MacBook Pro Benchmarks

[50548]

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!!!

So please show me one similar PC notebook with battery life as close as any of the newer PowerBooks or the MBP...no, you won't find any, unless you consider that new ridiculous Acer Core Duo with 2 batteries (one optional, of course) to count in your statistics.

As for the guys' conclusion, it seemed pretty obvious to me, who would ever thing the MBP is: 1) not an improved machine; 2) not the fastest Apple laptop ever? Duh...

"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."

 

[ramuman]

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

Sorry, I should have clarified. I meant the 6800 Go Ultra in a laptop and all the limiting factors that come with that (the slower CPU, etc.), not that the core itself was slower. Regardless, my point still stands of it being unplayable at 1920x1200 with full effects. Check out the Anandtech benchies here:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2356&p=3

Even at 1600x1200 with 4x AA, frames drop to the mid 30s, which isn't good for a FPS game. At 1920 with higher AA and AF, goodbye playability. It's not a fault of the card or the laptop because its still very impressive to have gotten that performance from a laptop nearly a year ago. I'm just saying regarding the playability because I've had a constantly fast desktop system since Doom 3 came out and the 7800GTX was the first time I could truely max everything (except for Ultra textures) and get consistantly good frames at 1680x1050, much less 1920x1200 I don't have a 23" LCD anymore so I can't test the later res at the moment.

Of course, I'm not getting a MacBook to play Doom 3 - I'd be happy to get my Window's versions of MatLab, Origin etc. working with it

 

[gammamonk]

Wow! This tread is really heating up! In Feb when the general public actually start receiving their MacBooks we can put some of these performace questions to rest. What I want to know, is the difference between games in OS X and XP on the MacBook Pro. For example, a universal binary of doom3 on OS X, and then the windows version when booted into XP.

 

[MacSA]

Now we know - Intel's secret plan is to sterilize all Apple users, so that only Wintel fans will breed new users.

Brilliant!


(Can we pick which MacRumors regulars to sterilize first?)

....Super Troll !!!!!!!!!!

 

[jacobj]

I know most of you don't care, but can I just say that all these benchmarks and conversations mean that I am not sleeping well at the moment and every day that is not February 2006 is a wasted day. I also have to accept that February is more than likely March especially for a BTO model.

So can we all stop mentioning the MBP or the iMac. I need to go cold Turkey on these threads and I can't do it by myself... I need your help.

 

[robbieduncan]

Imagine how hot a MacBook Pro with dual intels. We propaply would have no kids with one of those on are laps

The CoreDuo CPUs are about as hot as the G4 they are replacing. They are not going to burn your crotch (the figures I've seen put the 1.83Ghz at 31W).

 

[Jo-Kun]

Photoshop to run slow on new intel mac's... why?

well the answer is quite simple.
a: Photoshop likes ram.... gimme gimme it says... but indeed one would expect Steve to use the biggest setup for the stevenotes ;-)
b: Photoshop is like all apple pro apps designed to take full advantage of the PPC... since that one is missing... rosetta can make it run on the intel's... but can't make it fly... therefor we need the Universal version wich will allow Photoshop to take full advantage of the intel processor's features...

steve clearly said that running photoshop trough rosetta would work for normal users but probably not for pro users (like me... who succeed in completly blocking all life out of his G5 when opening a scanned 4"x5" slide on 4800dpi (filesize app 1,2GB) wich probably wouldn't be such a problem if I put more ram in it (hence the photoshop ram eating feature...))

 

[nomad01]

(Can we pick which MacRumors regulars to sterilize first?)

Oh I really do hope so.

 

[thefunkymunky]

Can someone buy me a MacBook Pro. I really want one but don't have enough money.

 

[Hattig]

The CoreDuo CPUs are about as hot as the G4 they are replacing. They are not going to burn your crotch (the figures I've seen put the 1.83Ghz at 31W).

The G4 was quite low power though, and it had lower power states just like Intel's mobile processors.

I'm fairly certain that the TDP of Yonah is higher than the TDP of the G4, by around 10W IIRC. However Yonah will be much more aggressive with its power saving - it can turn off the second core if it isn't required for example, and it'll clock down to 1GHz or thereabouts when load is low.

The only way to test battery life reliably is to perform several tests:

1) Battery life when decoding 1080p video constantly (very high load, should force both cores to be on, and at full speed)
2) Battery life when decoding DVD video constantly (not as high load, but a useful thing to know - can you watch an entire LOTR film for example)
3) Battery life when running office apps/web browsing (standard use, should be a single core running at the lowest clock speed setting.

The first I would be surprised if any laptop got more than 2 hours. The second maybe 3 hours. The latter would be what normal battery lives are quoted from, so >4 hours hopefully.

As an aside, my iBook can go about 4 hours on its battery. If I lowered the screen brightness some, it could probably go longer.

 

[jacobj]

The only way to test battery life reliably is to perform several tests:

1) Battery life when decoding 1080p video constantly (very high load, should force both cores to be on, and at full speed)

According to tests so far, 1080p video does not even use 100% of a single core. Having said that, there is speculation that the reason for this is that the GPU is taking the load.

Therefore, if it is the GPU, the test is valid because we can then get an idea as to how must battery the GPU is eating.

 

[rxse7en]

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!

I like your thinking. I too have been using a Quicksilver for production since it was released...and for the last few months been working solely on my PB G4 1.25. It will be sweet to be able to do it all on MacBook with desktop speed!

B

 

[Telomar]

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.

The Core Duo tops out at 2.16 GHz. A simple google search would confirm that for you. That said large manufacturers need large supplies. Also I believe it is around a $200 price difference from 2 - 2.16 GHz, which isn't a huge performance gain. All of that makes it less attractive unless you want to target a performance oriented niche, which Apple never has.

 

[Eastend]

Photoshop to run slow on new intel mac's... why?

well the answer is quite simple.
a: Photoshop likes ram.... gimme gimme it says... but indeed one would expect Steve to use the biggest setup for the stevenotes ;-)
b: Photoshop is like all apple pro apps designed to take full advantage of the PPC... since that one is missing... rosetta can make it run on the intel's... but can't make it fly... therefor we need the Universal version wich will allow Photoshop to take full advantage of the intel processor's features...

steve clearly said that running photoshop trough rosetta would work for normal users but probably not for pro users (like me... who succeed in completly blocking all life out of his G5 when opening a scanned 4"x5" slide on 4800dpi (filesize app 1,2GB) wich probably wouldn't be such a problem if I put more ram in it (hence the photoshop ram eating feature...))

You hit the nail right on the head there, the reply to all of this is RAM.
All the Pro Applications eat RAM a 2 GB MacBook Pro or iMac Intel is not enough. The PowerMacs can still be loaded with RAM, it is not all CPU, it is mostly RAM. This goes for DVDPro or SoundtrackPro or Pro Anything. Once I had 1 GB in a dual 2.5 G5, then later I had 4 GB, that difference in encoding (DVDPro) or applying plug-ins in SoundTrack Pro was like 2 times faster. Before I collected Swap files, after I added RAM the Swap files were normal. I'll go beyond that, sometimes I really think it's not the CPU speed I need at all, a 2.5 dual G5 may be over kill, but for Pro Applications 4GB of Ram is not overkill.

Brian

 

[excalibur313]

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. One way other another. just BOOKMARKING your post.

If this seems incorrect to you, what kind of battery life do you think that the new 'books will have? Do you think the real life performance will match more closely with what apple claims on their site?

 

[50548]

If this seems incorrect to you, what kind of battery life do you think that the new 'books will have? Do you think the real life performance will match more closely with what apple claims on their site?

Jobs already said, it's gonna be as good as or better than the new PB G4s, which is nothing to complain about...up to 5.5 hours.

Just look at a recent review of a much smaller Vaio, with far lower energy demands:

"The Sony VAIO TR1A comes standard with a large 4300mAh battery pack. In our battery performance tests the TR1A smoked both the Gateway 450 XL and Sony VAIO PCG-Z1AP1 systems. We were able to squeeze out 4 hours and 15 minutes of battery life while running Mobile Mark 2001."

http://reviews.designtechnica.com/review310_main1548_page3.html

I mean, they were praising 4 hours and so for a 10" Centrino notebook...if the new PBs get that with a Core Duo and 15" screen, it's gonna be more than good already.

 

[Sunrunner]

Jobs already said, it's gonna be as good as or better than the new PB G4s, which is nothing to complain about...up to 5.5 hours.

Just look at a recent review of a much smaller Vaio, with far lower energy demands:

"The Sony VAIO TR1A comes standard with a large 4300mAh battery pack. In our battery performance tests the TR1A smoked both the Gateway 450 XL and Sony VAIO PCG-Z1AP1 systems. We were able to squeeze out 4 hours and 15 minutes of battery life while running Mobile Mark 2001."

http://reviews.designtechnica.com/review310_main1548_page3.html

I mean, they were praising 4 hours and so for a 10" Centrino notebook...if the new PBs get that with a Core Duo and 15" screen, it's gonna be more than good already.

I never thought 5 hours was a bad battery time, Im not sure where the complaining comes from with some people. If you need more time, buy a secondary battery people...

 

[AidenShaw]

I never thought 5 hours was a bad battery time, Im not sure where the complaining comes from with some people. If you need more time, buy a secondary battery people...

"Battery life" is one of the most abused "benchmarks" around.

Part of the problem is that Apple (or Sony or Dell or...) may claim "up to 5 hours" - but that 5 hrs is often measured with the screen at minimum brightness (or blanked), max power saving, and nothing running on the system. Not exactly typical use!

That leads to someone complaining that their "5 hr" laptop runs out of power before the end of a 2 hour DVD.

Therefore, over 4 hours while running:

Mobile Mark 2001 is a pretty extensive test which simulates which programs a business user might be inclined to use. This includes running Adobe Photoshop, Microsoft Office XP, WinZip, multiple web browsers and other software simultaneously.

So if you plan on using the TR1A simply for web browsing or running a single program at once, we expect the battery life to last significantly longer.

http://reviews.designtechnica.com/review310_main1548_page3.html​

is actually worth noting.

 

[Sunrunner]

You hit the nail right on the head there, the reply to all of this is RAM.
All the Pro Applications eat RAM a 2 GB MacBook Pro or iMac Intel is not enough. The PowerMacs can still be loaded with RAM, it is not all CPU, it is mostly RAM. This goes for DVDPro or SoundtrackPro or Pro Anything. Once I had 1 GB in a dual 2.5 G5, then later I had 4 GB, that difference in encoding (DVDPro) or applying plug-ins in SoundTrack Pro was like 2 times faster. Before I collected Swap files, after I added RAM the Swap files were normal. I'll go beyond that, sometimes I really think it's not the CPU speed I need at all, a 2.5 dual G5 may be over kill, but for Pro Applications 4GB of Ram is not overkill.

Brian

It has always been thus: The most important spped-factor behind the proc is the RAM.

Has anybody heard anything from Adobe on when they expect to release the "universal" versions of their apps?

 

[Diatribe]

Ok, that is enough. I can't take it anymore. I am going to buy one now. I tried to hold off until the real Mac Book Pros come out next year but I'll just get the low end Mac Book Pro and sell my Powerbook G4. Bah! You people make me sick, I bet you all work for Apple!

Hehe, I am wrestling with myself too here. But the right decision would be to wait another year for Merom processors, iLife 07 and Leopard preloaded. We'll see if I can withstand...

....Super Troll !!!!!!!!!!

I think you might have gotten that post wrong...

 

[JasonDawg18]

I'm getting one...

I love reading this forum. My work ordered a MacBook Pro for me yesterday! I can hardly wait.

Mine is a BTO, 1.83, 1 GB (1 DIMM) RAM (which I will upgrade to 2GB soon), 120 GB Hard Drive... Woo Hoo!

Let the Countdown to February (or March) begin!!!

Jason

 

[CaptainScarlet]

So if you plan on using the TR1A simply for web browsing or running a single program at once, we expect the battery life to last significantly longer.[/I]

Yes I totally agree with that. And other should too.

Playing Sacred on my Dell D600 gives me about 90 mins of game play time.

Thats pretty good for our current technology...

If you want CPU power and high FPS, and you want your laptop to perform like you were plugged in, then don't expect miracles here.

The more you drive your CPU the more power consumption it takes to drive it. Hence the low voltage CPUs that companies are trying to make.

Give it a few years are we will have 5 hours of hard core CPU usage.

 

[Sunrunner]

I love reading this forum. My work ordered a MacBook Pro for me yesterday! I can hardly wait.

Mine is a BTO, 1.83, 1 GB (1 DIMM) RAM (which I will upgrade to 2GB soon), 120 GB Hard Drive... Woo Hoo!

Let the Countdown to February (or March) begin!!!

Jason

A free MacBook for 'work'? you suck!

 

[heynsmd2]

G4 good for what it is.

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..

Don't agree at all with this comment. I for one bought my PB G4 1.5ghz September 2004, and even then realized that it's no screamer... If I wanted something extremely speedy I would've bought a desktop then. However, it has proofed exceptionally reliable and has been the most 'useful' computer I've had up to now (since first Commodore 64 in 1984...) - what attracted me was the form factor and mac os x... these qualities I believe, made the PowerBook popular right up to the end despite people realizing it's slow. The MBP is great update - as always updates makes previous computers look old, but that doesn't mean they weren't good computers in their own time. It's always been like that.

 

[Frobozz]

Wow! This tread is really heating up! In Feb when the general public actually start receiving their MacBooks we can put some of these performace questions to rest. What I want to know, is the difference between games in OS X and XP on the MacBook Pro. For example, a universal binary of doom3 on OS X, and then the windows version when booted into XP.

You make an excellent point.

The side benefits are staggering for gaming. I think you will see very comparable frame rates. In WoW, it appears the playing field has been leveled. So the only hurdles left are the battle between graphics API's and "native" versions of physics API's.