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

No way is the new MBP only "slightly" faster than the old.

W

WilliamG

macrumors G4
Original poster
Mar 29, 2008
10,048
3,961
Seattle
I've had the new 2.53Ghz MBP since day 1 (err.. 2 days go!), and there's no comparison in terms of speed. Games run MILES better. I can play The Witcher pretty much maxed out etc. This is in comparison to my old 2.4Ghz Penryn MBP.

Also, if you use LightRoom2, you're in for a REAL treat. Finally I can use the brush tool without ANY lag at all. It's unbelievably fast in that regard. How come benchmarks aren't showing this? My apps start faster, my apps RUN faster.

And yes, this is in comparison to a FRESHLY installed 2.4Ghz Penryn system with 4GB DDR-2.

Anyway, for those on the fence, jump over to new MBP!
 
The GPU is a slight improvement in clock speed and manufacturing processes it is still essentially still an 8600M GT series.

The processor isn't an improvement at all clock per clock.
 
If I remember correctly, the 2.4 wasn't as fast as the 2.5 or 2.6 because of the L2 cache. So you got the FSB, the CPU, and the cache playing in your favor :)
 
iShater said:
If I remember correctly, the 2.4 wasn't as fast as the 2.5 or 2.6 because of the L2 cache. So you got the FSB, the CPU, and the cache playing in your favor :)
Click to expand...

Yes, and all those things just add up to awesomeness. Then you add the GPU and what's not to like?

People always expect miracles with a new Apple product. There hasn't been anything completely amazing in laptop technology since mobile processors came around (Pentium M and then dual cores)
 
iShater said:
If I remember correctly, the 2.4 wasn't as fast as the 2.5 or 2.6 because of the L2 cache. So you got the FSB, the CPU, and the cache playing in your favor :)
Click to expand...
I believe that the large cache is only a benefit to encoding video. You get diminishing returns around 3-4 MB of L2 cache.

The frontside bus wasn't much of a bottleneck to begin with either.
 
Eidorian said:
I believe that the large cache is only a benefit to encoding video. You get diminishing returns around 3-4 MB of L2 cache.

The frontside bus wasn't much of a bottleneck to begin with either.
Click to expand...

I was checking out barefeats and the 2.6 was "better' than the 2.4 by 10% or so. So I expect the new ones to be "better" than his by that margin at least.

Just a guess.

CPU
Graphics
 
I'd also like to hear more comparisons (objective) between the new 2.4 and the most recent 2.4 (that you can still buy on Amazon.)
 
And once Snow Leopard comes out, the system will be taking advantage of the 9400M chipset (didn't they say over 54 GFLOPS and 15 parallel cores) using OpenCL... Then you'll see an even bigger performance gap
 
you guys are underestimating the 9600m GT. sure, it ain't no 9800m GT, but here is the first paragraph from notebook check:

"Compared to the 8600M GT or 9500M GS, the 9600M GT was produced in 65nm (allows higher clock rates with the same current consumption) and features a new PureVideo HD video processor (VP3) and HybridPower support."

so let's see... 65nm manufacturing process = cooler, less power. higher clock rate = faster. entirely new video processor. HybridPower support (switch to integrated 9400 when 9600 is unnecessary), potential GeForceBoost support under Vista.

all in a newer, more attractive package. with greater L2 cache. an easier to disassemble casing with user-replacable hard disk.

the only downsides are really the keyboard (ridiculous, there's nothing wrong with the new keyboard. it definitely LOOKS better, and functionality is a push) and the lack of a matte screen (buy a freakin anti-glare covering).

those are hardly deal-breakers standing in the way of a fantastic new laptop.
 
Your comparison of the 2.4 GHz previous generation of the MBP and the new 2.53GHz MBP isn't fair. The 2.4GHz MBP has only a 256MB graphics card while the 2.53 GHz MBP has a 512 MB graphics card. And benchmark tests are usually the 2.5 GHz+ previous generation MBP versus the new 2.53 GHz MBP, both of which have a 512 GHz graphics card.
 
What I want to know is why the new MBP is outperformed by a laptop made nearly a year ago i.e. the 2.6 MBP? I know it has 0.7 improvement in clock speed but what about apple's 'wonderful improvment's' with the DDR3 and better graphics performance.

MacBook Pro (Late 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo T9400 @ 2.53GHz 3290

MacBook Pro (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo T9500 @ 2.60GHz 3375

http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/category/geekbench/

WHAT IS GOING ON? Are the benchmarks not reflecting the reality?
 
Originally Posted by iShater
If I remember correctly, the 2.4 wasn't as fast as the 2.5 or 2.6 because of the L2 cache. So you got the FSB, the CPU, and the cache playing in your favor
Click to expand...


WilliamG said:
Yes, and all those things just add up to awesomeness. Then you add the GPU and what's not to like?

People always expect miracles with a new Apple product. There hasn't been anything completely amazing in laptop technology since mobile processors came around (Pentium M and then dual cores)
Click to expand...

hes telling you that had you moved up from a 2.5 or 2.6 you may have not noticed such a difference, b-t-dubs :)
 
bkeezy said:
hes telling you that had you moved up from a 2.5 or 2.6 you may have not noticed such a difference, b-t-dubs :)
Click to expand...

So by this logic the 2.8 GHz should be miles faster than the 2.53 clocked MBP since clockspeed seems to be the main factor making the difference (seen as the 2.6 actually performed better according to the tests)?
 
ptjh said:
So by this logic the 2.8 GHz should be miles faster than the 2.53 clocked MBP since clockspeed seems to be the main factor making the difference (seen as the 2.6 actually performed better according to the tests)?
Click to expand...

i would imagine so...
 
ptjh said:
What I want to know is why the new MBP is outperformed by a laptop made nearly a year ago i.e. the 2.6 MBP? I know it has 0.7 improvement in clock speed but what about apple's 'wonderful improvment's' with the DDR3 and better graphics performance.

MacBook Pro (Late 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo T9400 @ 2.53GHz 3290

MacBook Pro (Early 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo T9500 @ 2.60GHz 3375

http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/category/geekbench/

WHAT IS GOING ON? Are the benchmarks not reflecting the reality?
Click to expand...
This is a sad reality. Keep in mind that the current Core 2 Duo processors aren't improved in anyway over the older ones except in having a lower TDP.
 
Eidorian said:
I believe that the large cache is only a benefit to encoding video. You get diminishing returns around 3-4 MB of L2 cache.

The frontside bus wasn't much of a bottleneck to begin with either.
Click to expand...

excuse me, what is your problem? you are is negative. is it because of your "down on your luck avatar"?

Apple upgraded their machines all the way around, true, in more areas then others.
But why so negative? I see an increase as a positive thing.
 
I don't think you'll see much improvement in cpus until those quadcore mobile penryns show up.. which will probably be next 17" update?
 
andybill said:
excuse me, what is your problem? you are is negative. is it because of your "down on your luck avatar"?

Apple upgraded their machines all the way around, true, in more areas then others.
But why so negative? I see an increase as a positive thing.
Click to expand...
Don't expect magical performance increases since we're not getting any sort of new processor architecture? Penryn is still Penryn. There are diminishing returns on large L2 caches.

5-10% is what you should expect over the older hardware. I'm not saying that they're not better. They're just not significantly better over what you got last week.

radx said:
I don't think you'll see much improvement in cpus until those quadcore mobile penryns show up.. which will probably be next 17" update?
Click to expand...
Two more cores would do that. ;)
 
WilliamG said:
I've had the new 2.53Ghz MBP since day 1 (err.. 2 days go!), and there's no comparison in terms of speed. Games run MILES better. I can play The Witcher pretty much maxed out etc. This is in comparison to my old 2.4Ghz Penryn MBP.

Also, if you use LightRoom2, you're in for a REAL treat. Finally I can use the brush tool without ANY lag at all. It's unbelievably fast in that regard. How come benchmarks aren't showing this? My apps start faster, my apps RUN faster.

And yes, this is in comparison to a FRESHLY installed 2.4Ghz Penryn system with 4GB DDR-2.

Anyway, for those on the fence, jump over to new MBP!
Click to expand...

Geekbench scores show my new 2.8GHz is faster than my old Mid 2007 Macbook Pro, but not by all that much. I like the new one a lot more, but honestly the difference in raw performance isn't going to be that much in terms of CPU/memory speed.

A SSD can definitely make the new models feel a lot faster, but if you're comparing them then I think you'll find they're closer than not.
 
LinMac said:
Geekbench scores show my new 2.8GHz is faster than my old Mid 2007 Macbook Pro, but not by all that much. I like the new one a lot more, but honestly the difference in raw performance isn't going to be that much in terms of CPU/memory speed.

A SSD can definitely make the new models feel a lot faster, but if you're comparing them then I think you'll find they're closer than not.[/QUOTE

I want to know the geekbench 2.8 MBP score please. Could you post it here?
Click to expand...
 
The increase in performance is bigger on the graphics department then the CPU department. Both is increased, the graphics by more ;)
 
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