MacBook Pro Penryn Benchmarks

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by jtlz2, Mar 2, 2008.

  1. jtlz2 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    #1
    Does anyone have any systematic performance benchmarks for the 2.4-, 2.5- and 2.6-GHz MBPs? I have seen results for the 2.4 but am most interested in the 2.6. When can we expect MacRumors to post them?

    Thanks!
     
  2. jtlz2 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    #2
    Still no Penryn 2.6-GHz stats that I can see - am I missing something?
     
  3. DocSmitty macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2008
    Location:
    Lincoln, NE
    #3
    The 2.6 processor is only available as a BTO. I don't think anyone has them in hand yet, you can watch the thread asking who has a BTO shipped already. Should start appearing within the next few days / week.
     
  4. jtlz2 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    #4
    I can't believe no-one has their hands on a Penryn 2.6 yet..

    So, how does it compare to the others for speed, battery life and heat?

    (I am waiting to buy, asap... :) )
     
  5. kazimir34 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    #5
    Just some quick thoughts about the 2.6 Ghz:
    • +11% in the price
    • +4% clock speed
    • Pretty much the same battery life (probably a few minutes less)
    • Perf increase should not exceed 5% depending on the usage
    • Almost no difference for everyday use

    So IMO unless you're encoding / compressing all day long and cant stand to wait 2:05min instead of 2min I really don't see the point in picking the 2.6 Ghz.

    You'll probably see a bigger difference if you buy 4GB of RAM for $90
     
  6. Marco.drum macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    Location:
    Italy
    #6
    hi guys!
    today arrived my MBP,i'm from italy.
    it's a 15.4" 2.6ghz 4gb of ram and a 200gb 7200 rpm hard disk.
    if someone can tell me how to do a benchmark I am going to do it on friday or saturday.
     
  7. dLight macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    #7
    5% over the.... 2.5gHz model?
     
  8. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #8
    People getting so excited for new cpu performance seems a little silly, CPU's are plenty strong enough for anything and everyone, the issue these days is more geared at graphics. Thats were progress can still be felt. Like stated early that 5 seconds the cpu may give you doesnt do much.
     
  9. kazimir34 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    #9
    Yes but that's only a guess. It's not like a 100mhz increase is going to dramatically increase the speed of your mbp anyway.
    I mean the difference between the 2.4 and 2.5 is pretty small, and you have twice the cache in the 2.5.

    So with the same cache for the 2.5 and 2.6, the gap should be even smaller.
     
  10. jtlz2 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    #11
    Hey thanks for your comments so far.

    I just want to see the benchmarks for real-life MBPs at all speeds :) If anyone knows how to run the tests then perhaps we can help the chap who kindly offered.

    I know it might not seem like great value for money but I reckon the numbers for performance and battery life will speak for themselves :)

    Under- or overclocking always an option ;)
     
  11. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #12
    Actually it's not. You can buy the high end 17-inch at the Apple Store and it has the 2.6
     
  12. MacHappi macrumors newbie

    MacHappi

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Westbury, Wiltshire, UK
    #13
    My Results on 2.6 & 2.2 processor

    Geekbench Score 3297
    Version Geekbench 2.0.12
    Platform Mac OS X x86 (32-bit)
    Operating System Mac OS X 10.5.2 (Build 9C2028)
    Processor Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T9500 @ 2.60GHz
    Model MacBookPro4,1
    Memory 2.00 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM

    got mine delivered yesterday and just run this test

    Ran same test on 2.2

    Geekbench Score 2864
    Version Geekbench 2.0.12
    Platform Mac OS X x86 (32-bit)
    Operating System Mac OS X 10.5.2 (Build 9C31)
    Processor Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7500 @ 2.20GHz
    Model MacBook Pro (Mid 2007)
    Memory 2.00 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM
     
  13. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #14
    Geekbench Score : 3120
    Version: Geekbench 2.0.13
    Platform: Mac OS X x86 (32-bit)
    Operating System: Mac OS X 10.5.2 (Build 9C31)
    Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo T7700 @ 2.4GHZ
    Model: MacBook Pro (Mid 2007)
    Memory: 4.00 GB 667 MHz DDR2 SDRAM

    Not bad if I say so :D

    Geekbench: Score 8120
    Version: Geekbench 2.0.13
    Platform: Mac OS X x86 (32-bit)
    Operating System: Mac OS X 10.5.2 (Build 9C31)
    Processor: Intel Xeon E5462 @ 2x 2.8GHZ
    Model: Mac Pro (Early 2008)
    Memory: 16.0 GB 800 MHz DDR2 FB-DIMM

    Awesome to the Max! =D

    Note: one thing to note is that make sure you close all applications and only run the geekbench alone for bests result. I had 7990 on the mac pro with 4+ stuff running in the background and downloading 4 files at a time via usenet of total 16gb and microsoft word, safari, ichat, parallels open but after I closed all that and only ran the geekbench it shows 8120.
     
  14. jtlz2 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2008
    #15

Share This Page