Thank you for that very helpful link. Now, if only MacJenn would take the time to read it...
Apparently, the 2.4Ghz MB outperforms the 2.4Ghz MBP in overall scores. That doesn't mean much (if anything), but it's always nice to add insult to injury
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How Much Better is the Pro?
- Thread starter Green10
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Thank you for that very helpful link. Now, if only MacJenn would take the time to read it...
Apparently, the 2.4Ghz MB outperforms the 2.4Ghz MBP in overall scores. That doesn't mean much (if anything), but it's always nice to add insult to injury
Yeah, it seems weird but I've seen it happen before.
Oh, and to substantiate my original post (for anyone who disputes it)...
"This increased graphics performance is a huge gain for the MacBook, and makes the MacBook a compelling machine for people looking for a smaller MacBook Pro."
That said, the MBP is still an amazing machine. I still believe that the 'best' computer is the one that fits your needs, so buy accordingly!
I don't get it either. How can the MB outperformed the MBP in memory performance, when the MB has 2 GB of RAM and MBP has 4 GB? May be it was something like performance per GB?
Actually, they both have 2GB of RAM. The comparison was between the 2.4Ghz MB and the 2.4Ghz MBP. You were probably thinking of the 2.53Ghz MBP (honest mistake).
And I think you made it well. Unfortunately, some people can't be persuaded if they don't intend to listen.
May be I am reading it wrong then. Thanks for pointing it out. I thought the following meant 4GB for MBP and 2GB for MB. (quoted from here)
Setup
MacBook Pro (Late 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo T9400 @ 2.53GHz or
Intel Core 2 Duo P8600 @ 2.40GHz
4.00 GB 1067 MHz DDR3
Mac OS X 10.5.5 (Build 9F2088)
MacBook (Late 2008)
Intel Core 2 Duo P8600 @ 2.40GHz or
Intel Core 2 Duo P7350 @ 2.00GHz
2.00 GB 1067 MHz DDR3
Mac OS X 10.5.5 (Build 9F2114)
Yes, that is definitely misleading. As I'm sure you're aware, if the 2.4Ghz MBP was tested with 4GB of RAM, then this data would make no sense. I doubt that's the case, though. The test is meant to be a direct comparison between the different models, so it wouldn't make sense to partially upgrade one of them (it would undermine the purpose of the test).
I guess they forgot to write 2GB for the 2.4Ghz MBP...?
I'm still curious why the 2.4Ghz MB scored better than the 2.4Ghz MBP. These benchmarking tools really puzzle me sometimes!
You can download and test your personal configuration:
http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/
Higher numbers are better. Geekbench overall performance:
MacBook Pro (Late 2008) = 3129
Intel Core 2 Duo P8600 @ 2.40GHz
4.00 GB 1067 MHz DDR3
Mac OS X 10.5.5 (Build 9F2088)
MacBook (Late 2008) = 3139
Intel Core 2 Duo P8600 @ 2.40GHz
2.00 GB 1067 MHz DDR3
Mac OS X 10.5.5 (Build 9F2114)
The oldest usually gets smacked first and hardest. May not be fair, but that's just the way life is.
Oh, almost forgot..<SMACK> that's for talking back to me!
Very glad this was posted.
As many (or at least I) have said. The MB win's but not by much.
And as was also said, get the machine that best suites your needs. If you can spend an extra $300 and get express card, dedicated graphics, FW800 and FW400, and a bigger display, go for it since you won't loose much at all in terms of performance.
MacBook - blah, blah, blah
MacBook Pro - blah, blah blah + 15" screen (A better 15" screen), FW800, Express card slot, Dedicated 9600 GT graphics card, better speakers, ability to support more RAM, did i say better screen quality?
Again, the only argument the MacBook has is portability. That's it
DOUBLE EDIT:
So I ran this on my macbook and the specs given on this chart are WRONG. I got a score of 3126 with my MBP w/ 2GB of RAM. heres the picture
MacBook Pro - blah, blah blah + 15" screen (A better 15" screen), FW800, Express card slot, Dedicated 9600 GT graphics card, better speakers, ability to support more RAM, did i say better screen quality?
Again, the only argument the MacBook has is portability. That's it
DOUBLE EDIT:
So I ran this on my macbook and the specs given on this chart are WRONG. I got a score of 3126 with my MBP w/ 2GB of RAM. heres the picture
Both support 4GB (as per Apple's specs) and 6GB if you wish to fork over the cash.
MacBook - blah, blah, blah
MacBook Pro - blah, blah blah + 15" screen (A better 15" screen), FW800, Express card slot, Dedicated 9600 GT graphics card, better speakers, ability to support more RAM, did i say better screen quality?
Again, the only argument the MacBook has is portability. That's it
DOUBLE EDIT:
So I ran this on my macbook and the specs given on this chart are WRONG. I got a score of 3126 with my MBP w/ 2GB of RAM. heres the picture
FAIL
If you took the time to read the above posts, then you would have realized that we've already discussed ALL of your points. The issue was never the feature set between the two models, it was the performance differentials. For the extra money, you did not receive any substantial performance improvement - that was the issue.
Mind you, the features you listed are all justifiable selling points depending on your needs. Again, if you read the above posts then you would already known this.
I'm starting to think that uninformed bragging rights is another selling point for the MBP...
Don't dish it if you can't take it.
OR
If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen.
I apologize for being rude, but some of these posts really pushed my buttons. Please forgive me, I'll be nice now.
But I edited the thing!
If you look at my history, I actually do make positive contributions (unlike MacJenn). I just don't have patience for arrogance AND ignorance. Enjoy your ignore button
But I edited the thing!
If you look at my history, I actually do make positive contributions (unlike MacJenn). I just don't have patience for arrogance AND ignorance. Enjoy your ignore button
I posted before your edit which made me edit mine (does that make sense? you know what I mean). It is all good.
man~ I just love 
anything... I hope we are now back on track...
let the love, begin-again...
personally, I prefer(ed) MB, if it wasn't for the better MBP screen, which is thee primary reason for me, I would've bought MB 2.4 in a heartbeat. to each his own...
having said above, why are we comparing MB VS. MBP with same graphics chip? to be "fair", because we're talking about what it's worth, right?, we should than compare both to their max. spec. Also, they don't even have the same size/screen res. Of course MBP is going to milk-more from the lower-powered GC. hence the less performance...
YES, this is my OPINION, and it is my opinion only, no one reserves the right to bash on my opinion!
anything... I hope we are now back on track...let the love, begin-again...
personally, I prefer(ed) MB, if it wasn't for the better MBP screen, which is thee primary reason for me, I would've bought MB 2.4 in a heartbeat. to each his own...
having said above, why are we comparing MB VS. MBP with same graphics chip? to be "fair", because we're talking about what it's worth, right?, we should than compare both to their max. spec. Also, they don't even have the same size/screen res. Of course MBP is going to milk-more from the lower-powered GC. hence the less performance...
YES, this is my OPINION, and it is my opinion only, no one reserves the right to bash on my opinion!
Yeah, this has definitely turned into an entertaining thread! I'm pleased to note that the hostility has ceased!
And just to give some context to this 'performance differentials' debate, MacJenn said that the new MBs were 'crapbooks' and that the low-end MBP was substantially better performance-wise. Now that we've put that theory to rest, we can evaluate all the relevant selling points.
I agree that the MBP screen is FAR superior to the MB's. Truthfully, if I wasn't planning on buying an external monitor, the screen would definitely be a deal breaker for me (everything else, not so much). Portability was a big factor too.
Unfortunately, now I'm going through the painful process of choosing a 24" monitor. I love the new Cinema Display, but for that price, I don't love it that much
And just to give some context to this 'performance differentials' debate, MacJenn said that the new MBs were 'crapbooks' and that the low-end MBP was substantially better performance-wise. Now that we've put that theory to rest, we can evaluate all the relevant selling points.
I agree that the MBP screen is FAR superior to the MB's. Truthfully, if I wasn't planning on buying an external monitor, the screen would definitely be a deal breaker for me (everything else, not so much). Portability was a big factor too.
Unfortunately, now I'm going through the painful process of choosing a 24" monitor. I love the new Cinema Display, but for that price, I don't love it that much
Can't say anything about the price, because I for one think it can be lower. Branding is a bitchshshsh Having played with it for a week and still wanting it, only if I can get my hands on it again, I would wait and save and get the real deal. It is a very nice monitor. No. I do not work for
Having played with it for a week and still wanting it, only if I can get my hands on it again, I would wait and save and get the real deal. It is a very nice monitor. No. I do not work for
Yeah, this has definitely turned into an entertaining thread! I'm pleased to note that the hostility has ceased!
And just to give some context to this 'performance differentials' debate, MacJenn said that the new MBs were 'crapbooks' and that the low-end MBP was substantially better performance-wise. Now that we've put that theory to rest, we can evaluate all the relevant selling points.
I agree that the MBP screen is FAR superior to the MB's. Truthfully, if I wasn't planning on buying an external monitor, the screen would definitely be a deal breaker for me (everything else, not so much). Portability was a big factor too.
Unfortunately, now I'm going through the painful process of choosing a 24" monitor. I love the new Cinema Display, but for that price, I don't love it that much