Early Benchmarks Show Significant Performance Gains for Core i7 MacBook Pro

[Mardak]

knowing whether it's worth the extra $$$ for the i7 over the i5.

Seems like there's about an ~8% boost in benchmark scores when going from i5 540M to i7 620M:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i5-540M-Notebook-Processor.23748.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-620M-Notebook-Processor.23043.0.html

Just comparing clock speeds (2.53GHz vs 2.66GHz), it's a ~5% boost.

The price increase is ~10%.

So the question is can you get more than a 8% boost in productivity with your $200 buying something else?

 

[Apple Corps]

too bad for all those that couldn't wait it out. That i7 screams!

Not bad at all - I have been enjoying the excellent performance of my cool running 17" MBP for many months now while others have limped along with whatever they were "stuck" with. I'll scope out the reviews and decide if a sell and purchase is warranted

 

[JoePike]

Seems like there's about an ~8% boost in benchmark scores when going from i5 540M to i7 620M:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i5-540M-Notebook-Processor.23748.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-620M-Notebook-Processor.23043.0.html

Just comparing clock speeds (2.53GHz vs 2.66GHz), it's a ~5% boost.

The price increase is ~10%.

So the question is can you get more than a 8% boost in productivity with your $200 buying something else?

Many many thanks for this extremely helpful post. Poignant information backed by actual data...what a novelty. I guess I've grown too accustomed to reading melodramatic drivel and unsubstantiated hogwash on these forums. Thanks for the breath of fresh air!

 

[jamesryanbell]

Apple just can't win. These seem to be respectable improvements in their laptop line. This supposedly is what a lot of people on this site were waiting for, complaining that Apple was ignoring computer users and needed to update their laptops. Now Apple has delivered, and look how many people are rating it negative.

People wanted to be able to tout specs. They wanted a QUAD-core i7 that STILL gets ridiculous battery life, so that the computer could be every bit as spec'd out as a VAIO AND still be able to run OSX.

Plus, people wanted cutting edge ports like USB 3.0.

People are waiting on Apple to be the FIRST company to release technology like that in laptops...not just merely get what the PC world has had for over a year.

 

[KCH1]

Should I Return my MBP Today for New One?

Advice please:
I received my new MacBook Pro 14 days ago. I could initiate a return today if I want to. I got the 15" with these specs:
2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRM-2x2GB
500GB Serial ATA Drive@7200rpm

I note that there isn't a 2.8ghz available. I upgraded the ATA drive.

Should I swap it out for a new model? Such a pain, but I refresh only every 4-5 years.

Can I return mine for any reason, or do I need a good reason?

Thanks.

 

[JackAxe]

Finally!

But anyways, I bought my MBPro 17" replacement beginning of March. I couldn't wait any longer and the business sales guy said I'd have a month to trade up, since we both new these things were coming. He also saved me over $300, so no complaints.

If my PC, which I had upgraded to an i7 920(2.66 Ghz base clock) from a Q96450(Core2 Quad 45nm 2.66 Ghz) last year had been a substantial improvement, I would have probably bit the bullet and waited, but I was worried it would have gone into June for new updates. The only difference I noticed, besides a frame or two in game benchmarks was in Maxwell Renderer, which loves the extra threads -- the i7 is nearly double the performance!

The newer GPU is an interesting choice, it's still not exactly a powerhouse. I think if they had put in a 260m, I'd be overly jealous. But I guess they chose a moderate update for battery life, which mine only gets 4 hours with the 9600m doing my daily tasks.

 

[JackAxe]

Advice please:
I received my new MacBook Pro 14 days ago. I could initiate a return today if I want to. I got the 15" with these specs:
2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRM-2x2GB
500GB Serial ATA Drive@7200rpm

I note that there isn't a 2.8ghz available. I upgraded the ATA drive.

Should I swap it out for a new model? Such a pain, but I refresh only every 4-5 years.

Can I return mine for any reason, or do I need a good reason?

Thanks.

It's a pain, but yeah, since't it's only been 14 days. The newer GPU will be a bit snappier, which I'd like on my 17", the 9600m tugs sometimes. The newer CPU for specific tasks kicks arse and overall is a bit quicker, at least going by my PC experience.

Also, talking to the right guy will probably make a difference. When I first visited the Apple store south of me, the guy told me 14 days with a restocking fee. The Apple store I bought it from near my house told me 30 days and I could just pay any difference -- but that was about 45 days back.

One last thing. The i5 lacks hyper-threading and a few extra features found in the Core2 and i7. So if you do heavy lifting on your notebook, go with the i7.

 

[phrint]

Benchmarking is a tool that allows geeks to walk around and proclaim they have a bigger tech-dick in terms of performance. Sadly, less than 10% of these people will actually use and notice the difference between the machines. Bragging rights are only good until the next-gen comes out this fall. Technology is such a bitch.

Try telling a non-tech person that your Geekbench score rocks and they will never speak to you again.

Anyway, the results look great.

 

[swissmann]

Advice please:
I received my new MacBook Pro 14 days ago. I could initiate a return today if I want to. I got the 15" with these specs:
2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRM-2x2GB
500GB Serial ATA Drive@7200rpm

I note that there isn't a 2.8ghz available. I upgraded the ATA drive.

Should I swap it out for a new model? Such a pain, but I refresh only every 4-5 years.

Can I return mine for any reason, or do I need a good reason?

Thanks.

I'd swap it out for a new one. At least you should get a price adjustment on your old one if you decide to keep it and get some money back. But hurry 14 days is typically the cutoff.

 

[jragosta]

http://www.barefeats.com/imi7.html

Well, you have these results for the iMac. I don't know if they apply to laptop processors, but it seems like the i7 kicks a bit of i5's bottom.

iMac comparisons are useless. The iMac uses the desktop quad core i7 while the MBP uses the mobile dual core i7.

 

[PaulDCarlucci]

Also, the i5 desktop processor doesn't have hyper threading whereas the i7 desktop does. i5 versus i7 in mobile is a difference between clock speed and cache (3MB versus 4MB). It's a lot closer, with i5 actually winning in some Windows desktops due to how power gets managed.

 

[friedmud]

Seems like there's about an ~8% boost in benchmark scores when going from i5 540M to i7 620M:
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i5-540M-Notebook-Processor.23748.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-620M-Notebook-Processor.23043.0.html

Just comparing clock speeds (2.53GHz vs 2.66GHz), it's a ~5% boost.

The price increase is ~10%.

So the question is can you get more than a 8% boost in productivity with your $200 buying something else?

Also depends on if you can utilize the virtual cores in a way that makes sense. I write massively parallel engineering simulation code... and can definitely use any cores (virtual or otherwise) that are given to me. For instance, Hyperthreads on my Mac Pro workstation work well for parallel compilation... and for leaving some execution processes hanging around when I run an 8 processor simulation on my computer.

Also... as a serious amateur photographer those cores get put to use in Lightroom.... especially rendering effects and exporting thousands of photos from RAW format to JPG.

Hyperthreads are the big difference between i5 and i7. If you can use them... spend the extra cash.

 

[guzhogi]

People wanted to be able to tout specs. They wanted a QUAD-core i7 that STILL gets ridiculous battery life, so that the computer could be every bit as spec'd out as a VAIO AND still be able to run OSX.

Plus, people wanted cutting edge ports like USB 3.0.

People are waiting on Apple to be the FIRST company to release technology like that in laptops...not just merely get what the PC world has had for over a year.

Is having the latest & greatest really that much to ask? Sure there are some new technologies that claim are great & revolutionary but are terrible, and Apple may be privy to knowledge a lot of us aren't. But when other companies use these techs for over a year, it's painful. No wonder Windows has over 90% marketshare.

Too bad Apple is so interested in consumer electronics now and seemingly not so much on its pro software & hardware. Macs & Mac OS X could be so much better.

 

[Cadmir]

Thanks for the great info!

I have been smiling all day! I have been looking forward to getting a new i7 15' MBP for such a long time. Updating from the original Yonah based 2.0 Ghz MBP from early 2006 is going rival upgrading from a 27inch Sony Trinitron to a 42inch 1080p 120 Hz HDTV. Sadly some people will simply never be happy. Spending too much time in your parent's basement is not healthy ( yes this applies to some of the pessimistic posters).

Thank you to everyone who has posted hard data about performance, comparisons, and other technological insight. I have a limited knowledge of the inner workings of computer hardware, so having access to understandable information is greatly appreciated as it makes me confident in my purchase.

Is there anywhere I can find data showing performance differences between using 4 and 8Gb of Ram?

Apple for the win!

 

[Great Dave]

I just heard the news on the update! Yeah - Update! Finally!

But,....


Why are the tests done with the new top-of-the-line with the previous mid level MacBook Pro?

Seems kind of fishy on first look.

Is it that the new top doesn't fair that well against the old top? Or what is the reasoning?

 

[Maximus434]

One last thing. The i5 lacks hyper-threading and a few extra features found in the Core2 and i7. So if you do heavy lifting on your notebook, go with the i7.

No it doesn't. Stop spreading complete rubbish. The Core i5 does have hyperthreading and is not lacking any "extra features" of any other MBP processor. It is identical to the i7 bar the 1mb extra L3 cache. And miles ahead of the core2duo.

 

[cvaldes]

Benchmarking is a tool that allows geeks to walk around and proclaim they have a bigger tech-dick in terms of performance. Sadly, less than 10% of these people will actually use and notice the difference between the machines. Bragging rights are only good until the next-gen comes out this fall. Technology is such a bitch.

Try telling a non-tech person that your Geekbench score rocks and they will never speak to you again.

Anyway, the results look great.

Don't worry, bro.

They aren't getting laid tonight. However, they'll have a jolly good wank when their Geekbench scores come through.

 

[hover]

People wanted to be able to tout specs. They wanted a QUAD-core i7 that STILL gets ridiculous battery life, so that the computer could be every bit as spec'd out as a VAIO AND still be able to run OSX.

Excuse me, but which VAIO and which quad-core mobile CPU are you referring to? Would anybody really prefer 1.6 (or 1.73) GHz quad-core to 2.66 GHz dual-core, in a laptop?

Surely, it would be nice for Apple to unveil a miracle new CPU, hidden even from Intel's roadmap.

 

[r00fus]

Run, don't walk back to the store

Advice please:
I received my new MacBook Pro 14 days ago. I could initiate a return today if I want to. I got the 15" with these specs:
2.8GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRM-2x2GB
500GB Serial ATA Drive@7200rpm

I note that there isn't a 2.8ghz available. I upgraded the ATA drive.

Should I swap it out for a new model? Such a pain, but I refresh only every 4-5 years.

Can I return mine for any reason, or do I need a good reason?

Thanks.

The new i7 is 50% faster. Amortized over 4 or 5 years, a few extra hundred will really be negligible. Drop your old one and get the new one, even if it's a bit more expensive.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...ore_i7_macbook_pros_offer_50_speed_boost.html

 

[joecool99]

real world performance - will it play crysis ???

REAL WORLD - how much will it speed up:

Final Cut Pro 7 editing, encoding, etc. ?

Crysis and GTA 4 ?


ps: is there a way to enforce the the faster graphic. card ? i'm a bit skeptical about the automatic switching. wouldn't that slow down process like FCP editing since there are moments when you are idle, just thing next steps - so it will actually switch from integrated to discreet many times in minute ?

Isn't there initial slow-down as the discreet card is being activated as it senses performance need from FCP ? Or is it really instant ?

 

[DerfBWH]

Hey guys. I'm thinking about purchasing a new MacBook Pro 15", possibly the base Core i5 model with a high resolution screen. However, I've got a couple of questions.

First, this would be my first 64-bit OS X system. Does anybody know the actual speed increases attributed to the 64-bit platform? For example, I heard that the 64-bit compile of Handbrake encodes up to 40% faster than the 32-bit binary. Is this true?

Second, how much of an improvement are we talking here for me? My MacBook Pro is currently a 1.83 GHz Core Duo 15" from Feb. 2006 running 10.6.3. It's starting to get a little long at the tooth, and I'm under the impression that this will be a huge upgrade. Anyone else agree or disagree?

And thirdly, the high resolution screen. Has anyone played with a 15" machine with such high density pixel ratios? How is it? Is it abnormally hard to read, does it cause eye strain, etc.? Or does it hit a "sweet spot"?

I use my laptop as my main computer, doing most of my web browsing, music organization, photo organization, word processing, graphic design (currently with Photoshop CS4), web design, movie rendering (with iMovie HD, iMovie '09, and occasionally FCP), and the rare application development.

Thanks!

 

[thermodynamic]

Nice results.

I bought a 17" MBP about 5 months ago. I don't do a lot of major processing on it, and when I do I can hear the fan ramp up. The new chips will run cooler, but it's not cost-effective to upgrade. I'm saving for CS5 upgrade to begin with...

They're wise to not include a quad-core model. The HP Pavilion I saw at a big box store has people complaining it overheats to death.

I run a 3 year cycle for laptop replacement, so in 2 years 7 months, a really great MBP will be out - likely with a quad-core processor and 8GB of RAM for the same price.

 

[thermodynamic]

The new i7 is 50% faster. Amortized over 4 or 5 years, a few extra hundred will really be negligible. Drop your old one and get the new one, even if it's a bit more expensive.

http://www.appleinsider.com/article...ore_i7_macbook_pros_offer_50_speed_boost.html

Benchmark charts are confined to a static set of operations. They look nice, but real world specs would only amount to a couple of increased FPS in a 3D game.

Real life performance? To somebody like me who bought a mid-2009 model, the differences will be there but not often noticeable. But given how recent the purchase was, I too would say "return it".

 

[thermodynamic]

REAL WORLD - how much will it speed up:

Final Cut Pro 7 editing, encoding, etc. ?

Crysis and GTA 4 ?


ps: is there a way to enforce the the faster graphic. card ? i'm a bit skeptical about the automatic switching. wouldn't that slow down process like FCP editing since there are moments when you are idle, just thing next steps - so it will actually switch from integrated to discreet many times in minute ?

Isn't there initial slow-down as the discreet card is being activated as it senses performance need from FCP ? Or is it really instant ?

That is the problem with charts. Static benchmarks often look much nicer than real world conditions. It'd be nice to see a real benchmarking of real-life apps. I would expect some good results depending on application, but those who bought a 17" MBP a few months ago have no reason to be crying.

Now, apps WILL run faster on the newer machine of course, but depending on any number of circumstances, will a ~20% real-life performance boost be worth the time and money? (Comparing DDR2 RAM to DDR3 RAM for example, charts would show 5~30% improvement in those benchmarks. But in real life performance, most people will see little, if any, difference at all. I'm comparing oranges to bananas here, but both are still in the same category of 'tasty fruits' so the extrapolation does work to an extent.)

As with the to-be-retired MBP models, the new ones should have the ability to set which graphics card is used.

 

[avidmarxist]

Guesstimates on comparison b/w new i7 and Late 2006 C2D?

Hi guys -

Just wondering if anyone has any guesstimates on what type of performance boost I'd see from my current MBP. I know it's quite old at this point, but still cranking along well. I'm itching to upgrade, but would love to hear your thoughts.

I have a late-2006 MBP 2.33 C2D with 4GB ram (this model can only recognize 3gb RAM.) I put in a 500gb 7200rpm drive, which added a nice boost over the original 160gb 5400rpm drive. It's got the Radeon X1600 (256mb) card in it.

Yes, I know it's a stretch to compare my current MBP with the new ones, but I figured that someone here would like to make a guess.

I'm looking at the Core i7 15" with the upgraded monitor. I will probably stick with 4gb of RAM for now. Hoping to eek out 3+ years of use (if the stupid right speaker on my 6 months-out-of-AppleCare MBP hadn't blown out last week I would probably still hold out - won't be getting rid of this old girl, though, instead she will become a home server and media pc.)

Thoughts? Guesses?

Thanks!