Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Could you link the benchmarks. I'd like to see them. An i3 m 330 vs the p8600

It's been a while since I saw that article, and I'm not exactly sure where it is, but I do remember nearly all of the real world testings showed similar results, with the exception of high end video editing and encoding. I'll try to find the article eventually.

As for synthetic benchmarks, some will show the i3 330m to be a tiny bit faster, some will show the core2 duo to be a tiny bit faster. The real factor here is the 320m vs the intel integrated gpu.
 
It's been a while since I saw that article, and I'm not exactly sure where it is, but I do remember nearly all of the real world testings showed similar results, with the exception of high end video editing and encoding. I'll try to find the article eventually.

As for synthetic benchmarks, some will show the i3 330m to be a tiny bit faster, some will show the core2 duo to be a tiny bit faster. The real factor here is the 320m vs the intel integrated gpu.

"As for synthetic benchmarks, some will show the i3 330m to be a tiny bit faster, some will show the core2 duo to be a tiny bit faster. "


This is the passmark benchmark of the i3 330m http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3+M+330+@+2.13GHz
This benchmark tests Mathematical operations, compression, encryption, SSE, 3DNow! instructions and more

The i3 330m is on par with a t9600 2.8ghz proc that was used in last gen's top end macbook pros. I think tiny bit faster is a bit of an understatement.

If u could show the benchmarks of the i3 330m vs a p8600, i would believe the "tiny" bit faster.

the graphics vs intel debate is moot as I pointed out the 13 inch should have come with both not either. I don't blame apple for this its a problem that lies with intel and nvidia.
 
WWHHHOOOAAA

I know. Looking forward to my upgrade. ;)

It's not really much slower. An ssd will make it faster than an i5. And all windows computers will eventually get slower... it's what happens when you have an os that literally cannibalizes itself and slowly kills the hardware. Whereas my 13 inch will be faster than it is today (ssd, more ram) 4 years from now and will still be better than even more expensive pc's

I'm seriously considering getting an ssd after reading this. Would an ssd really make a c2d as fast or even faster than an i5?
 
I know. Looking forward to my upgrade. ;)



I'm seriously considering getting an ssd after reading this. Would an ssd really make a c2d as fast or even faster than an i5?


It's a different type of fast. Imagine opening any application or file in half the time, sometimes instantly, after a 15 second boot time. Applications that are cpu intensive may still be faster on an i5..... but once again it's really not much faster. Skip to 3:11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJHiS46lSqk

The problem is that they are VERY expensive... around 200 bucks for 80 gigs!!! I am waiting till I can get 160-256 gb for that much money
 
I know. Looking forward to my upgrade. ;)



I'm seriously considering getting an ssd after reading this. Would an ssd really make a c2d as fast or even faster than an i5?

Ofcourse not. SSD improves loading time, but it won't improve power. ;)

But that is not entirely true. 15k SAS drives can beat SSD.
 
I know. Looking forward to my upgrade. ;)



I'm seriously considering getting an ssd after reading this. Would an ssd really make a c2d as fast or even faster than an i5?

What are you mostly doing? Anywhere from casual use to photo editing and graphics will work wonderfully with a c2d and ssd, any power increase on an i5 will be nominal and the speed from the ssd will be well worth it. IF you are doing crazy 3d imaging (like pixar crap) or intensive video editing, the i5 or i7 may be noticeably better... but I would still rather have the ssd :D
 
Having owned both the 17" i7 2.66GHz model and now the 13" 2.4GHz model with the nvidia 320m, I can say that everything that I've done on the 17" i7 can be done on this 13" without any noticable difference in overall usage. I havnt tried gaming as I dont game but I do use my computers in a very demanding way and if the 13" couldnt handle it all I would have returned it already. I'm very impressed. Anyone else looking to get the 13" base model, I would HIGHLY recommend doing so.

For example, I have 9 spaces opened with vmware fusion running windows xp in one, transmission d/ling files and uploading files, unison running d/ling files as well, colloquy opened on one space, itunes opened, email, ical, safari with 15+ tabs and youtube, firefox with 5 tabs running flash based content from coursecompass.com, plex player running while playing avatar 15GB bluray mkv file without any stutter and smooth as butter, excel opened on osx and xp on vmware along with powerpoint presentation (looking at notes) and I've occassionally burned stuff via dual layer using toast. Even while all this is running and switching between 9 spaces, it DOES NOT SLOW DOWN WHATSOEVER and it buttery smooth!

I could not do this on my previous mac mini with the nvidia 9400m. Infact, if I tried to do just half of what I just listed, spaces would be pretty choppy and plex player could not run any mkv files bigger than 10GB buttery smooth.

On my 17" i7 2.66GHz model, it ran exactly the same in performance for my usages as this 13" mbp with the nvidia 320m. I am truly amazed by how great a performance you can get and it really does feel like the nvidia 320m is a dedicated gpu rather than an integrated. 99% of the time I forget that its SUPPOSED to be an integrated GPU, lol.

Especially at the $999 price its amazing. Keep in mind though that I have an SSD drive installed on my 13" but I also did on the 17" as well. Oh and I cant wait to put 8gb of ram in this machine later on. I could use more ram as I'm always using up all 4GB. I cant imagine how much better it could get anyways lol.

And my 13" macbook pro is connected in dual display with my samsung 23" 1920x1080 monitor.
 
This is the passmark benchmark of the i3 330m http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3+M+330+@+2.13GHz
This benchmark tests Mathematical operations, compression, encryption, SSE, 3DNow! instructions and more

The i3 330m is on par with a t9600 2.8ghz proc that was used in last gen's top end macbook pros. I think tiny bit faster is a bit of an understatement.

Synthetic benchmarks are exactly that-- synthetic benchmarks. Often times the difference of the actual numbers in a synthetic benchmark are imperceptible to the average user. If you can save 20 minutes actual time coding during an average day of coding with an i3, more power to you, this isn't the bigger argument of the thread though. Apple chose to go with the core2duo+320m because it would be overall faster for the average user rather than using i3 with integrated gpu. A lot of people in this thread have stated they have blistering fast performance with the higher spec'd core2duo and 320m processor. The poster above has stated the 9400m bottlenecked graphics performance for multitasking within the computer itself-- now imagine an intel gpu performing.

the graphics vs intel debate is moot as I pointed out the 13 inch should have come with both not either. I don't blame apple for this its a problem that lies with intel and nvidia.

Kinda. More to the point though, apple wants to keep their small formfactor and battery life for the 13 inch macbook pro.
 
Synthetic benchmarks are exactly that-- synthetic benchmarks. Often times the difference of the actual numbers in a synthetic benchmark are imperceptible to the average user. If you can save 20 minutes actual time coding during an average day of coding with an i3, more power to you, this isn't the bigger argument of the thread though. Apple chose to go with the core2duo+320m because it would be overall faster for the average user rather than using i3 with integrated gpu. A lot of people in this thread have stated they have blistering fast performance with the higher spec'd core2duo and 320m processor. The poster above has stated the 9400m bottlenecked graphics performance for multitasking within the computer itself-- now imagine an intel gpu performing.



Kinda. More to the point though, apple wants to keep their small formfactor and battery life for the 13 inch macbook pro.

I totally agree with your comment. When I had the 17" i7 2.66GHz macbook pro and when I used the intel integrated gpu, it was VERY slow. Much worse performance that the nvidia 9400m forsure. If the 13" macbook pro were to get the i3 + the IGP, that would have been a HUGE step backwards and I would have had no choice but to go with the more expensive 15" macbook pro. I'm so glad that Apple chose the 320m, its the best in the battery/performance hands down! Basically 9 1/2 hours of battery life with the power of an nvidia 9600m gt. Its incredible actually.
 
Kinda. More to the point though, apple wants to keep their small formfactor and battery life for the 13 inch macbook pro.

I don't have a problem with that, but what I do have a problem with is Apple not treating the 13" MBP like a "MBP". It has features and power more closely related to the white Macbook, no option for an antiglare screen (it's not just professionals that don't like the glossy), no option for a higher resolution screen and only shared graphics and no option for a 7200RPM HDD.

None of the Macbooks are slow so speed isn't necessarily the issue but the lack of options makes the 13" seem more like a glorified white Macbook than true Macbook Pro.
 
I don't have a problem with that, but what I do have a problem with is Apple not treating the 13" MBP like a "MBP". It has features and power more closely related to the white Macbook, no option for an antiglare screen (it's not just professionals that don't like the glossy), no option for a higher resolution screen and only shared graphics and no option for a 7200RPM HDD.

None of the Macbooks are slow so speed isn't necessarily the issue but the lack of options makes the 13" seem more like a glorified white Macbook than true Macbook Pro.

That's why it was originally going to be the new macbook. I actually like glossy screens.... Colors and contrast are better and I almost never go outside with my precious macbook... and when I do it's not really that bad.
 
I totally agree with your comment. When I had the 17" i7 2.66GHz macbook pro and when I used the intel integrated gpu, it was VERY slow. Much worse performance that the nvidia 9400m forsure. If the 13" macbook pro were to get the i3 + the IGP, that would have been a HUGE step backwards and I would have had no choice but to go with the more expensive 15" macbook pro. I'm so glad that Apple chose the 320m, its the best in the battery/performance hands down! Basically 9 1/2 hours of battery life with the power of an nvidia 9600m gt. Its incredible actually.

Well said.
 
Ofcourse not. SSD improves loading time, but it won't improve power. ;)

But that is not entirely true. 15k SAS drives can beat SSD.

If you are rendering, compiling encoding or doing any sort of work that hits the drive, a SSD will give you a huge performance increase.... being that SSDs are 8 times faster..... That, effectively, is power.
 
They can't touch X25.


That's the truth. And at 200 bones for 80 gigs, that is getting into the ballpark of being affordable. I didn't have to scrounge much for mine. 80 gigs is plenty for me, for Creative Suite cs4, Office 08, and Iphoto and a few other apps. I have around a steady 49 gigs free. It's not too much of a bother to keep it there either. The drive I swapped out I use for Itunes and storage. It's nice.

The thing is, for any computer, when you put in a SSD you utilize your cpu more. You can offload data and really push things, so yes you sort of do get more power. Just more all at once. When loading huge, huge, images in CS4 it is a blessing. Cold starting Word takes a bounce. Restarting the computer takes less than 10-15 seconds and everything is just soo much faster. If I dropped a few grand on a brand new MBP or a Mac Pro, I would have my SSD in there pronto. I also got a tad better battery life and a cooler quieter system.

It all boils down to what you need. If you can make do like I do, and have a little enclosure for your old drive, to whip out when you want to use Itunes, then 80GB is fine. If you want to do bootcamp and game, then it may not be good for you. However if you are using your Mac to game, then chances are you have something more high end than mine, and you could probably afford to drop some more dough and get the larger X25. Then you could have a 30GB Windows partition or whatever you wanted. 80 works for me though.

When I use someone else's comparable Mac that doesn't have an SSD I feel slowed down and I twiddle my thumbs. Seriously, SSD's add _that_ much to your experience. OSX is already a snappy, great multitasking OS.. but to slap an SSD in an OSX computer really lets you open the pipes up. A worthwhile buy, especially if you do design work or anything heavy.

These new hybrid drives I see coming out are just a fad. They won't last. We are migrating to not having many moving parts. Memory is more efficient than platters. 4gb and a platter is just a copout. I take it back, I don't know if they will last, but I hope not. I do see SSD's getting cheaper each year. Intel has had huge success with theirs, so I hope they keep em coming.

All you peeps with the new i series macbooks, I envy you! I would love to put my drive in your computer and use Photoshop on it. ahhaha
I would also like to add that I did have a 7200 Scorpio Black and I got rid of it because of the stupid APM not agreeing with OSX and the clicking and loading of the heads drove me bonkers. I was already at a few thousand cycles after a few days. Lamesauce. They are fast drives, the normal 7200's, very quick. But SSD's PWN. Like My Little Pwnies.
 
Having owned both the 17" i7 2.66GHz model and now the 13" 2.4GHz model with the nvidia 320m, I can say that everything that I've done on the 17" i7 can be done on this 13" without any noticable difference in overall usage. I havnt tried gaming as I dont game but I do use my computers in a very demanding way and if the 13" couldnt handle it all I would have returned it already. I'm very impressed. Anyone else looking to get the 13" base model, I would HIGHLY recommend doing so.

For example, I have 9 spaces opened with vmware fusion running windows xp in one, transmission d/ling files and uploading files, unison running d/ling files as well, colloquy opened on one space, itunes opened, email, ical, safari with 15+ tabs and youtube, firefox with 5 tabs running flash based content from coursecompass.com, plex player running while playing avatar 15GB bluray mkv file without any stutter and smooth as butter, excel opened on osx and xp on vmware along with powerpoint presentation (looking at notes) and I've occassionally burned stuff via dual layer using toast. Even while all this is running and switching between 9 spaces, it DOES NOT SLOW DOWN WHATSOEVER and it buttery smooth!

I could not do this on my previous mac mini with the nvidia 9400m. Infact, if I tried to do just half of what I just listed, spaces would be pretty choppy and plex player could not run any mkv files bigger than 10GB buttery smooth.

On my 17" i7 2.66GHz model, it ran exactly the same in performance for my usages as this 13" mbp with the nvidia 320m. I am truly amazed by how great a performance you can get and it really does feel like the nvidia 320m is a dedicated gpu rather than an integrated. 99% of the time I forget that its SUPPOSED to be an integrated GPU, lol.

Especially at the $999 price its amazing. Keep in mind though that I have an SSD drive installed on my 13" but I also did on the 17" as well. Oh and I cant wait to put 8gb of ram in this machine later on. I could use more ram as I'm always using up all 4GB. I cant imagine how much better it could get anyways lol.

And my 13" macbook pro is connected in dual display with my samsung 23" 1920x1080 monitor.

Manipulate some large files with CS4/CS5 and you'll notice a BIG DIFFERENCE.
Do some serious video editing in FC Pro 7 and you'll notice a BIG DIFFERENCE.

If your 13" MBP meets your needs that's all that matters but many MBP users need and utilize the substantial boost in processing performance offered in the i5 and i7 machines
 
I've got a 2009 MBP 13" (se sign) and after a couple of months I find that especially browsning in Safari starts so lag a bit and it takes more time loading webpages then it used to... also I get problems playing video clips in safari (lagging, slow load and so on). Nothing has changed regarding network speed.

Also it seams that it writes to the HDD a little to often (haven't tested, dunno how) and that maybe that's an issue. Even spent time searching for virus issues online, but haven't bothered (yet) to go deep.

I had only 48Gb of free HDD space so I thought that was the problem, now I have 97GB free, but the same issues are here. Most of the space is video.

I don't use it to any extreme measures, just surfing, the occasional video editing and regular desk work.

If anyone has a tip for me I'd be really thankfull... This is my first mac and I really was expecting a bit more from all I've heard...
 
I've got a 2009 MBP 13" (se sign) and after a couple of months I find that especially browsning in Safari starts so lag a bit and it takes more time loading webpages then it used to... also I get problems playing video clips in safari (lagging, slow load and so on). Nothing has changed regarding network speed.

Also it seams that it writes to the HDD a little to often (haven't tested, dunno how) and that maybe that's an issue. Even spent time searching for virus issues online, but haven't bothered (yet) to go deep.

I had only 48Gb of free HDD space so I thought that was the problem, now I have 97GB free, but the same issues are here. Most of the space is video.

I don't use it to any extreme measures, just surfing, the occasional video editing and regular desk work.

If anyone has a tip for me I'd be really thankfull... This is my first mac and I really was expecting a bit more from all I've heard...

You don't have a virus.
 
Really seems worth getting an ssd now if only it weren't for the price.

It's a different type of fast. Imagine opening any application or file in half the time, sometimes instantly, after a 15 second boot time. Applications that are cpu intensive may still be faster on an i5..... but once again it's really not much faster. Skip to 3:11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJHiS46lSqk

The problem is that they are VERY expensive... around 200 bucks for 80 gigs!!! I am waiting till I can get 160-256 gb for that much money

Thanks for the link. Hugely impressed with the capabilities of an ssd but yeah I think I'll be waiting awhile as well. 160gb+ for the price of an 80gb and I'll be able to justify buying an ssd.
 
I've got a 2009 MBP 13" (se sign) and after a couple of months I find that especially browsning in Safari starts so lag a bit and it takes more time loading webpages then it used to... also I get problems playing video clips in safari (lagging, slow load and so on). Nothing has changed regarding network speed.

Also it seams that it writes to the HDD a little to often (haven't tested, dunno how) and that maybe that's an issue. Even spent time searching for virus issues online, but haven't bothered (yet) to go deep.

I had only 48Gb of free HDD space so I thought that was the problem, now I have 97GB free, but the same issues are here. Most of the space is video.

I don't use it to any extreme measures, just surfing, the occasional video editing and regular desk work.

If anyone has a tip for me I'd be really thankfull... This is my first mac and I really was expecting a bit more from all I've heard...

I have the exact same computer as you and the same experiences. I get lags and beachballs all over the system though, not only in Safari browsing web pages.

I also really expected more, and from a lot of reading up on this, i'm pretty sure it's not supposed to be like this, and that's something's wrong!
 
I have the exact same computer as you and the same experiences. I get lags and beachballs all over the system though, not only in Safari browsing web pages.

I also really expected more, and from a lot of reading up on this, i'm pretty sure it's not supposed to be like this, and that's something's wrong!

Guess when I think about it I get lags all over aswell... But the scary stuff is that the HDD sounds like it's gonna crash any second. And beeing a Fuhatesu Siemens it probably will....

And without any tests I can be fairly certain that the HDD is causing the lagging since I hear it stuttering during lags...
 
Guess when I think about it I get lags all over aswell... But the scary stuff is that the HDD sounds like it's gonna crash any second. And beeing a Fuhatesu Siemens it probably will....

And without any tests I can be fairly certain that the HDD is causing the lagging since I hear it stuttering during lags...

Don't move your computer around to much if the screen is open. If it is open, it is spinning, and shaking isn't good for a spinning HDD
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.