Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
here is the other laptop in the test (although this is the sandybridge version that came out in JAN)
not to brick looking to me
Again my original post was about the --------->Alienware computer<----------. Dude give it a rest. I will help you by not responding to anymore.
I just read the article and is the author's conclusion really that the 5200RPM drive is 'faster' than the 7200RPM drive??
If so, should I change my order? I went with the 500GB in the higher end 15" model. The plan was to put in an SSD in 6-9 months.
This deserves a bit more discussion IMO... most people would naturally go with what on the surface seems like a much faster option (assuming an extra 250GB of storage isn't needed).
Did you read the article? Here is a quote from the Final Thoughts section:
I priced out a SB-based Dell XPS 15 and while it will be at least $300 cheaper than a comparable MBP, but it won't ship until the middle of March at the earliest. Neither will the Sager.
This only goes to show how clueless many magazine writers are. PCMark scores clearly indicate that MBP is a mid-range performer. Here is a link to a review of high performance laptops that use the most powerful version of mobile i7 processor (2920xm)
Last edited:
I think someone would be dumb to get a 13" MBP... No offense...
...some people need to travel with some power in their notebook...
I think someone would be dumb to get a 13" MBP... No offense...
What if it's all they can afford?
sure as hell aint from apple, i ment other laptops (practically almost every gaming laptop).... and i was correcting the resolution becuase nobody uses 1920x1200 anymore for mobile platforms
I just read the article and is the author's conclusion really that the 5200RPM drive is 'faster' than the 7200RPM drive??
If so, should I change my order? I went with the 500GB in the higher end 15" model. The plan was to put in an SSD in 6-9 months.
This deserves a bit more discussion IMO... most people would naturally go with what on the surface seems like a much faster option (assuming an extra 250GB of storage isn't needed).
i would get the cheapest garbage drive from apple, throw it away when you get the laptop and install a sandforce SSD
acer and hp laptops started shipping dec 2010 that were sandybridge with quad core i7s and GT540ms, they are all faster than the mbp 15"
also my laptop started shipping last year, and it still has a higher score, in fact all laptops with GTX460s and up are faster in pcmarkvantage
I think someone would be dumb to get a 13" MBP... No offense...
yep no argument there, there is nothing pro about it at all except the price,
Hey I get it! This is the 21st century version of my dad can beat up your dad. MY LAPTOP IS BETTER THAN YOUR LAPTOP.
BTW, hey 15-inched beauty high end MBP, I'm going to buy you next month I PROMISE! XOXO
BTW, hey 15-inched beauty high end MBP, I'm going to buy you next month I PROMISE! XOXO
I think someone would be dumb to get a 13" MBP... No offense...
Dumb because they need a laptop that's small and somewhat powerful? Or dumb because they don't want to shell out 2k for a laptop?
Oh and there's nothing "pro" about it. Who the F cares if the machine does what it's supposed to do. That's why they release different sizes and specs for everyone.
You people just don't get it. Everyone's needs are different. Sorry but that's just a stupid ********n reply if you ask me, "no offense."
Those tests are completely inaccurate...
Otherwise how can you explain that?:
The 4 core i5 model is getting a lower score than the 2 core version? Pure CPU benchmarks show that the 4 core i5 is a step below the i7 cpu of the same iMac generation.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/107?vs=191
So 2 things can happened here, apple screwed badly... or the tests are weak and inaccurate.
I pick the second option.
Otherwise how can you explain that?:
The 4 core i5 model is getting a lower score than the 2 core version? Pure CPU benchmarks show that the 4 core i5 is a step below the i7 cpu of the same iMac generation.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/107?vs=191
So 2 things can happened here, apple screwed badly... or the tests are weak and inaccurate.
I pick the second option.
This might be the single most ridiculous article I've ever seen on this site. OF COURSE the new MBP with 4 CPUs does "massive" better in a benchmark (not quite 2x faster). It's using double the CPU cores!
The article then points out the slowest new model is 'on par' with the fastest previous generation. No kidding! They both use a dual-core i7 (or i5) model CPU! Sheesh. Just because they're both "Apples" doesn't mean you can compare them directly without considering the fact they have twice the CPU cores. I mean by that logic, throw an "old" Mac Pro with 12 CPU cores in there and see how fast these new MBPs are then....
How about some useful information, like how the new GPUs compare to each other and older Mac offerings?
The article then points out the slowest new model is 'on par' with the fastest previous generation. No kidding! They both use a dual-core i7 (or i5) model CPU! Sheesh. Just because they're both "Apples" doesn't mean you can compare them directly without considering the fact they have twice the CPU cores. I mean by that logic, throw an "old" Mac Pro with 12 CPU cores in there and see how fast these new MBPs are then....
How about some useful information, like how the new GPUs compare to each other and older Mac offerings?
pay $2000 for a 15" laptop >> get a 5400RPM drive and economy graphics lol
seriously? they think on board video can encode quickly? i would love to see the BS name they make up for when you have an equivalent encoding performance of dual GTX485's then (cuda + h264)
seriously? they think on board video can encode quickly? i would love to see the BS name they make up for when you have an equivalent encoding performance of dual GTX485's then (cuda + h264)
Not only does Intel's QuickSync encode vastly faster than a CUDA solution, it's also higher quality. Why? It's simple: dedicated fixed functionality hardware for transcoding. Plus you'll get much better performance per watt. So yeah, you are wrong on every single count and more.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/9
Last edited:
obviously you have no idea what sandybridge means...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/intel-hd-graphics-2000-3000_9.html#sect0
They have added a special thing that do amazing fast the decoding with the right software.
So they are no good in gaming, but in video encoding they blow.
I have spotted a benchmark where they tested this intel gpu against high range ati and nvidia gpu's but I can't find it now.
By "in video encoding they blow" you mean "blow the competition away" right? Because that's what they do.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/9
More applicable benchmarks
New Speedmark scores from Macworld. These are based on application use and are not synthetic tests.
As expected, game performance is suspect on the lower end 15" and the 13" models, good on the high-end.
New Speedmark scores from Macworld. These are based on application use and are not synthetic tests.
- 13" MacBook Pro 2.3GHz Core i5 dual-core - 140
- 13" MacBook Pro 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo - 106
- 13" MacBook Pro 2.7GHz Core i7 dual-core - 155
- 13" MacBook Pro 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo - 137
- 15" MacBook Pro 2.0GHz Core i7 quad-core - 175
- 15" MacBook Pro 2.4GHz Core i5 dual core - 132
- 15" MacBook Pro 2.2GHz Core i7 quad-core - 209
- 15" MacBook Pro 2.66GHz Core i7 dual-core - 151
- 17" MacBook Pro 2.2GHz Core i7 quad-core - 210
- 17" MacBook Pro 2.53GHz Core i5 dual-core - 137
As expected, game performance is suspect on the lower end 15" and the 13" models, good on the high-end.
This only goes to show how clueless many magazine writers are. PCMark scores clearly indicate that MBP is a mid-range performer. Here is a link to a review of high performance laptops that use the most powerful version of mobile i7 processor (2920xm)
You do realise that the laptops you listed have battery lives south of 100 minutes?
I am new here but I have a pretty good handle on how it works with some people on this board: IF these new Macs blew away every computer on the planet but had just ONE flaw, that would become THE criteria for which the Apple bashing would be based.
It doesn't matter with these people how good or bad a product that Apple makes. They will find fault with ANYTHING they can to discredit the company which is of coarse lame. Before Apple embraced the power of Unix I used to be in the anti apple camp. You know during the nineties and thought the APPLE users were rabid fanatics....
lol i got 12000 marks LAST YEAR with old technology for under $1800 CAD (when the cad sucked compared to USD)
G53JW
16GB Ram clocked at 1407MHz
dual OCZ Vertex 2 SSDs 120x2
GTX460 1.5GB
15.6" FULL HD 1080p screen
the new G53SV has a sandybridge CPU which should blow everything away, im thinking at least 14000+
The 3dMark Vantage you are referring to is a different version that they used in the benchmark. I was trying to find out exactly what version they used but I know it's difference since an Alienware M17x R2 got almost 20k using the version you used a year ago.
Exactly! I really don't understand some people.
I don't spend a second on a Microsoft forum bashing Microsoft. Why? I really don't like Microsoft thus I really don't care about Microsoft. It's plain and simple as that.
So if you don't like Macs or if you think that Macs are too expensive THEN DON'T BUY MACS.
It's a personal preference thing really anyway.
Me, I love Macs and OSX. It's my personal preference plain and simple. ALSO I don't choose to bash PCs or Windows ANYWHERE. Why? Because that's just childish.
So? I was replying to a message that quoted (correctly) PC Magazine as saying that new MBPs are the fastest laptops on the planet. That magazine article obviously was a joke. I am perfectly aware that MBPs are not optimized for performance. Also, you do realize that many people nowadays buy laptops as desktop replacement? In this case, battery life simply does not matter.