MacBook Pros Trickling In

[dwishbone]

i got notification this morning that my 2.16ghz macbook pro is shipping and is due to arrive friday. much better than the march 14th estimate that they gave me on the updated order.

# Processor 2.16GHz Intel Core Duo
# Memory 2GB 667 DDR2 2x1GB SODIMMs
# Hard Drive 120GB Serial ATA Drive@5400rpm
# Optical Drive SuperDrive (DVDRW/CDRW)
# ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 256MB

 

[staceydock]

benchmarks posted

Just noticed jason on O'Grady's powerpage he has some benchmark's posted.
http://www.powerpage.org

 

[jacobj]

Just noticed jason on O'Grady's powerpage he has some benchmark's posted.
http://www.powerpage.org

I am slightly disappointed with these.. I know that Apple's claims were over the top, but not even 2x

 

[AJ Muni]

I'm more interested in how good the Airport reception is in its new location..Cuz when I switched from iBook to PB...the ibook was wayyy better...

 

[dwishbone]

I am slightly disappointed with these.. I know that Apple's claims were over the top, but not even 2x

you obviously arnt reading those specs right. not EVERYTHING is going be to 2x the speed. but look closely. the average is about 1.5x faster, but there are many tests that are 2,3,6, even 10 times faster than the current model.
its really hard to estimate improved overall performance especially between two different chip architectures. overall they claim a 177% increase which is pretty darn good.

 

[robbieduncan]

I am slightly disappointed with these.. I know that Apple's claims were over the top, but not even 2x

A lot of the numbers are over 2x. The very worst increase is 45% which is actually slower (the column heading is wrong, it's not % increase it's % of the PowerBook speed so 100% = same speed).

The overall result is 177%. 2x would have been 200%. That's pretty close. We all knew Apple's numbers were based on a very particular measure of speed. This appears to tell us that over a wider measurement it's not far off 2x still. That's pretty good, especially as there is probably a lot of optimisation left to go.

 

[RichP]

I posted on the "now shipping" I got my machine about an hour ago; and I have run the "Photoshop test" found on Macrumors hardware forum (running a radial blur on "test.jpg" and timing it. Here is what I found:

The machine is a MBP 2.0ghz, 120GB 5400RPM drive. It was plugged in and running at max performance for all tests.

Started machine, installed CS2, rebooted.
1st. CS2 start, open image and test - 61 seconds
2nd. Close image, reopen and test - 61 seconds
3nd. Restart CS2 - 61 seconds
4rd. Restart MBP, CS2 - 61 seconds
5th. Install 2nd gig of RAM, restart, restart CS2 - 60 seconds
6th. Close Image, reopen, test - 60 seconds.

If you are unfamiliar with the "benchmark" the thread is:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/136593/

For reference, my 1.8 dual G5 takes about 76 seconds! Dual core MBP OWNS it!

***
So what do I think about it? The machine is great, small, just like its G4 siblings. The screen is very bright, no horizontal lines whatsoever. HOWEVER: The screen is LOUD if it is not on max brightness. Not sure if this is normal, just because its new, but it can be annoying. Otherwise, the machine is whisper quiet, even during the tests with the fan on.

 

[gdevitry]

Battery #'s

Same here. I'd get about 4 hours out of my 12" Powerbook with brightness turned down to two bars and just mainly doing web browsing and dealing with email.

3.5 hours on one of these machines isn't pant wettingly exciting but it's not terrible and with brightness turned down, I'm sure we could see better battery life than that.

Initial out of the box:
Out of box - battery at 90%
Charge to 100% - 15 mins.

Unplugged (at normal)
2:50 idle
2:24 with DVD loading
3:42 coming out of sleep

Now I'm 'running it down' so I can train the battery....

 

[cwedl]

I posted on the "now shipping" I got my machine about an hour ago; and I have run the "Photoshop test" found on Macrumors hardware forum (running a radial blur on "test.jpg" and timing it. Here is what I found:

The machine is a MBP 2.0ghz, 120GB 5400RPM drive. It was plugged in and running at max performance for all tests.

Started machine, installed CS2, rebooted.
1st. CS2 start, open image and test - 61 seconds
2nd. Close image, reopen and test - 61 seconds
3nd. Restart CS2 - 61 seconds
4rd. Restart MBP, CS2 - 61 seconds
5th. Install 2nd gig of RAM, restart, restart CS2 - 60 seconds
6th. Close Image, reopen, test - 60 seconds.

If you are unfamiliar with the "benchmark" the thread is:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/136593/

For reference, my 1.8 dual G5 takes about 76 seconds! Dual core MBP OWNS it!

***
So what do I think about it? The machine is great, small, just like its G4 siblings. The screen is very bright, no horizontal lines whatsoever. HOWEVER: The screen is LOUD if it is not on max brightness. Not sure if this is normal, just because its new, but it can be annoying. Otherwise, the machine is whisper quiet, even during the tests with the fan on.

What do you mean the screen is LOUD? - the fans come on, a buzz?

I like what you say about the photoshop benchmarks! a stigma that may be lifted?

 

[jacobj]

you obviously arnt reading those specs right. not EVERYTHING is going be to 2x the speed. but look closely. the average is about 1.5x faster, but there are many tests that are 2,3,6, even 10 times faster than the current model.
its really hard to estimate improved overall performance especially between two different chip architectures. overall they claim a 177% increase which is pretty darn good.

A lot of the numbers are over 2x. The very worst increase is 45% which is actually slower (the column heading is wrong, it's not % increase it's % of the PowerBook speed so 100% = same speed).

The overall result is 177%. 2x would have been 200%. That's pretty close. We all knew Apple's numbers were based on a very particular measure of speed. This appears to tell us that over a wider measurement it's not far off 2x still. That's pretty good, especially as there is probably a lot of optimisation left to go.

I am not disagreeing with either of you, only raising the point (again) that Apple's claims are ridiculous. They claim 4-5x faster (i.e. 500%-600% results would be expected).

I am not saying that I am disappointed with my choice to buy an MBP, only that I expected an average of 300% not 177%

 

[Juuro]

Whats about the loudness? Is the MacBook Pro silent?

 

[RichP]

Arg, kind of caught in dual postin here, but I dont want to start a panic.

You CAN hear the screen if isnt off or at max brightness. Its not loud in the sense of full spinning fans. But it is the loudest noise coming off the machine, even with the fans going from the benchmarks.

That being said, the machine is damn quiet otherwise. Im in a pretty quiet apartment right now, just for environmental reference.

 

[darwin022]

Mine left China yesterday morning and FedEx attempted delivery at 9:30 this morning... I am going to try to go pick it up from the depot after 1:30pm


(2.0 w/ 120GB hard drive)

 

[nomad01]

Unplugged (at normal)
2:50 idle
2:24 with DVD loading
3:42 coming out of sleep

Now I'm 'running it down' so I can train the battery....

Great. Keep this info coming. It's one of the questions we all want to hear an answer to I think.

As for the benchmarks, I noticed that the PB had 2GB RAM and the MacBook had 1GB split over the two cores.

Anyone care to speculate how/if this may effect the results?

 

[nbs2]

I am not disagreeing with either of you, only raising the point (again) that Apple's claims are ridiculous. They claim 4-5x faster (i.e. 500%-600% results would be expected).

I am not saying that I am disappointed with my choice to buy an MBP, only that I expected an average of 300% not 177%

I really don't know how the overall comparison is determined (I tend to rely on my own benchmark - "does it feel snappy?"), but is the amount of RAM factored in when determining the boost in speed?

 

[jacobj]

I really don't know how the overall comparison is determined (I tend to rely on my own benchmark - "does it feel snappy?"), but is the amount of RAM factored in when determining the boost in speed?

You are of course right. Given time to think (I generally need a lot of that), I know that the iMac Duo's leave my PB in the dust when I am using them... That is good enough for me..

 

[vaxt]

The "4 to 5 times Faster" is CPU performance ONLY, and highly theoretical.
So if you run CPU specific tests, such as Floating Point and Integer crunching tests, the CPU is perhaps 4 to 5 times as fast. Will the entire machine be 4 to 5 times as fast? Hell no.

Consider This:
The Hard Drives are the same in the PBG4 and the MBP.
The RAM is marginally faster in the MBP.
The Video Cards in the two models are not significantly different.
Does OS X operate in a way to utilize this 4 to 5 times faster CPU Speed? Unlikely because it doesn't just do scientific number crunching.

If you want to see this 4 to 5 times speed improvement, my suggestion is to install Gentoo Linux on both models, run in text mode and attempt some heavily optimized compiles or CPU intensive program such as calculating Pi to several thousand decimal places, or huge Matrix multiplications.

The MBP is faster than the PBG4, thats good enough for me. What I really want to know, is how long does the damn battery last!?

 

[Aaon]

Arg, kind of caught in dual postin here, but I dont want to start a panic.

You CAN hear the screen if isnt off or at max brightness. Its not loud in the sense of full spinning fans. But it is the loudest noise coming off the machine, even with the fans going from the benchmarks.

That being said, the machine is damn quiet otherwise. Im in a pretty quiet apartment right now, just for environmental reference.

What exactly do you mean when you say the screen makes noise? Is it a high pitched squeal, or osmething like a spinning fan? Sounds very odd to me, but not unheard of!

 

[jibberia]

About the screen loudness - My 1.67 (not new screen) 15" G4 PB makes that noise. It happened a month or so after I bought it, after the screen hinge started getting loose. In most positions, with the screen brightness turned down, I hear a buzzing sound. It is the PWM (pulse width modulation) on the lamp - which is how the differing levels of brightness is achieved. It is very annoying indeed, and I'm completely dismayed that the MacBook does this.

I have a whole chain of odd screen-related problems with this powerbook, though - it's loose, developing white spots (WTF WTF WHY IS MY SERIAL # NOT COVERED), buzzes, occasionally gets wild lines all over it and then the computer crashes... I'm quite unhappy with Apple's QA for screen-related stuff, especially on such an expensive product.

I keep thinking to myself, "they MUST have fixed this in the newer versions!" but it's never true. My roommate's PB has many of the same problems... and these are last-of-breed laptops - they've been making PowerBooks in these same cases for, what, at least 3 years now?

Come on.

 

[Apple Corps]

RichP - there may still be some confusion regarding your comment that the SCREEN is LOUD - what does that mean?? Is it the screen that is loud or the fans when the screen is not off or in the max brightness setting? Is it a fan noise or some type of static buzzing?? Lastly - was your Mac Book box packed inside another box or one box was it?

Congratulations - we are waiting for ours.

 

[whooleytoo]

So what do I think about it? The machine is great, small, just like its G4 siblings. The screen is very bright, no horizontal lines whatsoever. HOWEVER: The screen is LOUD if it is not on max brightness. Not sure if this is normal, just because its new, but it can be annoying. Otherwise, the machine is whisper quiet, even during the tests with the fan on.

That's certainly a bug. Whether Apple were unaware of it, or (more likely, IMO) just deemed it relatively trivial, who knows.

 

[rogiercreemers]

Jason O'Grady did a battery test on his MBP, and it gave up after about two hours and a half. More info:
http://www.powerpage.org/archives/2006/02/macbook_pro_battery_benchmarks.html#008641

 

[jibberia]

Oh

 

[RichP]

As someone else posted, you can hear the PSM of the fluorescent backlight. Its not a fan sound, and its not loud, it just has a sound to it tht is louder than the rest of the machine. Its not piercing or something that is a major defect, and 90% of people wouldnt prb notice it.

 

[Krevnik]

I am not disagreeing with either of you, only raising the point (again) that Apple's claims are ridiculous. They claim 4-5x faster (i.e. 500%-600% results would be expected).

I am not saying that I am disappointed with my choice to buy an MBP, only that I expected an average of 300% not 177%

This is why I /hate/ MacBench. It makes arbitrary decisions on how to weigh disk, graphics, CPU and memory performance into a 'final result'. Disk isn't going to improve much at all, although it seemed to do a good job of it anyways. If you look at CPU and graphics, those tend to go over what Apple's claim was, but only in specific circumstances. The vectorLib still needs some improvements it seems. Memory improved considerably as well. The downside is that Quartz also resulted in some slower performance for text and a couple other metrics.

Steve himself said during the Keynote that these benchmarks were focused around the CPU, and the benchmarks do state which applications they are referring to when they did the tests.

MacBench really needs to make 4 scores instead of one for each machine. CPU, Disk, Memory, and Graphics. This would give a much better indicator and be more honest with users. As it stands, the final number doesn't mean much of anything other than: something somewhere improved to some extent.