New MacBook Pro 6,1 on Geekbench!!

[DeepIn2U]

Should ANY of the MBP lineup refreshes ship with a core i3 that'll be a slap in the face! All the competition is shipping mid/top end range with Core i5/i7 minimum (unless thin & light is used in the design).

Also with 256 or less video ram ... that is a SLAPPY-SLAP! Even the 13" should now get internal + dedicated GPU with its own 512/1GB memory buffer. Owning a 13" should NOT be a crippled use for high end video/photoshop work. Apple should start making their MBP lineup full workstations in terms of graphics power; their new battery technology should allow for this.

Used buyers just didn't want to let go the 13" MB Unibody Alu often, and MBP 13" users aren't giving theirs away; so Apple release this this month so I can buy in March for a decent price. Don't make me consider yet ANOTHER HP for an upgrade this Spring.

 

[Steve Jobs.]

Should ANY of the MBP lineup refreshes ship with a core i3 that'll be a slap in the face! All the competition is shipping mid/top end range with Core i5/i7 minimum (unless thin & light is used in the design).

Also with 256 or less video ram ... that is a SLAPPY-SLAP! Even the 13" should now get internal + dedicated GPU with its own 512/1GB memory buffer. Owning a 13" should NOT be a crippled use for high end video/photoshop work. Apple should start making their MBP lineup full workstations in terms of graphics power; their new battery technology should allow for this.

Used buyers just didn't want to let go the 13" MB Unibody Alu often, and MBP 13" users aren't giving theirs away; so Apple release this this month so I can buy in March for a decent price. Don't make me consider yet ANOTHER HP for an upgrade this Spring.

if it fits in Apple's design and it meets the power consumption standards, then i am sure apple will probably put the best processor they can put in whatever laptops they make.

 

[FriedEngineer]

Um yea I think this pretty much points to an update on the 16th, unless Macmall does this frequently.

Does any more experienced apple user remember if macmall has done this before a mbp update in the past?

MacMall has so many "sales", they're really not sales. At the end of Jan., they had one price. Then it was a little bit higher for the last week (about $50 higher). Now it's even lower (not by much compared to the end of January "sale"). The is only "special information" MacMall would have is some type of inventory info, as well as any info we have.

Now having said that, I'm sure the people running MacMall are intelligent. I would assume they watch very closely for leaks (on forums like this), product cycles, and their inventory information so they can make calculated decisions.

I doubt they have much more info (compared to us) and deffinately not special info from Apple. Do they lower prices when new stuff comes out? No doubt, but the current prices are not unheard of (at MacMall) for current models, so I don't think they're "clearing inventory" if that's what you meant

 

[Maserati7200]

My duel core iMac gets 2698. Compared to 5260, is 3 years worth of improvement good? I am no expert in these things.

Just saying, your sig says 2008 iMac G5 (Intel). No iMac made in 2006 or late has a G5. You just have an iMac, no G5.

If we're to reason that Apple currently sells the 17" MacBook Pro w/ 6MB of L3 cache, and wouldn't downgrade their next revision to having 4MB of L3 cache, then this GeekBench is a 15" MacBook Pro, because it shows itself as having 4MB of L3 cache.

Therefore, if this GeekBench a dual core MacBook Pro 15", it goes to reason that the new 17" MacBook Pro will have 6MB of L3 cache (as it does now), and the processor should be one of the Quad Cores, whether a 720/820/920, and potentially all of those options could be up as available processor upgrades for CTO builds.

Not necessarily. I had a Mid 2007 MacBook that had 4MB of L2 cache. I now have a 13" MBP with a 3 MB L2 cache, yet it is a faster computer. More cache doesn't necessarily mean better.

I'd be shocked if MacMall had some inside information about when the new MBPs will be released. They know exactly what we do:

* Apple has updated their MacBook Pros every 8 months since Oct-2006
* Apple usually releases products on Tuesdays
* Intel announced new Arrandale processors at CES in January
* HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc. already have Arrandale notebook models available
* Developer builds of OS X have referenced previously unreleased MacBook Pro 6,1 and 6,2 since October
* Intel announced a promo in mid-January for its sale reps with the prize being a Core i5 MacBook Pro - Intel quickly pulled the promo claiming it was an error
* Yesterday a benchmark was posted indicating that the result came from a new MacBook Pro although this could be a fake
* NVidia is set to introduce their new Optimus GPU technology on Feb. 9
* MacWorld starts Feb. 9 although this year Apple is not attending the event

If I forgot any facts please let me know, but I'm pretty sure this is the evidence we have right now - it's left as an exercise for the reader to figure out what it means.

Great post

 

[jimbowdang]

Not necessarily. I had a Mid 2007 MacBook that had 4MB of L2 cache. I now have a 13" MBP with a 3 MB L2 cache, yet it is a faster computer. More cache doesn't necessarily mean better.

Exactly, Intel is maintaining at most a 2MB of L3 cache per core ratio on all their Nehalem processors. So a dual core i7 will have 4MB while a quad core i7 will have 8MB. Of course their cheaper processors can have less. The cost to performance justification for more just isn't there.

 

[racketeer71]

Late 2006 17" MBP with Meron processor bought in January 2007, maxed out RAM-wise and with an ATI Radeon X1600 scores 3169.

The Geekbench score on the new i7 is about 66% higher:

Integer: 2637 => 4006 = 52% increase
Floating point: 4806 => 8383 = 74% increase
Memory: 2036 => 3114 = 53% increase
Stream: 1575 => 3016 = 91% increase

I'll probably be able to run Space Invaders in full screen, then.

 

[DoFoT9]

Late 2006 17" MBP with Meron processor bought in January 2007, maxed out RAM-wise and with an ATI Radeon X1600 scores 3169.

The Geekbench score on the new i7 is about 66% higher:

Integer: 2637 => 4006 = 52% increase
Floating point: 4806 => 8383 = 74% increase
Memory: 2036 => 3114 = 53% increase
Stream: 1575 => 3016 = 91% increase

I'll probably be able to run Space Invaders in full screen, then.

i get 2600 on my T2600 CoreDuo late 2006 machine. (specs below) what GHz is your machine? :-S

how the current machines only hit 4000 i dont know, 3 years difference in technology should yield greater benchmark results then that.

 

[racketeer71]

i get 2600 on my T2600 CoreDuo late 2006 machine. (specs below) what GHz is your machine? :-S

how the current machines only hit 4000 i dont know, 3 years difference in technology should yield greater benchmark results then that.

2,33GHZ T7600. I've attached a screen grab.

 

[DoFoT9]

2,33GHZ T7600. I've attached a screen grab.

oh right i keep getting merom and the one mine actually is mixed up! mybad

even so, if mine can get 2600 with 5+ different apps open, most of my RAM used and a week of uptime then the new i7 quads will only get twice the benchmark of what mine currently is. id consider my purchase a good investment if thats the case then. if only i could get >2GB RAM and an SSD, it would still be very current!

 

[tfstone]

I d rather have the Apple store going down than Macrumors Forum. Just saying...

 

[Tex-Twil]

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:

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

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

Ok I give up

I managed to post a "fake" result but it is marked as "inaccurate" on the site. It's because the values that I post do not match the checksum. I don't know on what exactly the checksum is calculated so I cannot redo the hash.

<geekbench version="Geekbench 2.1.4" [B]checksum[/B]="c7f55a7aad913bbba41b6a5b54e3a067">
<score>1686</score>
...

Here is the fake result anyway with a score "123456789" and a Processor "Tex-Twil Core2 Duo P7350"

 

[DUNCVILLE]

Ok I give up

I managed to post a "fake" result but it is marked as "inaccurate" on the site. It's because the values that I post do not match the checksum. I don't now on what exactly the checksum is calculated to I cannot redo the hash.

<geekbench version="Geekbench 2.1.4" [B]checksum[/B]="c7f55a7aad913bbba41b6a5b54e3a067">
<score>1686</score>
...

Here is the fake result anyway with a score "123456789" and a Processor "Tex-Twil Core2 Duo P7350"

I'm actually pretty impressed by that. Thanks for taking the time to do it.

You've certainly proved your theory. But you haven't proven that it's easy, since the benchmark has been deemed fake by their system.

I'm really glad you did it!

Still inconclusive. Sadly.

 

[JacaByte]

Assuming this isn't some type of elaborate hoax, this alleged Macbook Pro is faster than the Windows machine I'm currently typing from. Now that's amazing.

 

[commander.data]

Also with 256 or less video ram ... that is a SLAPPY-SLAP! Even the 13" should now get internal + dedicated GPU with its own 512/1GB memory buffer. Owning a 13" should NOT be a crippled use for high end video/photoshop work. Apple should start making their MBP lineup full workstations in terms of graphics power; their new battery technology should allow for this.

I completely agree that 512MB/1GB VRAM should be implemented in MacBook Pros. However, I doubt we will see that happening since it isn't a financial problem but a physical space problem. The MacBook Pro (at least the 15.4") only has motherboard space for 4 VRAM chips, which means using the latest 1Gb density memory chips, only 512MB max VRAM is achievable. 2Gb density GDDR3 and GDDR5 don't look to be even at the consumer sampling stage much less in mass production, so I don't see 512MB/1GB configurations this year unless Apple can somehow scrounge up enough space for 8 memory chips. Similarly features like USB 3.0 and 6.0Gb/s SATA are not supported by existing chipsets, so implementing these features requires separate dedicated chips on the motherboard that also take up space. Apple will no doubt need to prioritize on what features are most important since there just isn't enough motherboard space unless they start expanding the case or removing/shrinking other components like optical drive or battery.

 

[wilycoder]

Assuming this isn't some type of elaborate hoax, this alleged Macbook Pro is faster than the Windows machine I'm currently typing from. Now that's amazing.

No, it's not. Your machine sucks.

 

[Salavat23]

Assuming this isn't some type of elaborate hoax, this alleged Macbook Pro is faster than the Windows machine I'm currently typing from. Now that's amazing.

How is that amazing? The X2 6000 is a 4 year old CPU, that was easily manhandled by 2.13GHz Core 2 Duos.

Plus, the cpu tested has 4 threads, and since Geekbench is highly multi-threaded, it has an obvious advantage.

 

[fibrizo]

I'm actually pretty impressed by that. Thanks for taking the time to do it.

You've certainly proved your theory. But you haven't proven that it's easy, since the benchmark has been deemed fake by their system.

I'm really glad you did it!

Still inconclusive. Sadly.

http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/212950

Btw, this took 10 minutes on a netbook to do, I checked myself to see, and I didn't post it because I just wanted to see how easy it would be to fake. If I had bothered to do any hacks into chameleon, it would look exactly real. Digging though the options was kinda neat also. You realize it's listing DDR3 1067 on a netbook... which we know is totally bogus.. It was easy to change the settings for this too. The point of this is that, it's pretty easy to fake a macbook pro, provided that you hackintosh and add all the configuration info since the smc etc is all emulated.

That said, I do hope we see a new macbook soon, this is certainly like a controlled leak in the sense it allows plausible deniability. ie Apple can always claim it was faked etc, even if it is real.

 

[Mister9]

I mentioned this before but it seems to have gotten lost in the mix... can anyone find a 'MBP' with a FSB greater than 1.33 GHz on GeekBench?? Because all the ones people are getting their panties all twisted up in a bunch over show FSB's of past MBP's... so it would appear that forging the CPU is doable but not the FSB... someone prove me wrong...

The 'leak' yesterday showed an FSB of 4.8 GHz...

 

[Eidorian]

My MacBook Late 2007 hovers just over ~3,000 in GeekBench. Time to wait for a refurbished model. Core 2 stuck around for too long. I somewhat wish Aurburndale had seen the light of day.

 

[JacaByte]

How is that amazing? The X2 6000 is a 4 year old CPU, that was easily manhandled by 2.13GHz Core 2 Duos.

Plus, the cpu tested has 4 threads, and since Geekbench is highly multi-threaded, it has an obvious advantage.

Actually, the machine is two years old, and runs well enough to support AutoCADD programs. (barely) If that's good enough for me then a Macbook that's 70% faster than it will be something I'll want to spend money on, which is all that really matters, no?

 

[commander.data]

You realize it's listing DDR3 1067 on a netbook... which we know is totally bogus.. It was easy to change the settings for this too.

Well an Atom processor coupled with Ion could use DDR3, but I understand what you mean about it being possible to trick the results.

 

[NOTORIOUS187]

No, it's not. Your machine sucks.

Trolled.

How is that amazing? The X2 6000 is a 4 year old CPU, that was easily manhandled by 2.13GHz Core 2 Duos.

Plus, the cpu tested has 4 threads, and since Geekbench is highly multi-threaded, it has an obvious advantage.

Trolled.

 

[puckhead193]

can someone explain or point me in the direction of what these numbers mean?

 

[Apple.MBPro]

I think you meant the Auburndale (slight typo in your post). Yes, i do remember when Intel canned the Auburndale and Havendale: 45nm "fusion" processors (CPU+GPU). All of this happened amidst the world economic crisis, which changed the face of the Intel road map. More info. on these two fusion processors can be found here.

My MacBook Late 2007 hovers just over ~3,000 in GeekBench. Time to wait for a refurbished model. Core 2 stuck around for too long. I somewhat wish Aurburndale had seen the light of day.

 

[wilycoder]

Trolled.

Trolled.

Join Date: Dec 2009