared to the 320m. the intel igp is better then the 210m, but not the 320m. And the intel gpu scales so bad. So if you want play in medium settings, the 320m pulls even more ahead.

Dude its game specific, games are written differently, the bench mark varies both ways. No need to nitpick only the ones that shows 320M doing better

plus, you are just hang over 320m vs hd3000, when what really matter is MBP 13 2010 vs MBP 13 2011. CPU and GPU and other parts of the laptop work together.

Its not like the 320M is a good 3d gaming gpu anyways relatively speaking in terms of laptop gaming. If someone is this obsessed over 3d game performance, both 2011 or 2010 MBP 13 is probably not the right laptop to begin with

No benchmarks show that it's better yet... The ones you saw used a quad core CPU which the new mbp doesn't have

 

[Oetam]

Left 4 Dead –Time it took to fully install the game (Installed from DVD)
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (min:sec) = 7:27
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (min:sec) = 14:46

 

[AppleGoat]

I don't see the 13 inch?

Don't worry, man. The computer you ordered has a CPU that will probably torch the previous generation in the geekbench tests. This allays my concerns though, as I am an owner of the 2010 13". I have a sneaking suspicion the forthcoming professional reviews will reflect better on the newer model. No way Sandy Bridge technology can be outdone like this by 2006 tech, Intel IGP or not. I hope my MBP holds firms in future reviews though.

 

[jp700p]

Left 4 Dead –Time it took to fully install the game (Installed from DVD)
2011 MBP with Intel HD 3000 (min:sec) = 7:27
2010 MBP with nVidia 320m (min:sec) = 14:46

Yep, I might break out my credit card tomorrow. I intended on buying it this afternoon, but walked out of the store because I wanted to see benchmarks.

So far, I like this.

 

[AppleGoat]

Yeah, I have been tussling with upgrading from last year's model. But I'm afraid it would cost me 200 dollars to do so.

 

[Oetam]

Don't worry, man.

It's very, very hard when I've just spent all the cash I'd been saving over a year and a half.
You're right though. I'm sure I'll be more than happy with my MBP.

 

[aznguyen316]

I guess I'll use this thread to update my benchmarks after I setup my new MBP with my old time machine backups etc.

2011 MBP 13" i7