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

Early Benchmarks Show Significant Performance Gains for Core i7 MacBook Pro

Hey guys. I have a couple questions here.

- Is there any significant difference in performance between the 2.4GHz 13"MBP and the 2.66GHz 13"MBP ?:confused:

- Is it convenient to travel around with the 15" MBP ?:confused:

Btw, I'm a student that looking for my first mac.

Thank you.:)
 
SickSid said:
I accpected a Quad Core i7 not Dual Core
Dual Core i7 620M never stands a chance against the Core i7 9XX Series

Link
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/mobile/specifications.htm
The Processor Specs Link
http://www.macworld.com/article/150589/2010/04/corei5i7_mbp.html
But It is still a Huge improvement over 2.8/3.03 Ghz C2D in Video Rendering
Click to expand...

I don't know why on earth you'd expect that since the quad cores really aren't laptop chips and would have terrible battery life. No one else expected them to be quad core.
 
Maximus434 said:
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.
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Holy crap man. Did I step on your toe or something? :)

That wasn't me spreading rubbish intentionally BTW. But here's why I was confused. On the PC side, the 1156 board from Asus my friend uses, which supports the i5 and i7(1156 socket), doesn't support hyperthreading and a few other features I have on my 1366 board. I always assumed it was the CPU's limitations for at least the i5. So my bad!

I'm not with you on the miles ahead though. The rendering boost on my PC is awesome with my i7, it's nearly double the performance, but overall it's feels stepped up just a bit, as in I was going about 75 mph before and now I'm going like 78 mph. Yep, bad analogy.
 
JackAxe said:
I'm not with you on the miles ahead though. The rendering boost on my PC is awesome with my i7, it's nearly double the performance, but overall it's feels stepped up just a bit, as in I was going about 75 mph before and now I'm going like 78 mph. Yep, bad analogy.
Click to expand...

You're correct in this regard, too, although your analogy is a bit too muted. Arrandale represents the largest increase we've seen in a while in laptop processors, but the notion that it's leaps and bounds ahead of Core2Duo is simply false. There are certain places where Arrandale shines, but by and large, the improvement it offers isn't vast. Gotta give Intel credit on the hype and marketing machine here. Close inspection of benchmarks reveals the true story.
 
john123 said:
You're correct in this regard, too, although your analogy is a bit too muted. Arrandale represents the largest increase we've seen in a while in laptop processors, but the notion that it's leaps and bounds ahead of Core2Duo is simply false. There are certain places where Arrandale shines, but by and large, the improvement it offers isn't vast. Gotta give Intel credit on the hype and marketing machine here. Close inspection of benchmarks reveals the true story.
Click to expand...

I know this sound silly:eek: but can u explain more ?
 
All the i-series procs have only 256K L2 cache per core but make up for that with on-chip L3 (level 3) cache. i7 has 4 cores while i5 has 4 virtual cores and is technically a dual core. Don't waste time taking back for an i5 if restocking fee is involved. My guess is Apple will give around $300 to keep last gen 2.8's.
 
john123 said:
You're correct in this regard, too, although your analogy is a bit too muted. Arrandale represents the largest increase we've seen in a while in laptop processors, but the notion that it's leaps and bounds ahead of Core2Duo is simply false. There are certain places where Arrandale shines, but by and large, the improvement it offers isn't vast. Gotta give Intel credit on the hype and marketing machine here. Close inspection of benchmarks reveals the true story.
Click to expand...

They always hype things, look at the P4 and USB 2! :)

My PC was already quite fast prior to upgrading the board and CPU, that's why I say it only feels like I'm going a bit faster. If not for FRAPS and in game benchmarks, I wouldn't have really known there was an improvement.
 
lanlife said:
Hey guys. I have a couple questions here.

- Is there any significant difference in performance between the 2.4GHz 13"MBP and the 2.66GHz 13"MBP ?:confused:

- Is it convenient to travel around with the 15" MBP ?:confused:

Btw, I'm a student that looking for my first mac.

Thank you.:)
Click to expand...


I am a student as well and I think the 15 is the best size. For a student the 17 is out of the question unless your never going to travel with it. The 13 is just too small for me. It depends on your uses too. The 13 is not a great machine for graphic design. I will order my i7 15" tomorrow!
 
mbproky said:
Yeah, I'd like to see a benchmark too. I had this powerbook for 6+ years now and would like to hang to my mbp for a looong time too.

Adding 310 euros for the i7 it's a bit hard on the wallet, though...
Click to expand...

Yeah, my 5 year old powerbook will be replaced by my new 15" i7 when it arrives. I'm hoping that it lasts at least 3 years. I bought it as a business machine, so I paid for it out of my business account and can claim depreciation etc on it, so the extra money wasn't a problem for me. ;)
 
avidmarxist said:
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!
Click to expand...

Well, as usual, it probably depends on what you are doing with it as to what sort of performance improvement you will see. However, the GPU alone in the new MacBook Pro is around 3x faster than the old X1600, which is what I have as well. I am at the same stage as you but I am contemplating switching from a 17" MacBook Pro to a 27" iMac. In this respect I am torn. On the one hand I am expecting the iMac to be faster for a slightly lower price but on the otherhand I will be sacrificing portability (potentially a gap I would fill with an iPad). What I need to know is the performance differential between the 2 systems. If that gap is major then the iMac it is but if it is relatively close then the MacBook Pro will get the nod.

Anyone seen any benchmarks of the i7 MBP vs. i7 iMac?
 
Desperately need to see some real world benchmarks between the high end C2D Pros and the i5 and i7.

Really stuggling to decide on a refurb, i5 or i7.

The money saved could go on some mammoth RAM upgrade!
 
Celticsun said:
Desperately need to see some real world benchmarks between the high end C2D Pros and the i5 and i7.

Really stuggling to decide on a refurb, i5 or i7.

The money saved could go on some mammoth RAM upgrade!
Click to expand...

lanlife said:
I know this sound silly:eek: but can u explain more ?
Click to expand...

Most of the numbers are already out there. On a clock-for-clock basis, Arrandale is on average 20% faster than a comparable Core2Duo. That percentage is higher on some tasks and lower on others.

Really, going from i5 to i7 should be the last upgrade for 99% of users. Enough RAM > faster disk > oodles of RAM such that you rarely page out > processor bump ought to be the order for most users.
 
john123 said:
Most of the numbers are already out there. On a clock-for-clock basis, Arrandale is on average 20% faster than a comparable Core2Duo. That percentage is higher on some tasks and lower on others.
Click to expand...

That's probably a reasonable starting point. From there, factor in:
- New MBP has much faster video than the models it is replacing
- 4 GB of RAM is the sweet spot for me - far more comfortable than 2 GB or even 3. Does the old system have enough RAM?
- The extra cores are becoming more useful over time. Particularly with things like Grand Central and OpenCL, the software will make better use of the extra cores and GPU over time, so your system performance may actually improve with time - much more than on the older system.

Still, for many people, regular computer upgrades are becoming a thing of the past. I used to upgrade my computers every 3 years - and they were feeling pretty slow towards the end of that period. Now, I'm using a 3.5 year old MacBook Pro and an iMac that's almost 3 years old - and neither one feels sluggish to me. The part of me that likes toys would love to replace either of them, but I just don't see the need at this point. I suspect that there are a lot of people for whom this is true. I expect that replacement cycles will continue to grow - unless someone comes up with some killer feature that needs new hardware.
 
jragosta said:
That's probably a reasonable starting point. From there, factor in:
- New MBP has much faster video than the models it is replacing
- 4 GB of RAM is the sweet spot for me - far more comfortable than 2 GB or even 3. Does the old system have enough RAM?
- The extra cores are becoming more useful over time. Particularly with things like Grand Central and OpenCL, the software will make better use of the extra cores and GPU over time, so your system performance may actually improve with time - much more than on the older system.

Still, for many people, regular computer upgrades are becoming a thing of the past. I used to upgrade my computers every 3 years - and they were feeling pretty slow towards the end of that period. Now, I'm using a 3.5 year old MacBook Pro and an iMac that's almost 3 years old - and neither one feels sluggish to me. The part of me that likes toys would love to replace either of them, but I just don't see the need at this point. I suspect that there are a lot of people for whom this is true. I expect that replacement cycles will continue to grow - unless someone comes up with some killer feature that needs new hardware.
Click to expand...

Well, the previous generation had 4GB of RAM standard, so there's no change.

And I agree on the extra cores -- hyperthreading should help a little here.

I used to upgrade every single PB/MBP revision, and stopped doing that about 2 years ago. This is the first time I feel compelled to upgrade -- more because of the new screen option than anything. I do love my toys.
 
Well, I just pulled the trigger on two new MBPs. I ordered a 15" i7 Hi-rez or myself, and a 15" i5 hi-rez matte for my wife. Quite excited for the machines to arrive.

As some people have mentioned, the upgrade cycle just isn't as fast as it once was. These two laptops are replacing my 3.5 year old MBP (first generation with the core duo, not the C2D) and my wife's 4 year old Thinkpad. And yet, the replacement is being driven not so much by the seed increase (though that will be considerable) but by the fact that the old hadware has just worn out. My battery no longer charges, and the LCD isn't as bright as it once was, and her system suffered a motherboard fault.

So, I am excited or the speed increase. I am looking forward to improved Photoshop performance, faster iMovie and iPhoto (and better, since I never purchased any iLife upgrades), and even some gaming. But computers just seem to last longer now than they did, since the speed increases don't eel as dramatic as in years past.
 
Mbp13"

I'm a student and I had my heart on getting my first MBP13" but I'm not sure now because of the whole Duo Core 2 vs. the i5. I'm big on editing on photoshop and using final cut but what are the actually difference going to be? Is it just mainly speed, as before the Duo Core 2 seemed to be adequate. Is it worth the extra 500 pounds? Thanks!
 
w2el42.jpg


"Why so dual-core in 2010?"

:rolleyes:
 
AidenShaw said:
I'll wait to see the real world benchmarks with HyperThreading.

On my two Core i7 desktops, I've disabled HT and run with 4 real cores.
Click to expand...
It depends on what you do. I know that in your instance disabling HT increases performance.

It'll shine in Handbrake/Cinebench but in most Photoshop tests you get less performance with HT turned on.
 
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