My 13in MBP sucks this much now?

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by RKilbane20, Aug 2, 2011.

  1. RKilbane20, Aug 2, 2011
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2011

    RKilbane20 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #1
    So im debating on whether to get the 2.3 or 2.5 with the graphics card. My MBP has a score of 3351 and the 2.3 has 5842 and 2.5 has a 6465.

    Is my 13in macbook pro that crappy now compared to the new i5 sandy bridge chips? If I got the 2.3 and added my own 8 gigs of ram would i still be able to play games like L4D, Portal, valve games ect. or will that AMD radeon make a huge difference. I also use After Effects and Final Cut X almost daily.
     
  2. Vermifuge macrumors 6502

    Vermifuge

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    #2
    It's the hyper threading. It can give a bit of an artificial boost to benchmarking utilities. My 2010 mini server scored 4000 vs. 7500 with my i7 Dual Core both systems with 8 GB ram.

    That said i'm not reading my email or watching videos on you tube any faster. i'm really not doing anything that much faster in my day to day activities.
     
  3. MacVibe macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    #3
    It doesn't suck if you still like it. The benchmarks you mention are mainly based on cpu, so for cpu tasks, then yes, the new sandy bridge chips are about twice as fast.

    Since you mention games then you probably have a good baseline for how well your machine plays the games you mention. One site for info on graphics is:
    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Graphics-Cards-Benchmark-
    List.844.0.html

    In the search field you can enter:

    6630m 3000 320m 9400m

    check the "or" option for search, and then search by clicking restrict.

    For example, the 3DMark05 results are:
    12,658 - 2011 mini with 6630m graphics
    6,715 - 2011 mini with Intel HD 3000 graphics
    7,168 - 2010 13" MBP with 320m graphics
    3,002 - 2009 13" MBP with 9400m graphics

    So, ballpark-wise, the upgraded mini graphics will give a 2x improvement over the base mini or the 2010 13" MBP, or a 4x improvement over the 2009 13" MBP. You'll have to find specific game/settings benchmarks for the games you want to play. The 6630m in the mini doesn't have much memory which Apple probably did intentionally so you'll step up to an imac.
     
  4. RKilbane20 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #4
    Do you think just getting the 2.3 and adding 8 gigs of ram would be a downgrade to what i currently have in my 13in 2.4 core 2 duo with 4 gigs of ram and 320m?
     
  5. soLoredd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2007
    Location:
    California
    #5
    I have the 2.3 and put in 8GB yesterday. Makes a bit of a difference - I play StarCraft 2 and Civ V, sometimes KOTOR - it actually adds some RAM to the 3000 HD (going from 384 to 512, although this doesn't necessarily make it any "better").

    I'm surprised by the difference between the '09 and the '11, didn't think it would be that much. And those Mini numbers have me pleasantly pleased - now I'm debating between iMac and Mini.
     
  6. RKilbane20 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2009
    #6
    Whats your graphics levels at for SC2? On OSX i play on all medium and on Windows 7 i play on mostly high graphics.
     

Share This Page