MacBook Pro Benchmarks

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
7,471
8,534


Craig Wood posted some early benchmarks from MacBook Pro's that were on display at Macworld SF. Readers should note that these are pre-production MacBooks so performance may not be reflective of production models due in mid February.

- MacBook Pro Core Duo 1.83 GHz, 2 GB DDR2, ATI X1600 Mobility 128 MB @ 1440x900 - January 2006 Preproduction
- PowerBook G4 15" 1.67 GHz, 1.5 GB DDR, ATI 9700 Mobility 64 MB @ 1280x854 - January 2005
- PowerMac G5 Dual 2 GHz, 2.5 GB DDR, ATI 9800 Pro 128 MB @ 1680x1050 - July 2003
- PowerBook G4 Titanium 500 MHz, 768 MB SDRAM, ATI Rage 128 Mobile 8 MB @ 1152x768 - January 2001

The overall results of this analysis indicate that Apple's new MacBook Pro is an improved machine in many ways. While some areas are yet to be examined, it is safe to say that the new MacBook is Apple's fastest laptop yet.
Areas tested include iTunes encoding, Quicktime Encoding, and Quicktime Playback (1080p, 720p).

 

forumBuddy

macrumors member
Jul 6, 2005
65
2
This results are totaly expected in my opinion. So basically new Intel chip runs clock for clock as fast as G5. That's actually a compliment to good ol' G5.

I however have issues with their playback numbers, my dual 2.0 G5 runs 1080p videos at close to 80% on each CPU - meaning 160-180% total - whereas they make it as if it's running at no more than 60% - that's not correct.
 

JupiterTwo

macrumors 6502
Mar 29, 2003
276
3
GB
It's looking good for the MacBook Pro - if the tba battery life is good too, they'll be a lot more switchers coming I think :)
 

szark

macrumors 68030
May 14, 2002
2,889
0
Arid-Zone-A
The numbers look great -- I'm definitely impressed with the performance improvements.

Now where's the 17" model?!?!?!? :mad:
 

ailleur

macrumors member
Jun 8, 2005
48
0
forumBuddy said:
This results are totaly expected in my opinion. So basically new Intel chip runs clock for clock as fast as G5. That's actually a compliment to good ol' G5.

I however have issues with their playback numbers, my dual 2.0 G5 runs 1080p videos at close to 80% on each CPU - meaning 160-180% total - whereas they make it as if it's running at no more than 60% - that's not correct.
The better way to say this is that a 1200$imac (including the monitor) can keep up with a 2000$ powermac (excluding monitor)
Or that a laptop can keep up with a professionnel workstation
(in certain applications, obviously)

Clock for clock comparaisons dont matter in the slightest, that matters is that maximum performance you can drain out of a given cpu.
Im guessing (i dont know) that the g5 tops out at 2.5ghz per say apple's store page, we'll have to wait and see what can be drained out of the core duo when the pro mac comes out.
 

nataku

macrumors regular
May 1, 2005
107
0
The Demilitarized Zone
that MacBook is some laptop! I totally expected it to perform on that level. I hope they can even improve it more before they get released to the public.

And to think that some people were disgusted that Intel is going to be inside future Macs. tsk tsk tsk. :)
 

Some_Big_Spoon

macrumors 6502a
Jun 17, 2003
855
0
New York, NY
So do all of us that have been saying for years that the G4 PB's are overclocked pieces of garbage get apologies from the rabid fans who called us heretics?

The mind boggles..
 

12thgear

macrumors newbie
Jun 23, 2003
28
0
DC
Some_Big_Spoon said:
So do all of us that have been saying for years that the G4 PB's are overclocked pieces of garbage get apologies from the rabid fans who called us heretics?

The mind boggles..
That depends. A lot of us didn't/don't consider PowerBook G4s pieces of garbage. But they were/are slow.

Bitter much? ;)
 

BlueRevolution

macrumors 603
Jul 26, 2004
6,054
1
Montreal, QC
those are the results I was hoping for. I'm seriously considering replacing my G5 (see sig) with a rev B MBP. of course, I'll wait for further benchmarks. it'll be interesting to hear how they hold up for all those on the bleeding edge. ;)
 

0098386

Suspended
Jan 18, 2005
21,552
2,886
Funny, I've used eMacs and iMacs at college and I've found the PowerBook to be very good indeed. not "garbage" at all, sure they're no PowerMac but they were very good. I use mine for video editing and its only a 1.5ghz G4, no hiccups.
 

macosxuser01

macrumors 6502a
Jan 10, 2006
600
124
Sacramento, CA
MacWorld SF 03'

I remember when G5 came out, i thought it was the fastest thing i ever seen. Now the intel imac is 3times faster then the first G5 tower:p
 

danielwsmithee

macrumors 65816
Mar 12, 2005
1,117
397
raggedjimmi said:
Funny, I've used eMacs and iMacs at college and I've found the PowerBook to be very good indeed. not "garbage" at all, sure they're no PowerMac but they were very good. I use mine for video editing and its only a 1.5ghz G4, no hiccups.
I use my G3 iBook for editing too... it works you just have to be very very patient. I didn't realize how bad it was until I was able to use a DP 2.0 Ghz power mac for a couple weeks.
 

12thgear

macrumors newbie
Jun 23, 2003
28
0
DC
danielwsmithee said:
I use my G3 iBook for editing too... it works you just have to be very very patient. I didn't realize how bad it was until I was able to use a DP 2.0 Ghz power mac for a couple weeks.
Yeah I've stayed away from G5s for the most part. I did use my sister's iMac G5 for some work and it was noticeably faster.

I plan to get a MacBook Pro this year, and in Universal apps it's going to feel like a quantum leap compared to what I'm used to.
 

g0gie

macrumors regular
Jan 31, 2005
201
0
might be noteworthy to note that the H.264 decoding could very wil be happening on the x1600, hence the lower CPU load
 

Maxx Power

macrumors 6502a
Apr 29, 2003
862
331
Yep, seems like that good ole' "Hundreds of instructions in flight...." was just boasting for the G5. Efficiency is the key. I can't recall the exact data from Arstechnica years back about the original Pentium M that pave the way for today's Core Duo, or double yonah, whatever, that stated the number of pipes for Int and Fp of the Pentium M core is nothing compared to the Athlon or the G5.
 

manu chao

macrumors 603
Jul 30, 2003
6,347
2,335
forumBuddy said:
This results are totaly expected in my opinion. So basically new Intel chip runs clock for clock as fast as G5. That's actually a compliment to good ol' G5.

I however have issues with their playback numbers, my dual 2.0 G5 runs 1080p videos at close to 80% on each CPU - meaning 160-180% total - whereas they make it as if it's running at no more than 60% - that's not correct.
Which dual 2.0 G5, dual processor or dual core? Maybe that explains part of the difference.
 

robbieduncan

Moderator emeritus
Jul 24, 2002
24,510
27
London
gammamonk said:
This is fine and good, but has anyone seen any gaming performance? I want to see a mac with a playable Doom 3 framerate.
We'll have to wait for an Intel native Doom 3 first. Even then I doubt that the new MacBooks will be able to play Doom 3 at full resolution (1440x900) with all the effects turned on!
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
gammamonk said:
I want to see a mac with a playable Doom 3 framerate.
Many people enjoy Doom 3 for Mac already, and get good framerates--but few on a laptop until now! I too would like to see those numbers.

Note that Quake 4 has been annoucned for Mac and is coming early this year as a Universal Binary. So a Universal version of Doom 3 is certainly also expected.

Actually a great many games will be Universal by the time MacBooks ship I'm sure: we've seen so many announcements, dating back months, about games that were being ported and "nearly done." (And other games that run great in Rosetta and don't need to be ported. Doom 3 NOT among them :) )
 

sw1tcher

macrumors 68000
Jan 6, 2004
1,580
1,818
Saw the benchmarks last night. The MBP looks very promising. I'm sure the production models will be tweaked slightly and will offer even better performance than these pre-production units.

Can't wait til the start shipping.