New MacBook Pro Benchmarks Show Massive Improvement

[gregoryalee]

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.

Alas someone who understands! It's always fun when PC guys try and bash me for using a mac since most of my income is derived from installing / maintaining and supporting or integrating other products with microsoft server based products. (Read Not PC Support: WAN Active Directory implementation, Exchange, SQL etc...)

 

[Stevamundo]

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.

Battery life CERTAINLY matters to me!

 

[Mikey7c8]

Considering I get about 3 hours out of my mid-09 13" macbook, I take battery life with a grain of salt. But:

Given that the performance increase from said Macbook is over double, I have to say I'm impressed - considering the clock speeds aren't that dissimilar, we're talking a generational change - like P4 to Memrom - and that change halved the clockspeed.

 

[Stevamundo]

Alas someone who understands! It's always fun when PC guys try and bash me for using a mac since most of my income is derived from installing / maintaining and supporting or integrating other products with microsoft server based products. (Read Not PC Support: WAN Active Directory implementation, Exchange, SQL etc...)

Oh your living kind of depends on Microsoft continues to be “Microsoft.” LOL!

 

[sammyman]

I think someone would be dumb to get a 13" MBP... No offense...

I think someone would be dumb to buy anything else. The 13" is the perfect size. I hate the speakers on both sides of the laptop on the bigger models. Who wants to bump music from a laptop anyway? Just because they are faster, doesn't mean they are better for everyone.

I'll probably get the 13" and sell it right before next years models come out. I just sold my 2009 13" for $1000 on eBay today. I bought it for $950 after rebate. Bet you won't be able to do that with a 15" - 17".

 

[1quick1]

Yea I wish the 13'' had better hardware but I'm typing on my new 13'' now and it's very nice. Just goes for what people are looking for. For me portability is a BIG factor. Over the last 5 years I've had a 12'' PowerBook G4 and a Dell XPS M1330.

 

[pr5owner]

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

quick sync is not faster in every case, it also depends on the program your using to encode, whatever crap anandtech was using obviously was coded like garbage, the videos that i encode look flawless while there were artifacts and low quality frames being put out by anandtech's setup.

also the gtx460 in my laptop can play games (what it was really ment for), the hd 3000 still sucks even at old games.

 

[holmesf]

quick sync is not faster in every case, it also depends on the program your using to encode, whatever crap anandtech was using obviously was coded like garbage, the videos that i encode look flawless while there were artifacts and low quality frames being put out by anandtech's setup.

also the gtx460 in my laptop can play games (what it was really ment for), the hd 3000 still sucks even at old games.

The chart you put up has QuickSync comparable or greatly faster than CUDA in all results. It doesn't support the point you were trying to make. Yes, QuickSync is not faster in all cases (just like a drag racer is not faster than a pinto in all cases), but on average it is MUCH faster.

For reference Anand was using MediaConverter 7, and later tests using MediaEspresso showed similar results with QuickSync trouncing the competitors. What program do you use?

I agree that the 3000 is not good for games. But that was never under dispute.

 

[wd40]

I just read the article and is the author's conclusion really that the 5400RPM 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).

Bump.

So, is the 7200RPM the preferable choice between the two standard options? Will the 5400RPM really run faster beyond 250GB of storage??

 

[zippys]

Bump.

So, is the 7200RPM the preferable choice between the two standard options? Will the 5400RPM really run faster beyond 250GB of storage??

5400 rpm is a joke given its 2011. 7200 rpm drives have been out for 10 years and are much better than 5400 rpm drives.

 

[PK44]

I think someone would be dumb to buy anything else. The 13" is the perfect size. I hate the speakers on both sides of the laptop on the bigger models. Who wants to bump music from a laptop anyway? Just because they are faster, doesn't mean they are better for everyone.

I'll probably get the 13" and sell it right before next years models come out. I just sold my 2009 13" for $1000 on eBay today. I bought it for $950 after rebate. Bet you won't be able to do that with a 15" - 17".

Nice job! I agree with this as well and will likely do the same.

 

[gnasher729]

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).

It has been discussed on MacRumors again and again and again and again. Everything else being equal, a larger hard drive is faster. If everything else is not equal (like 750GB 5400rpm vs 500GB 7200rpm), it's hard to say, but once you put 480 GB on the drive, the 750 GB drive will do better. And, everything else being equal, a larger hard drive is larger

5400 rpm is a joke given its 2011. 7200 rpm drives have been out for 10 years and are much better than 5400 rpm drives.

At some point you will learn how things really work, and that in real life bold unqualified statements like "7200 rpm drives are much better than 5400 rpm drives" don't apply except after careful checking.

 

[kahkityoong]

5400 rpm is a joke given its 2011. 7200 rpm drives have been out for 10 years and are much better than 5400 rpm drives.

Look's like the joke is on you making ininformed comments like that. The new large capacity mobile HD's are 5400 rpm and came out in the last year or two not tens years ago.

 

[Alonzo84]

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.

People who are willing to spend more money on smaller, less powerful machines are most likely seeking portability. Which means that battery life does matter.

 

[D'Illusion]

I think someone would be dumb to buy anything else. The 13" is the perfect size. I hate the speakers on both sides of the laptop on the bigger models. Who wants to bump music from a laptop anyway? Just because they are faster, doesn't mean they are better for everyone.

I'll probably get the 13" and sell it right before next years models come out. I just sold my 2009 13" for $1000 on eBay today. I bought it for $950 after rebate. Bet you won't be able to do that with a 15" - 17".

I have just indexed the bang for buck of all the new laptops by cross referencing the Geekbench scores against the cost of the laptop and the entry level 13 came out on top. Sure, it has weak graphics performance but if you have no intention of ever playing games (many don't) it's a good purchase with, as you stated, high residual values making the total cost of ownership per year fairly low.

I'm sure you could spec a Dell laptop for a cheaper price at all levels but will it sell for as much as an MBP down the line. I checked completed listings on eBay only yesterday and saw a 15" Core Duo Macbook go for £500. Not bad for a 4+ year old laptop. Last years 13" C2D MBPs are still averaging around £750-800.

Total cost of ownership isn't as high as one might think.

 

[D'Illusion]

you fanboys are so ignorant its laughable, yes apple is the only one with new tech

Fanboy lol, hardly.

Read what he said. He said every manufacturer has been using Quad Core Sandy Bridge for a while. This clearly isn't the case. I never said that Apple was first, another poster said that. Pop into your local PC World and tell me how many Sandy Bridge Quads they have. I looked in mine only last week, and there were none.

Not what you'd call mainstream then are they. The way I read it the poster said Apple were way behind other manufacturers because they've only just adopted Quad Cores when in fact Quad Core Sandy Bridge was only officially released in early January. Some people just don't get that Sandy Bridge is a totally new processor compared to the old i7s.

 

[D'Illusion]

Actually, I have just re-read the posts.

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.

"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.

The initial poster was praising the 13" which has Dual Core Sandy Bridge. I'd like to see all these Dual Core Sandy Bridge laptops that EVERY manufacturer has been selling for a WHILE.

 

[D'Illusion]

you fanboys are so ignorant its laughable, yes apple is the only one with new tech

this Asus N53SV doesnt exist at ALL even though it was reviewed in JAN with a SB CPU
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Asus-N53SV-Notebook.43709.0.html

also i gues this HP sandybridge laptop doesnt exist from dec 2010 either with its radeon 6570 GPU
http://www.laptopspec.net/2010/12/h...l-sandy-bridge-laptop-available-in-singapore/

EDIT: oh yeah acer never made anything either
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Acer-Aspire-5750G-Notebook.46094.0.html

Let's try and buy some of these machines shall we.

Let's start with the Acer 5750G on Google Shopping. None of the shops that have it listed actually have it for sale. All say shipping due March or April.

Let's try the Asus N53SV. Plenty of stores list it. Only one seems to let you buy it. And that's probably just a pre-order.

Couldn't find any mention of the HP one outside Singapore.

So yeah, Apple really missed the boat with Sandy Bridge.

 

[zippys]

Look's like the joke is on you making ininformed comments like that. The new large capacity mobile HD's are 5400 rpm and came out in the last year or two not tens years ago.

sorry buddy, just because it is more difficult to make 1+ TB 7200 rpm notebook drives that doesnt make them worse than 5400 rpm ones. Given 2 equal size drives, one 5400rpm and the other 7200 rpm, the 7200 rpm drive will have faster seek times and, typically, larger buffer.

There is a reason why there are almost no 5400 rpm internal desktop drives. People only bought 5400 rpm drives because 1) the largest drives were always 5400rpm before 7200 rpm ones were made, 2) they are a little cheaper, 3) they require a little less power, or 4) they didnt know the difference. (few exceptions that I missed probably)

 

[FFTT]

Just for perspective, I ran the Geekbench test on my
trusty old June 2204 PPC G5 2.0 D.P. Tower with 5 GB RAM and all
applications off. Score 1782

The 13.5 with Dual Core 2.7 GHz scored 6796
The 15.4 with 2.0 GHz Quad Core scored 8804
The 15.4 with 2.2 GHz Quad Core scored 10026

When the first Quad core processors were announced,
I kinda figured we'd see them in laptops one day if they
ever got the size and cooling figured out.

 

[kahkityoong]

sorry buddy, just because it is more difficult to make 1+ TB 7200 rpm notebook drives that doesnt make them worse than 5400 rpm ones. Given 2 equal size drives, one 5400rpm and the other 7200 rpm, the 7200 rpm drive will have faster seek times and, typically, larger buffer.

There is a reason why there are almost no 5400 rpm internal desktop drives. People only bought 5400 rpm drives because 1) the largest drives were always 5400rpm before 7200 rpm ones were made, 2) they are a little cheaper, 3) they require a little less power, or 4) they didnt know the difference. (few exceptions that I missed probably)

Maybe you should read the original correspondence before spouting your big mouth off. My grandmother could have told everyone that for a given HD capacity the 7200 will be faster than the 5400. However the original question was whether the 5400/750 would be faster than the 7200/500 and the answer is that the former would be faster if there was more than 250-300 GB of data stored.

 

[Naimfan]

Cinebench and the new 13" 2.3

I bought a new 13" 2.3 GHz yesterday. It clocked in at 6002 on Geekbench.

Interestingly, on Cinebench, when it did the multiple CPU render test it looked like it had four cores--not 2. And the multiprocessor speedup was given as 2.26.

This is literally the fastest Mac I've ever owned--and it is sobering to see that my base model is as fast as the former top of the line. That's a remarkable increase, whatever nits people may pick.

 

[D'Illusion]

I bought a new 13" 2.3 GHz yesterday. It clocked in at 6002 on Geekbench.

Interestingly, on Cinebench, when it did the multiple CPU render test it looked like it had four cores--not 2.

Here's why

 

[Naimfan]

Here's why

Thanks--I realized it a second after I saw the picture being rendered four ways--but it didn't occur to me when I started it!

It feels bloody fast--and like it is capable of doing anything I'll be doing (which is obviously not HD video, etc.).

 

[ConnorCG]

Wow, three times more powerful than my mid-2009 model. I am perfectly happy with what I have though, can't get too worked up over updates, you know?