Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New MacBook Pro 6,1 on Geekbench!!

Steve Mobs said:
Future 13"

$1200 - 2.13GHz Core i3-350M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics

$1500 - 2.26GHz Core i3-350M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics

Future 15"

$1700 - 2.26GHz Core i3-350M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics

$2000 - 2.40GHz Core i5-520M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics + NVIDIA Optimus + NVIDIA Discrete Graphics

$2300 - 2.53GHz Core i5-540M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics + NVIDIA Optimus + NVIDIA Discrete Graphics

$2600 - 2.66GHz Core i7-620M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 4MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics + NVIDIA Optimus + NVIDIA Discrete Graphics

Future 17"

$2500 - 2.53GHz Core i5-540M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics + NVIDIA Optimus + NVIDIA Discrete Graphics

$2800 - 2.66GHz Core i7-620M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 4MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics + NVIDIA Optimus + NVIDIA Discrete Graphics

No Clarksfield (4 Cores, 8 Threads). No ATI Graphics.
Click to expand...

No Clarksfield, no party!
 
And what about the others things

Hey, for me it is clear that within the next two month there will be an update of the mbp with one of the new cpu's. At least at the wwdc in june, but I hope it will be early because I can hardly await to buy one.

But what are you guys thinking about the other possible upgrades.
Like a mini displayport version 1.2, so mbp can serve two external displays or an increase of the display resolution to 1680x1050?
 
Steve Mobs said:
This will happen with NVIDIA's Optimus. :D
Click to expand...
What propelled the T400 in performance is a fairly new Centrino 2 feature called Switchable Graphics. Simply put, the T400 has two different graphics cards installed—an ATI Mobility Radeon 3400 chipset and Centrino 2 integrated graphics. Powering down the ATI graphics in favor of an integrated set increases battery life, because the ATI graphics chipset guzzles energy. This switch made a huge difference on our MobileMark 2007 tests: The T400 lasted 4 hours 12 minutes with the ATI chipset but yielded 5 hours 20 minutes using the integrated graphics. Best of all, making the switch is as easy as left-clicking Lenovo's battery meter icon and selecting "switchable graphics," with no reboot required.
Click to expand...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2330567,00.asp

Switchable graphics without restart isn't exactly limited to nVidia GPUs. ATI's 2 generations old Mobility Radeon HD 3470 could do it with Intel's last gen GMA 4500MHD.
 
well at least the MBP is finally getting the media attention it deserves, making the headliner at engadget and being posted on numerous other sites (gizmodo, tuaw, etc.) I really can't wait to have one of these babies. Still wonder what they'll do with the graphics though...
 
SecretAsianMan said:
If the GeekBench listing is legit, then sure, it's probably a controlled leak. Given how the online communities are buzzing with anticipation over a MBP refresh, and the talk of non-Apple products, a leak makes sense right now. The supposed leak sends the messages "hold on, the refresh is coming" and "look, people, they may not be quad core, but they're going to perform great". Finally, if it was a leak, it was released in a way that is visible only to the online enthusiast crowd, leaving the great majority of the customer base unaffected.

Pretty smart, if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I totally agree!
 
Picho said:
I wouldn't worry too much about it. Apple is well know for removing features and accessories from their products, to the point that they hamper their functionality for the sake of elegance and simplicity, but they have never downgraded a CPU, HDD, GPU or RAM from their computers in a refresh or redesign, EVER!
Click to expand...

Awesome, so are you thinking they will keep the 9400m or ugprade it?
 
bbytes said:
Hey, for me it is clear that within the next two month there will be an update of the mbp with one of the new cpu's. At least at the wwdc in june, but I hope it will be early because I can hardly await to buy one.

But what are you guys thinking about the other possible upgrades.
Like a mini displayport version 1.2, so mbp can serve two external displays or an increase of the display resolution to 1680x1050?
Click to expand...

Man, I would like to see 1920 by 1200 or 1080 in a 15.4 size- snowleopard's relative resolution independence could make it look really nice.
 
commander.data said:
Since Geekbench is a synthetic benchmark, we could compare other theoretical indicators such as Dhrystone which is an indicator of theoretical integer performance and is really the only figure I can find for ARM A9 at this time anyways.

Although there are so many factors like memory bandwidth, compiler optimizations, what type of instruction you are stressing like integer, floating point, vector, branching, etc. so this estimate really isn't worth much.
Click to expand...

I think the primary differentiating factor between a Geekbenched MacPro and a Geekbenched iPad will be Apple specific optimizatons in the silicon we have yet to have even a basic understanding of. GB has several different tests all combined to a final figure, so that gives my prediction a leg up since there will be heavy emphasis on video decoding capacity.

Finally I have a card in my pocket for practical speed. The MacPro (and iMac) I referenced use moderately slow busses and HD's. The iPad uses flash which in effect is a RAMDISC, and despite the low CPU Ghz, it will have a speedy bus.

In any case my prediction is on the record. My overall results are pretty damn good.

Rocketman

how they interact with disc.
 
Steve Mobs said:
Future 13"

$1200 - 2.13GHz Core i3-350M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics

$1500 - 2.26GHz Core i3-350M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics

Future 15"

$1700 - 2.26GHz Core i3-350M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics

$2000 - 2.40GHz Core i5-520M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics + NVIDIA Optimus + NVIDIA Discrete Graphics

$2300 - 2.53GHz Core i5-540M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics + NVIDIA Optimus + NVIDIA Discrete Graphics

$2600 - 2.66GHz Core i7-620M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 4MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics + NVIDIA Optimus + NVIDIA Discrete Graphics

Future 17"

$2500 - 2.53GHz Core i5-540M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 3MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics + NVIDIA Optimus + NVIDIA Discrete Graphics

$2800 - 2.66GHz Core i7-620M, 2 Cores, 4 Threads, 4MB L3, 1066 FSB
Intel Integrated Graphics + NVIDIA Optimus + NVIDIA Discrete Graphics

No Clarksfield (4 Cores, 8 Threads). No ATI Graphics.
Click to expand...

I just read about Nvidia Optimus- so these predictions would be really nice! Basically, as users we would not even notice the discrete graphics chip turning on, except when it is needed, right?
 
ozreth said:
Awesome, so are you thinking they will keep the 9400m or ugprade it?
Click to expand...

Considering that it's now a two year old technology, I'm sure that they can come up with something better than that.

Also the 9400m is incompatible with Core i5's and Core i7's because of licensing restrictions from Intel, that's why the i5 and i7 iMacs use ATI graphics and not 9400M.

Apple laptops haven't used ATI graphics since the PowerBook days, but maybe they don't have a choice now.
 
Sounds tasty! Having lost my Mac to my sister's university needs and simply just lost my iTouch, I'm feeling pretty upset by my lac of Mac.


Also, the Geekbench scores are interesting. Downloaded it on here to try a comparison. My PC scored lower than the MBP. Cheap memory was a bad idea after all...

Anyway, hopefully the higher end ones aren't hugely expensive :)
 
Odds are, we won't see the i7 in the 13" Macbook. Unless somehow they stuffed a better graphics (dual?) card in there and an i7. It might get an i3 which isn't really a big bump from what's in there now.
 
SecretAsianMan said:
Honestly, I never found a MBP 17 to be any less portable than a MBP 15. I see both every day at work, and they're so close in size that it takes me a few seconds to discern the size. I seriously doubt there are many surfaces where the 15 fits but the 17 does not.

The increased resolution, however, is fantastic.
Click to expand...

That's good to know. In fact it caused me to look at the tech specs on Apple's site and the 17" is only 1.12" wider and .69" deeper than the 15". That really isn't too much bigger. It does weigh 1.1 lbs. more than the 15" but that doesn't concern me too much. Like you said the extra resolution is a huge plus, at least for me.
 
Hah, I bet its gonna be really expensive.. My pc running Snow Leopard (Core i5 750 @ 4GHZ) gets a score of 9100 :p
 
Rocketman said:
Someone asked how 5260 compares to other Macs.

A MacPro Xeon 5160 3,0 Ghz 4 core or Early 2008 MP Xeon E5462 2.8 Ghz 4 core is only slightly better.

It's FASTER than a Late 2006 X-serve 2.66 Ghz 4 core, MacPro Xeon 5150 2.66 Ghz 4 core, Early 2009 iMac C2D 3.06 Ghz 2 core, and Early 2008 as well.

So, it's "faster than a 2006 X-serve, 2008 MacPro, and 2009 iMac". On single workstation end user tasks.

Rocketman
Click to expand...

Excellent thanks for posting.

Very nice to see this thing appears to be as powerful as a 2008 mac pro. Would make this thing very tempting to purchase.

Now if apple would only update aperture!:mad:
 
To those of you bemoaning the lack of 4 cores... the new MBP's score really is pretty impressive for a 2 core system.

I'm running an Athlon X4 620 @ 2.6 GHz and Geekbench just gave me 5051 (Win 7 32-bit).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back