New MacBook Pro 6,1 on Geekbench!!

[immaculate]

logo

On another note, I just realized that the MacRumors logo has a question mark on its right side! Look at that!

I hadn't realised until now that the question mark has an apple on its left side!

 

[DanBUK]

Everybody is saying that faking Geekbench is difficult but I do not share this opinion. When you click the "submit" button it simply sends a HTTP post to the site with the values. It is very easy to capture the HTTP post, modify it and replay the HTTP post:

POST /geekbench2/submit_geekbench2 HTTP/1.1
Host: browse.geekbench.ca
Accept: */*
Content-Length: 8328
Expect: 100-continue
Content-Type: multipart/form-data; boundary=----------------------------95c1ff535ec5

HTTP/1.1 100 Continue

------------------------------95c1ff535ec5
Content-Disposition: form-data; name="document"

<geekbench version="Geekbench 2.1.4" checksum="c7f55a7aad913bbba41b6a5b54e3a067">
<score>1686</score>
<elapsed>66.9</elapsed>
<metrics>
<metric id="1" name="Platform" value="Windows x86 (32-bit)" ivalue="0" />
<metric id="2" name="Compiler" value="Visual C++ 2008" ivalue="0" />
<metric id="3" name="Operating System" value="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" ivalue="0" />
<metric id="4" name="Model" value="VMware, Inc. VMware Virtual Platform" ivalue="0" />
<metric id="5" name="Motherboard" value="Intel Corporation 440BX Desktop Reference Platform" ivalue="0" />
<metric id="6" name="Processor" value="Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU     P7350  @ 2.00GHz" ivalue="0" />
<metric id="7" name="Processor ID" value="GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 23 Stepping 6" ivalue="0" />
<metric id="8" name="Logical Processors" value="1" ivalue="1" />
<metric id="9" name="Physical Processors" value="1" ivalue="1" />
...
...

Doesn't sound very easy to me. Possible? Yes. Lot of effort for questionable reward? Yes. Lunchtime? Yes.

 

[Dekimasu]

Well, there are two computers in my apartment. One managed a 713 in Geekbench and the other is too old to run it (but gets a cool 38.23 in XBench). So as long as the new 13" MBP has an i5 and discrete graphics, it's pretty much a done deal. Otherwise I'll probably go Sony.

 

[auero]

These numbers are higher but I don't think they're THAT much of an improvement over what is out now. I was expecting faster.

 

[andreaseto]

I think the ATI 56xx has the same power draw, or even less than the current 9600m GT. So it can easily be used with much better performance. Correct me if I am wrong. I do realize that Apple doesn't do BTO on GPU. I was too excited I just hope they offer it on the high end as I want the top of the line 15" that Apple offers.

No you are not wrong! Look at these links:

NVIDIA GEFORCE 9600M GT

ATI MOBILITY RADEON HD 5650

Ati has better power consuption, supports latest graphics technology (direct X 11, shader 5), is more powerful and is built on 40nm instead of 65nm!

I think it's an excellent choice!

 

[Augure]

Hi, I'm a noob here, but I've been really interested into these Intel chips stories lastly.

Here are two general questions based on what I've read:
1. Why can't the 13" MBP have an i7 ?
2. How come the i7 - 620M is cadenced at 2,66Ghz and the i7 - 720QM which is supposedly faster run at 1,60Ghz ? Isn't that supposed to be the opposite ?

Remember, I'm a noob for what it comes to hardware

 

[ttttttttttt9]

finally! news about MBP's instead of the bloody ipads!!

eeeeeeeeeeeew

 

[iggibiggi]

I hope this is all false news because, to me, the i7 620m is really a disappointment for a new macbook pro update. I know it's really efficient at only 35watts, but I think the majority of people who buy their MBP's, like me, want it for power, not it's efficiency. The 620m is a great processor for the money, but if this news is true, I hope they also have more options available.

 

[Hazel]

Hi, I'm a noob here, but I've been really interested into these Intel chips stories lastly.

Here are two general questions based on what I've read:
1. Why can't the 13" MBP have an i7 ?
2. How come the i7 - 620M is cadenced at 2,66Ghz and the i7 - 720QM which is supposedly faster run at 1,60Ghz ? Isn't that supposed to be the opposite ?

Remember, I'm a noob for what it comes to hardware

1. The real reason? Apple will want you to buy the 15" or 17". Apple has been correlating larger displays with higher performance, so they're going to try to upsell you to the larger (and more expensive) machines.
2. 620m is dual core. 720qm is quad core.

 

[Tex-Twil]

Doesn't sound very easy to me. Possible? Yes. Lot of effort for questionable reward? Yes. Lunchtime? Yes.

No serisouly it's easy. I've already done it with other sites.

 

[iggibiggi]

having an i7-920XM as an option would be nice!

I was also hoping a future ATI card would be available…still crossing my fingers!

 

[DUNCVILLE]

No serisouly it's easy. I've already done it with other sites.

cool, then how about doing us a favour - how about running the exact same thing as the hoaxer might have done - but change all of the key numberical data to 1234567 for me - and then we'll know how easy it is

 

[MrKahuna]

but I think the majority of people who buy their MBP's, like me, want it for power, not it's efficiency

Not me, so we cancel each other out. I guess we'll need a larger sample size to determine what the "majority" wants.

I do plan to wait until an update at this point. I'd like as much power as I can get at a minimum efficiency level. I'm looking for a laptop not a desktop and to me "desktop replacement" is just marketing jargon for "heavy, hot, and loud".

 

[krypticos]

i hope this is real because i want to upgrade to a macbook pro and if they bring this out ill get it because this would mean a 68.5% increase for me. well based on geek bench scores.

 

[lefse]

Apple doesn't do BTO for integrated GPUs especially for notebooks. They have to design a completely new board and replace it for every order which they don't do.

Wrong,
In early 2005 Apple had a graphics-BTO for their Powerbooks.
64MB vs 128MB memory for the ATI GPU. The latter could drive a 30" display.

Whatever they do, we can rest assured that they have been planning it for a looong time.. Intel's new CPU-line has been known to us for some time, and even longer for Apple.

 

[neoark]

That test was ran on 32-bit Geekbench so I think it would've ben over 6000 with 64-bit.

My guesses below:

13" MacBook
$999 Core 2 Duo P8600 (2.4GHz) and/or P8700 (2.53GHz)

13" MacBook Pro
$1199 Core i3 330M (2.13GHz)
$1399 Core i3 350M (2.26GHz)

15" MacBook Pro
$1499 Core i5 520M (2.4GHz)
$1899 Core i5 540M (2.53GHz) + dedicated GPU
$2199 Core i7 620M (2.66GHz) + dedicated GPU

17" MacBook Pro

$2499 Core i7 620M (2.66GHz) + dedicated GPU
$2599 Core i7 720QM (1.6GHz) + dedicated GPU (only BTO)
$2899 Core i7 820QM (1.73GHz) + dedicated GPU (only BTO)

Just my guess but 17" can handle Clarksfield

There is no good mobile version of i3 intel processor. If they don't add i5 or i7 to 13" they will loose so many customers. i3 Sucks bad and its hardly any performance increase to current core duo 2. Also i3 don't have intel turbo boost technology...

Source: http://ark.intel.com

 

[gri]

That's exactly why this should be taken with a grain of salt; unless this is an intentional leak as an Apple media stunt (doubtful, but I wouldn't put it past them) the person posting this Xbench log would likely lose his job.

Apple has been known to place intentional leaks to get the hype going. Nothing easier for them than letting an engineer in Cupertino do a geekbench test. Requires no Journalists or placed photos...

 

[CompanionCube]

There is no good mobile version of i3 intel processor. If they don't add i5 or i7 to 13" they will loose so many customers. i3 Sucks bad and its hardly any performance increase to current core duo 2. Also i3 don't have intel turbo boost technology...

Source: http://ark.intel.com

Ugghh....the stupidity of people on this forum never ceases to amaze.

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei3/mobile/index.htm

 

[neoark]

Ugghh....the stupidity of people on this forum never ceases to amaze.

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei3/mobile/index.htm

Exactly my point read what it is written i will highlight it for you..... There is no good mobile version...

Source: http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=47663&processor=i3-330M&spec-codes=SLBMD,SLBNF <-- i3
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=47341&code=Intel®+Core™+i5-520M+Processor+(3M+Cache,+2.40+GHz) <-- i5

 

[Bubba Satori]

So that means this is very possible?

15" i7-620M = $2300 - $2600.

You can't be serious. Those are prices from 2007.
Those are twice as expensive as the ones that are already available from everybody else.

 

[laelfrog]

Everybody is saying that faking Geekbench is difficult but I do not share this opinion. When you click the "submit" button it simply sends a HTTP post to the site with the values. It is very easy to capture the HTTP post, modify it and replay the HTTP post:

I agree! It wouldn't be too hard to fake a geekbench submission. not 100% trivial with the checksum but definitely not hard. (I still really want an i7 MBP)

 

[50548]

I'd never buy a top end model just before I knew an update was coming. Refurbs are something else but I usually don't look at them because my Educational discount gives pretty much the same amount off and works on the newest machines out.

The problem for me is definitely the battery life. Other i7 based laptops have only managed 3 hours on a full charge which is pretty paltry compared to current MacBook Pros. Unlike other MBP releases, this is one that I wouldn't be tempted to jump on straight after launch - I'd want to wait for some respectable reviews first.

Well, Core i5Ms should be more than enough for new MBPs...any differences in battery life between those and C2Ds?

 

[iggibiggi]

Not me, so we cancel each other out. I guess we'll need a larger sample size to determine what the "majority" wants.

I do plan to wait until an update at this point. I'd like as much power as I can get at a minimum efficiency level. I'm looking for a laptop not a desktop and to me "desktop replacement" is just marketing jargon for "heavy, hot, and loud".

Why should people be limited to power because you want the more battery life? That kind of doesn't make sense at all when you are looking at a 15" or 17" mbp! There are plenty of other offerings you can choose from if you are that worried about efficiency. That's like cutting power the power to a supercharged engine to make the tree huggers happy! It doesn't make sense for this model! Makes a ton of sense for the 13" though.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I hope this is all false news because, to me, the i7 620m is really a disappointment for a new macbook pro update. I know it's really efficient at only 35watts, but I think the majority of people who buy their MBP's, like me, want it for power, not it's efficiency. The 620m is a great processor for the money, but if this news is true, I hope they also have more options available.

I think you might be the exception to the rule. Most people buy laptops for their portability. However, for this to be useful it must have decent battery life. I would gladly give up some CPU power in in exchange for longer battery life for the simple reason that a slower working computer is better than a faster one w/ a dead batt. & no available A/C power. I don't think I'm alone here.

 

[niuniu]

I hate this thread.. trying to get some work done and all I can do is dream about a 15inch i7