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

New MacBook Pro Benchmarks Show Massive Improvement

TheHoff said:
Cinebench of 5.14 for 17" i7 2.2 that did 11,000 on GeekBench.
Click to expand...

Well I meant OpenGL but yea. That's weird, I get 13,000 on GeekBench yet I get 9.02 on Cinebench. Those numbers seem a lot further apart on Cinebench.

Maybe Cinebench is more CPU speed intensive whereas GeekBench is cores and memory?
 
StealthGhost said:
Well I meant OpenGL but yea. That's weird, I get 13,000 on GeekBench yet I get 9.02 on Cinebench. Those numbers seem a lot further apart on Cinebench.

Maybe Cinebench is more CPU speed intensive whereas GeekBench is cores and memory?
Click to expand...

I'm currently testing out my battery life but I'll be glad to re-run it after.

(btw, battery life of about 6.5 hours on my 2nd cycle while using web, coda, and skype voice)
 
i was looking at the 13" as I love the form factor...I don't game (well accept for the little ones like angry birds and such) but I would assume that watching HD movies and some imovie would be fine on the integrated chip yeah?

I'm more keen to the airs but since I dabble with Ableton, and have yet to see anyone post about using it on a MBA, I may stick with the MBP. Other wise I would just surf, email and occasionally transcode video (which i let run all night so speed is nice but not totally necessary).

Any thoughts on this? :eek:
 
tigress666 said:
Some one who bought one who had the 2010 already did his own benchmarks and found the 2011 blew the 2010 away in speed but was slightly worse than it in graphics (but not tellable to him while playing, just by the software he used to test it).

So, about the same as the 2010 for that but it will install and load the game quicker.

He also said he found the battery to be on par with the 2010.

So, now I will change my mind and say I'm jealous. But I'm not too upset I got the 2010, it still addressed the main reasons I wanted a new computer. But I sure wouldn't mind it being much faster or the potential of the thunderbolt connector.
Click to expand...

Ah cheers. Seems that Intel HD3000 isn't as bad as i first thought. Not an upgrade but only a very slight downgrade. This thread i found has more info… https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=11993244#post11993244
 
MacRumors said:



033949-mbp2011c.jpg


PrimateLabs has compiled GeekBench results for the new Sandy Bridge MacBook Pros released just yesterday, and the results are impressive. The results show GeekBench results ranging from 5900 to 10164 across all models. What makes this particularly impressive is that the new low-end 13" MacBook Pro (2.3GHz Dual i5) scores around last year's top-end 15"/17" MacBook Pro (2.8GHz Dual i7).

Browsing through the complete list of benchmarks shows the new MacBook Pros in context with the other Macs. The top-of-the-line MacBook Pro now outrank many of last year's desktop machines including the Mac Pro and iMac.As always, benchmarks are an artificial gauge of performance, but can be useful in head to head comparisons.

Article Link: New MacBook Pro Benchmarks Show Massive Improvement
Click to expand...

That's really great! The only thing they need to do to make it PERFECT is drop the price so I can afford the damn thing!
 
No wonder they are faster when Apple skipped last gen i7 quad core processors.
 
StealthGhost said:
Well I meant OpenGL but yea. That's weird, I get 13,000 on GeekBench yet I get 9.02 on Cinebench. Those numbers seem a lot further apart on Cinebench.

Maybe Cinebench is more CPU speed intensive whereas GeekBench is cores and memory?
Click to expand...

OpenGL on Cinebench of 34.44 fps (1GB 6750M, quad i7, 2.2 17")


edit: here is the XBench results for the Quad i7 2.2 -- currently the #2 fastest MacBook Pro registered in xBench! Second to another Early 2011 17" that has a cleaner or newer SSD than I do.
 
Last edited:
G4DP said:
Isn't this blatantly obvious?

Double the cores, double the results in CPU benchmark tests?
Click to expand...

The cores were not doubled for every system. As shown in the chart, las years 17" two-core i7 2.8ghz was beaten by the cheapest new 13" two-core i5 2.3ghz Sandy. Not blatantly obvious. Sandy Bridge is a surprising new powerhouse from Intel.
 
Wow, and if the 13" MBP has i5 standard now, what will the next release be like? I might just skip this release, because by the next release they would have perfected the ix processors in the 13" Pro's. Plus they'd be more devices for thunderbolt.
 
Wow, I'm impressed. Apple, you have made one hell of a 13" notebook (as long as you're not a gamer ;))

Looks like they are waiting to bump the screen resolution until they can properly implement a "retina" display. That will be my next notebook purchase.
 
pasde said:
Erm, my store offers a 500GB/7200rpm or a 750 GB/5400 rpm. No extra costs for either one.

And the link you posted, wow, is that really a 500GB solid state drive for 99$? Thats incredible.

Thank you!
Click to expand...

Ah, thought you ment the base model which is 100 more for those two options.

That drive I linked is a hybrid SSD/regular. Has 4gigs of SSD memory.
 
Neodym said:
Depends on what games you want to play and how often "time to time" is for you. I would NOT go for the 15", as it will soon become a pain in the... when you have to carry it with you for your studies (too big, too heavy).

The MBA surely is superior for being carried around all day and the gaming performance not too shabby - but that again depends on your needs.

If your budget allows you could try to get a refurbished MBA (11,6") and use the rest of the money for building yourself a Windows gaming machine. That way you have more gaming power than with the 15" MBP and less weight to carry around.

If your budget does not allow, i think the 13" is a good compromise!
Click to expand...

Thank you for your opinion, Neodym!
With "from time to time" I meant, that I am not an extreme gamer who plays really all the evening. But I like to play a bit at the weekend. I don't need high graphic settings, but it should look nice and run smoothly.

Well, I tend to think that I've no good alternative than buying a low-end 13" MBP/Air (11" is too small for me) and get a cheap Windows PC for gaming if I notice that the MBP/MBA doesn't offer enough performance. Ugh.
 
Chase R said:
Wow, I'm impressed. Apple, you have made one hell of a 13" notebook (as long as you're not a gamer ;))

Looks like they are waiting to bump the screen resolution until they can properly implement a "retina" display. That will be my next notebook purchase.
Click to expand...

"Apple made"? What exactly did Apple do to deserve this praise? They just used newer CPUs from Intel. All other PC manufacturers have been already using them for a while. While comparing MBPs to last year models certainly makes sense, performance analysis is incomplete without comparing MBPs to other laptops on the market.
 
mlayer said:
If the 13" had the higher screen res I'd have ordered it today. Now I'm going to really think about whether to get the 15" for the power and res or the 13" MBA for the weight. I really wish I didn't have to make that choice.

Benchmarks are higher than I expected. Anandtech's review of a Sandy Bridge notebook prototype showed 50-100% performance increase. There's a good chance battery life for these new MBP models will be better able to hold up to Apple's claims than last gen.
Click to expand...

I'm in the same exact boat. I'm looking to upgrade from my 2006 HP Laptop which is a 15-inch. Although the 15-inch MBP is much lighter than my current, I was hoping to go even more portable and get the 13-inch MBP. The problem is that the resolution on the 13-inch MBP is the same as the resolution on my 2006 HP! I plan to use the laptop for work, which mostly entails word processing, excel files, power points, pdfs (sometimes running many of these applications at the same time), typical web browsing and some light video editing (this is just HD family home movies, not big files and nothing for work or that I would need something like Final Cut for). I don't plan on doing any gaming (at least not any that would be really graphic intensive). I had planned on getting the high end MBP 13", but there is something really troubling about the thought of upgrading after 5 years to a computer with the same screen resolution as the one I have now. Also, I feel like I should get the fastest processor currently available for the MBP (i.e. quad core) in order to get the most I can for my money. Note, I'm not a person who upgrades every year. My next upgrade will probably be another 5 years from now. I'd very much appreciate any feedback as to what the experts on this site think I should get.
 
StealthGhost said:
Ah, thought you ment the base model which is 100 more for those two options.

That drive I linked is a hybrid SSD/regular. Has 4gigs of SSD memory.
Click to expand...

I see, still a great deal!

But I think I'll start with the default apple HD and maybe change to the hybrid later on.

But still my question is, which one to choose, the 500/7200rpm or the 750/5400 rpm ?

thanks in advance!
 
Never mind the MacBook series. This refresh has meant that selling my old 1,1 MacPro and buying a quad 17" MacBook Pro instead will give me a massive performance increase!
 
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