Apple Releases New MacBook Pros with Santa Rosa

[gnasher729]

Yeah, but a 200GB 4200rpm drive is not going to do as well as a 160GB 7200rpm.

It it does and you can show me a link I stand corrected.

Check out www.komplett.co.uk; click on Harddisks, then on SATA 2.5", then compare the specs. The important info is "internal transfer speed", that is how many MB per second the drive can read from the harddisk. (There is also "external transfer speed" which is how fast the drive could move data into the computer if it could read them fast enough).

You will see that the 160 GB 7200 RPM disks have actually _lower_ internal transfer speed (59 MB/sec) than the 160 GB 5400 RPM disks (67 MB/sec). The reason is most likely that the 5400 RPM disks have higher data density, while the 7200 RPM disks use more platters at lower density.

 

[RawisJericho]

Well I called Apple back and this time I was told the ADC discount and the Nano deal could not be combined.

 

[Eidorian]

Amidst all my desires for a laptop, I think I'll go with a desktop instead. I wanted something portable with power running my beloved OS X.

I'll see what next week's keynote has to say about a "massive investment in desktops" turns out to be.

 

[wHo_tHe]

2.4ghz XBench results

Results	96.77	
	System Info		
		Xbench Version		1.3
		System Version		10.4.9 (8Q1058)
		Physical RAM		2048 MB
		Model		MacBookPro3,1
		Drive Type		FUJITSU MHW2160BHPL
	CPU Test	123.37	
		GCD Loop	271.90	14.33 Mops/sec
		Floating Point Basic	136.11	3.23 Gflop/sec
		vecLib FFT	98.81	3.26 Gflop/sec
		Floating Point Library	88.67	15.44 Mops/sec
	Thread Test	237.02	
		Computation	216.33	4.38 Mops/sec, 4 threads
		Lock Contention	262.08	11.27 Mlocks/sec, 4 threads
	Memory Test	139.81	
		System	128.26	
			Allocate	108.00	396.60 Kalloc/sec
			Fill	137.06	6664.22 MB/sec
			Copy	146.31	3022.01 MB/sec
		Stream	153.66	
			Copy	145.94	3014.37 MB/sec
			Scale	144.43	2983.94 MB/sec
			Add	163.52	3483.34 MB/sec
			Triad	162.84	3483.58 MB/sec
	Quartz Graphics Test	156.61	
		Line	151.23	10.07 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
		Rectangle	188.97	56.42 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
		Circle	178.87	14.58 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
		Bezier	163.14	4.11 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
		Text	120.46	7.54 Kchars/sec
	OpenGL Graphics Test	140.58	
		Spinning Squares	140.58	178.33 frames/sec
	User Interface Test	438.41	
		Elements	438.41	2.01 Krefresh/sec
	Disk Test	26.97	
		Sequential	40.42	
			Uncached Write	41.67	25.58 MB/sec [4K blocks]
			Uncached Write	37.67	21.32 MB/sec [256K blocks]
			Uncached Read	42.69	12.49 MB/sec [4K blocks]
			Uncached Read	39.99	20.10 MB/sec [256K blocks]
		Random	20.23	
			Uncached Write	7.00	0.74 MB/sec [4K blocks]
			Uncached Write	44.05	14.10 MB/sec [256K blocks]
			Uncached Read	58.52	0.41 MB/sec [4K blocks]
			Uncached Read	66.79	12.39 MB/sec [256K blocks]

 

[diamond.g]

Results	96.77		Quartz Graphics Test	156.61	
		Line	151.23	10.07 Klines/sec [50% alpha]
		Rectangle	188.97	56.42 Krects/sec [50% alpha]
		Circle	178.87	14.58 Kcircles/sec [50% alpha]
		Bezier	163.14	4.11 Kbeziers/sec [50% alpha]
		Text	120.46	7.54 Kchars/sec
	OpenGL Graphics Test	140.58	
		Spinning Squares	140.58	178.33 frames/sec

Hmm, the graphics test seem kinda low for the card in the system. Are these numbers on par?

 

[localoid]

Check out www.komplett.co.uk; click on Harddisks, then on SATA 2.5", then compare the specs. The important info is "internal transfer speed", that is how many MB per second the drive can read from the harddisk. (There is also "external transfer speed" which is how fast the drive could move data into the computer if it could read them fast enough).
...

How do you figure that "how fast the drive could move data into the computer if it could read them fast enough" has anything to do with real-world performance of a hard drive? That's theory, not a measure of real-world performance. The only "specs" I find at this site you've mentioned is "Data Transfer Rate", which is virtually meaningless.

 

[Umbongo]

I haven't seen it talked about, and alot seem upset that the base model only has 128mb of memory. Do the Apple GPUs have turbocache, at 128mb and 256mb like other notebooks using 8600GTs? How much of a difference does this make if they do, especially as they all come with 2GB of RAM stock.

 

[diamond.g]

I haven't seen it talked about, and alot seem upset that the base model only has 128mb of memory. Do the Apple GPUs have turbocache, at 128mb and 256mb like other notebooks using 8600GTs? How much of a difference does this make if they do, especially as they all come with 2GB of RAM stock.

Eww, using system memory is a no no. That is why every one wants discrete graphics.

 

[eenu]

"Data Transfer Rate", which is virtually meaningless.

Why?

He had a perfectly valid point IMHO. There are going to be variants of 7200 drives with different platter arrangements eg single 160gb platter or 2x80gb platter. In this case in his links there is IMO no real difference in the two drives.......

So it all depends on what drives apple are using as to whether there will be a significant increase in speed.....seek speed etc put to one side that is.

 

[localoid]

Results <snipped>

Thanks for posting those results. They're quite interesting.

But the Disk Drive results do seem slower than I would expect... maybe a glitch in Xbench?

 

[Umbongo]

Eww, using system memory is a no no. That is why every one wants discrete graphics.

That doesn't really answer my questions, regardless you are stuck with 128mb or 256mb, but turbocache obviously offers extra performance or they wouldn't even bother with it. I'm curious as to whether they have it, and what sort of performance gains could be seen. I assume Apple would need to be providing drivers that enable it, as I recently read new Nvidia drivers enabled turbocache on 8 series cards under XP.

 

[localoid]

Why?

He had a perfectly valid point IMHO. There are going to be variants of 7200 drives with different platter arrangements eg single 160gb platter or 2x80gb platter. In this case in his links there is IMO no real difference in the two drives.......

So it all depends on what drives apple are using as to whether there will be a significant increase in speed.....seek speed etc put to one side that is.

In "theory" USB 2 is faster than FireWire 400. Doesn't work that way in the real world. Theoretical max transfer rates will lead you down the Primrose Path.

 

[shigzeo]

that was exactly my choices and I chose to go with the Medium one and since it comes with a one year warrenty I will be purchasing the Apple care later

it comes in medium? sweet. i always find large way too big and small, somewhat leaving a gap. great news!

 

[shigzeo]

That doesn't really answer my questions, regardless you are stuck with 128mb or 256mb, but turbocache obviously offers extra performance or they wouldn't even bother with it. I'm curious as to whether they have it, and what sort of performance gains could be seen. I assume Apple would need to be providing drivers that enable it, as I recently read new Nvidia drivers enabled turbocache on 8 series cards under XP.

turbocache is like carrying a large rucksack full of stuff and you are weighed down. you take the canteen from the top sack part and carry it in your hand instead of putting it behind your head. yeah, your head can move a bit better, but now your hand is full. the performance on the extra 256 mb of memory then is much lower too as it is from your mainboard - it must go through all the checks and fsb that the mainboard puts in its way rather than from the card itself.

it is the thing that people have been whining about since day 1 on the macbook.

 

[Umbongo]

turbocache is like carrying a large rucksack full of stuff and you are weighed down. you take the canteen from the top sack part and carry it in your hand instead of putting it behind your head. yeah, your head can move a bit better, but now your hand is full. the performance on the extra 256 mb of memory then is much lower too as it is from your mainboard - it must go through all the checks and fsb that the mainboard puts in its way rather than from the card itself.

it is the thing that people have been whining about since day 1 on the macbook.

There doesn't seem to be much information on turbocache online, nearly all reviews are for the 6200 and the concensus from the technical reviews I read was that it helps as it's supposed to and there weren't major noticable slowdowns, but none really talked about how it would be without the system memory available. Also I am under the assumption it's quite different from integrated graphics due to the controller chip interfacing directly with the system memory and the PCI-E bandwidth available.

 

[ethen]

My wife picked one up, here is her unboxing video

http://www.slashgear.jp/2007/06/post-878/

She used it for a couple of hours now, her initial thought are

the screens are a lot crispier and brighter
The heat on this macbook pro is a lot cooler than the Core 2 Duo ones (previous revision)

The fan noise is a tad louder than the previous one

Will post more as soon as she finished playing with it

So far she's loving it, i need to grab one myself tomorrow

 

[chriswg]

Check out www.komplett.co.uk; click on Harddisks, then on SATA 2.5", then compare the specs. The important info is "internal transfer speed", that is how many MB per second the drive can read from the harddisk. (There is also "external transfer speed" which is how fast the drive could move data into the computer if it could read them fast enough).

You will see that the 160 GB 7200 RPM disks have actually _lower_ internal transfer speed (59 MB/sec) than the 160 GB 5400 RPM disks (67 MB/sec). The reason is most likely that the 5400 RPM disks have higher data density, while the 7200 RPM disks use more platters at lower density.

That seems correct for that site and those drives, but ... If you look at this comparison of the actual Fujitsu drive in the MBP, its speeds do not appear to match those on the Komplett site. Its transfer rates are approximately 48 MB/s versus the 59 MB/s for the 7200 RPM drive. The 160 GB 7200 RPM is better on every comparison than the 160 GB 5400 RPM Fujitsu.

I'm not sure of the accuracy of either site, but it looks like there are conflicting reports. I suppose we don't know which 7200 RPM drive Apple will use yet, so we can't properly compare them.

 

[p1ayer2]

Yipeeee!

Apple customer service is the best...thought I'd be saddled with the older model cos i ordered 2 weeks ago and the 2.33 was shipped but no they let me cancel the order and next week I'll have the very handy upgrade model.

How good is that? Supreme Commander, Earth 2160 here I come

 

[eenu]

That seems correct for that site and those drives, but ... If you look at this comparison of the actual Fujitsu drive in the MBP, its speeds do not appear to match those on the Komplett site. Its transfer rates are approximately 48 MB/s versus the 59 MB/s for the 7200 RPM drive. The 160 GB 7200 RPM is better on every comparison than the 160 GB 5400 RPM Fujitsu.

I'm not sure of the accuracy of either site, but it looks like there are conflicting reports. I suppose we don't know which 7200 RPM drive Apple will use yet, so we can't properly compare them.

sorry you make no sense.....how do you know the 7200 drive in the MBP is not a comparable Fujitsu?

Therefore his comparison of two 160GB drives from the same manufacturer (one 5400 and one 7200) is correct

 

[diamond.g]

That doesn't really answer my questions, regardless you are stuck with 128mb or 256mb, but turbocache obviously offers extra performance or they wouldn't even bother with it. I'm curious as to whether they have it, and what sort of performance gains could be seen. I assume Apple would need to be providing drivers that enable it, as I recently read new Nvidia drivers enabled turbocache on 8 series cards under XP.

Sorry, I thought the eww covered it. No turbocache isn't more useful than have the dedicated memory. We are talking about dropping from 11.2GB/s bandwidth (16 stream processors with 700 Mhz memory) down to something like 5.34GB/s. Not acceptable, and it uses system memory to boot. Now if the notebooks were using a full 32 lanes and the system memory was using DDR3 (10.67GB/s) then we are talking. Smaller performance hit (for a notebook, desktop folk would still cry with their crazy 106 GB/s bandwidth).

Of course I could say for any application you would want to run an a Mac that could be fine. But I think that is a disservice to Mac users. I want the best and I am sure you guys/gals do too.

 

[chriswg]

sorry you make no sense.....how do you know the 7200 drive in the MBP is not a comparable Fujitsu?

Therefore his comparison of two 160GB drives from the same manufacturer (one 5400 and one 7200) is correct

I don't know that. It could very well be the case. But on the Komplett site, the Seagate Momentus 160 GB 5400 RPM drive does not even list the internal transfer rate, so no comparison can be done from the same manufacturer. Am I not seeing something right?

 

[Umbongo]

Sorry, I thought the eww covered it. No turbocache isn't more useful than have the dedicated memory. We are talking about dropping from 11.2GB/s bandwidth (16 stream processors with 700 Mhz memory) down to something like 5.34GB/s. Not acceptable, and it uses system memory to boot. Now if the notebooks were using a full 32 lanes and the system memory was using DDR3 (10.67GB/s) then we are talking. Smaller performance hit (for a notebook, desktop folk would still cry with their crazy 106 GB/s bandwidth).

Of course I could say for any application you would want to run an a Mac that could be fine. But I think that is a disservice to Mac users. I want the best and I am sure you guys/gals do too.

I never implied it was more useful, I think it is pretty off that Apple are trying to upsell customers with video ram; hard drive, processor speed, sure, but there is nothing that can be done about Apple's offerings. I'm asking if having access to turbocache features will offer any significant performance for things like dual monitors, rendering, or 3D games.

 

[diamond.g]

There doesn't seem to be much information on turbocache online, nearly all reviews are for the 6200 and the concensus from the technical reviews I read was that it helps as it's supposed to and there weren't major noticable slowdowns, but none really talked about how it would be without the system memory available. Also I am under the assumption it's quite different from integrated graphics due to the controller chip interfacing directly with the system memory and the PCI-E bandwidth available.

Toms Hardware Article on the 6200TC

 

[gibbz]

I don't understand why you need to wait to week? does your school not have them in? or what's the deal? why not just use edu discount on apple.com and get it in 3 days.

No how it works is I get funding through a grant, and the university IT dept. places the order with Apple. It's just like you ordering it online. However, since I am making the purchase through university, they have to place the order. Plus we don't get charged tax. So the order they have placed with Apple (just like a consumer would online) shows a ship date of June 18.

 

[offwidafairies]

LED display technology sounds cool - but I'm glad I bought my MBP last fall. I can't help but think this Rev. A laptop will have its share of problems (which of course we'll hear about on MacRumors forums ad nauseum.

Here's the executive summary of this thread, for those of you just joining:

• Only a .2GHz speed bump? L0s3r Apple...
• What's this? I wanted my display to be made up of actual Christmas-light-style LEDs!
• My HP Megabook has these same specs and I got it on eBay for $79 - AND it came with a free forklift!
• OS X is worth $1900 to me over Wind0ze
• Where's the 'any' key?
• Did not!
• Did too!

Thanks for this, now it all makes perfect sense... I've been waiting 6 months for new MBP. Is it worth waiting for Leopard?