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

MacBook Pro Benchmarks

digitalbiker said:
You could be right Maya but remember Apple "thinks different". It's possible that the future is for slower, bigger, power hungry, hot laptops?:D
Click to expand...


You mean to tell me that Apple is taking a page from Dell's book of designing and building a computer. :eek:

Well when that day comes I am going to switch and buy a Dell. ;) :D
 
One question though, how come when Steve Jobs opened photoshop, it was extremely slow? is it because the file is too big, or is it because of that roseta thing? i don't know how to explain it exactly but i don't want photoshop to open that slow.
 
Andrew7724 said:
One question though, how come when Steve Jobs opened photoshop, it was extremely slow? is it because the file is too big, or is it because of that roseta thing? i don't know how to explain it exactly but i don't want photoshop to open that slow.
Click to expand...

Have you ever opened photoshop on a mac before? It is ALWAYS slow the first time you open it. Maybe rosetta makes it slower, but lets be realistic, it never opens after one bounce.:p
 
AidenShaw said:
Jobs was also quoted saying "3 GHz within 1 year"....

He'll say anything to get your $$$. 'nuf said.
Click to expand...

He was quoted as saying that probably because he was told that. There is a difference between that and hardware that is probably sitting on his desk. :rolleyes:
 
Andrew7724 said:
One question though, how come when Steve Jobs opened photoshop, it was extremely slow? is it because the file is too big, or is it because of that roseta thing? i don't know how to explain it exactly but i don't want photoshop to open that slow.
Click to expand...

for one it was running on rosetta and two did you forget about the plug-ins thats what it takes so damn long
 
SiliconAddict said:
He was quoted as saying that probably because he was told that. There is a difference between that and hardware that is probably sitting on his desk. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

AidenShaw said:
Jobs was also quoted saying "3 GHz within 1 year"....

He'll say anything to get your $$$. 'nuf said.
Click to expand...

You did not let Steve Jobs compete his comment(s), he meant to say 3GHz G5 in 1 year following the transition from x86 to PPC. ;) :D
 
macosxuser01 said:
for one it was running on rosetta and two did you forget about the plug-ins thats what it takes so damn long
Click to expand...


Pretty sure Steve Jobs would have maxed out the ram in that x86 iMac, plus have the basic package of PS. To give the illusions that it runs faster than it actually does. Marketing 101, get the free press and then look into the finer details. ;)
 
SiliconAddict said:
He was quoted as saying that probably because he was told that. There is a difference between that and hardware that is probably sitting on his desk. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
KOOL AID !!!

Come on now, Jobs took a big chance back then and lost.

If you don't think that he's pulling battery life numbers out of his butt now, it could only be because the Kool-Aid has clouded your brain.

Whatever Apple says that battery life is, you can count on it being a bit better than half that in real life. That's the way it's been for Apple since I've been paying attention.

If you doubt that, go to any tech conference. All the people with white plastic power bricks are huddled next to the power outlets. The Centrino folks are sitting where they want to.

That's the real life benchmark.... Do you think that Apple will reform now that they have Centrinos? LOL!!!
 
AidenShaw said:
KOOL AID !!!

Come on now, Jobs took a big chance back then and lost.

If you don't think that he's pulling battery life numbers out of his butt now, it could only be because the Kool-Aid has clouded your brain.

Whatever Apple says that battery life is, you can count on it being a bit better than half that in real life. That's the way it's been for Apple since I've been paying attention.

If you doubt that, go to any tech conference. All the people with white plastic power bricks are huddled next to the power outlets. The Centrino folks are sitting where they want to.

That's the real life benchmark.... Do you think that Apple will reform now that they have Centrinos? LOL!!!
Click to expand...

Just quoting you so you can't delete your post when the first battery benchmarks are posted. Since you are so sure of the results and so sure of why Jobs said 3Ghz in a year....obviously you have the inside track or are totally full of it. :rolleyes: One way other another. just BOOKMARKING your post.
 
Something I'm wondering, if you push this machine to the max (mp4 encoding or games etc) will the fan go crazy? Nothing drives me crazy more than little tiny notebook fans grinding and vibrating away. I usually keep my powerbook in "Better Energy Savings" so the fan doesn't kick in.

These new Macbooks have a pretty beefy video card too, think these things will go nuclear?
 
ramuman said:
Considering the 6800Ultra Go in your setup would probably be slower than the 6800GT in a desktop setup and certainly slower than a 7800GTX, I have a hard time believing what you typed.

To have a ballpark idea, what sort of 3DMark2k3 scores or Doom 3 timedemo scores do you get?
Click to expand...

The Go 6800 Ultra is definitely NOT slower than a 6800GT. It's got 450Mhz clock and 1.1Ghz memory.

You can get all the information you inquire of, from sources much more credible than 'evilbert420 on the macrumors message board' here: http://www.mobilityguru.com/2005/08/15/the_world/page9.html
 
please do!

SiliconAddict said:
Just quoting you so you can't delete your post when the first battery benchmarks are posted. Since you are so sure of the results and so sure of why Jobs said 3Ghz in a year.....
Click to expand...
As long as we're talking about user reports of battery life, please mark my words....

Apple's history of, shall we say "optimistic", claims of battery life make me feel like I shouldn't be too worried of what The Steve is claiming today.

And, BTW, if we're into "quoting posts for posterity", maybe I should quote your I call BS on the 20%. post where you haven't bothered to reply to my posts that showed how wrong you were.

It works both ways, you know.
 
robbieduncan said:
I can't wait for mine to arrive. It should make XCode fly too :D
Click to expand...

Amen. I am finally able to replace a desktop with a sleep laptop. I'm aware that it will take probably 6 months for everyone to get on board, but to think that I could run Photoshop, Cinema 4D, and Apple's Pro Apps at break neck speed on a laptop ... well, it is a thing of awe.

Here's to our new MacBook Pro's! :)
 
nospleen said:
Have you ever opened photoshop on a mac before? It is ALWAYS slow the first time you open it. Maybe rosetta makes it slower, but lets be realistic, it never opens after one bounce.:p
Click to expand...

So photoshop will be slower a bit because of roseta.
if we compare mac book pro with an Imac G5 is it about the same speed?
(photoshop)
 
PhotoShop on the new PowerBooks*

Absolutely, no reason it shouldnt run about the same. If anything, maybe PS will be a bit slower, given that the X1600 onboard has 1/2 the RAM of that of the Intel PowerBook*

In terms of things that make them fast (to be broad), the iMac is very comparable to the Intel PowerBook...they are essentially the same thing.

PS: why is a mobile proc in an iMac? I was pretty sure the Core Duo at hand is mobile....wouldn't it be better for Apple to wait a moment here and let out a nice non-mobile equiped iMac? Just a thought
 
evilbert420 said:
The Go 6800 Ultra is definitely NOT slower than a 6800GT. It's got 450Mhz clock and 1.1Ghz memory.

You can get all the information you inquire of, from sources much more credible than 'evilbert420 on the macrumors message board' here: http://www.mobilityguru.com/2005/08/15/the_world/page9.html
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I couldn't see anything in that link that compared the Go 6800 Ultra with the 6800GT or the 6800 GTX.
 
macaddict06 said:
PS: why is a mobile proc in an iMac? I was pretty sure the Core Duo at hand is mobile....wouldn't it be better for Apple to wait a moment here and let out a nice non-mobile equiped iMac? Just a thought
Click to expand...
The iMac faces essentially the same engineering challenges as a notebook - minimize real estate used and heat generated (same as minimizing power consumption). Besides which, there is no desktop proc available right now in that price range that can compete with the Core Duo in terms of speed for multithreaded apps.
 
Thanks, Airforce, when I mentioned 6800 GTX, I was referring to someone else's previous post; I can't find this legendary 6800 GTX either. And now I see Evilbert was saying.
 
TheMasin9 said:
well, this just makes my day, i have been drooling over the new powerbook pros (i, along with many others am revolting against the macbook name) and this just adds to the puddle on my desk. I want one bad, i mean real bad...
Click to expand...

Will you delicately peel off the PowerBook label(sort of) at the bottom of your current PB and replace the MacBook on your new PowerBook Pro? ;)
 
AidenShaw said:
Remember that the same hardware runs Windows and Linux - so nobody will switch to an Apple because it's faster....

In fact, Apple isn't offering chips in the MacIntels that are as fast as Dell, Sony, Asus and other Wintel manufacturers are selling. One can buy 2.16 GHz elsewhere, but the Apple tops out at 1.83.

Why's that?
Click to expand...


That 2.16 most likely is not a core duo. Especially considering the core duo tops out at 2.0. And especially considering the core duo is not actually available in a laptop.

Apple has no interest in putting a last generation chip in its new laptop. That's why.
 
Macrumors said:
- 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
Click to expand...

What I notice here are a couple things:

First off, I would like to see a comparison b/t a MacBook Pro 1.67, 1GB RAM, ATI X1600 128MB and the last revision Alubook 1.67, 1GB DDR2 RAM not the 1.67 with DDR RAM, and ATI 9700 Pro 128MB. What's fair is fair. He makes it seem as though that was the last Alubook he is comparing it to which is not the case. Let's see how much the Dual Core really makes a difference at similar clock speed, similar memory, and same video RAM, albeit the X1600 is far more advanced. I think this would be a true testament to how much faster it really is. What's fair is fair.

Second off, the Dual G5 does not have the X1600 either. Apple's to Apple's people. Alot of the rendering I have a feeling, and compression is handled by that card. I'd like to see more similar setups to be able to conclude how much faster or slower something truly is.
 
digitalbiker said:
Based on what?

If there had been a low-power dual core G5, clock for clock it should have matched the Yonah. Plus the G5 sports 64 bit support,faster fp processing, and the FSB is faster.

This is of course all a fantasy argument as IBM didn't take the dual core now in the PowerMac to a low power 65 nm version.

But is no more wrong than saying that the Yonah would have beaten it's G5 equivalent.
Click to expand...

This argument is so academic so as to be funny. Why are people defending a bloody CPU for God's sake. Where do we draw the lines of emotional attachment? Would the Duo kick the G5s a*se in a straight fight? Who would win in a fight, Spiderman or Batman? Come on...

Those defending the laptop G5 are defending a fictional character. It never existed and never will.
 
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