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

New MBPs are basically portable mac pros

jbg232

jbg232

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Oct 15, 2007
1,148
10
OK, so there is a lot of complaining but the high end 15" and 17" machines are basically like mac pros in portable form for much cheaper. Let me explain:

I use my mac in clamshell with an external monitor and external hard drives for work mostly and a fair bit of photography as a hobby using aperture (with a 30,000 RAW image library). My current 13" macbook aluminum can perform this task decently although not admirably. I've been thinking about upgrading to a mac pro for awhile for both the hdd space/speed and the graphics and processor speeds available. However, I love being able to have the convenience of taking my laptop with me when I want to and because of this have held off on a new mac pro. These new machines combine the best of both worlds:

1. Powerful graphics cards and processors with the ability to attach huge, FAST hard drives (through thunderbolt) at likely native hard drive speeds as it gives direct PCI access

+

2. Ability to take computer with me whenever I want for work

= good job apple!
 
The mobile Core i5/i7s are not the same as the processors in MacPros, additionally, you have faster ram and higher capacity. Finally the GPU is by far a much better.

The MBP is no portable MacPro
 
maflynn said:
The mobile Core i5/i7s are not the same as the processors in MacPros, additionally, you have faster ram and higher capacity. Finally the GPU is by far a much better.

The MBP is no portable MacPro
Click to expand...

The high end GPU (6750) is far better, not the low end (6490)!!!
 
maflynn said:
The mobile Core i5/i7s are not the same as the processors in MacPros, additionally, you have faster ram and higher capacity. Finally the GPU is by far a much better.

The MBP is no portable MacPro
Click to expand...

Its not the exact same of course, but is definitely in the same realm in terms of aperture speed in real life usage (Aperture can't even use all the cores of a mac pro). For serious hobbyists, this is a great solution.
 
maflynn said:
The mobile Core i5/i7s are not the same as the processors in MacPros, additionally, you have faster ram and higher capacity. Finally the GPU is by far a much better.

The MBP is no portable MacPro
Click to expand...

Agreed. Hardly a Mac Pro.
 
jbg232 said:
OK, so there is a lot of complaining
Click to expand...

Who is complaining? :confused: The new Macbook Pro is everything I hoped it would be. Real high end quad core CPU's for a change (first time ever for 45w TDP processors in an Apple notebook), good ATI graphics instead of Nvidia crap, and an awesome new high-speed external bus for storage and other peripherals. This is a major update, not a wimpy incremental change!

The current chassis is absolutely perfect, with all the plugs and ports on the left hand side, so as not to interfere with mousing. I've been holding off on upgrading from my late 2006 MBP, as I didn't feel there was much value in the newer MBP offerings..... until now. :D
 
Expresscard already provides PCI express access! My 3 year old 15" has it, and I can already use a wide range of cards on the market, no waiting for overpriced Thunderbolt products. Way to tweak something that already exists and call it new and innovative, Intel and Apple! I guess the only new thing is that it is meant to go over a cable and can mux the display and data together, but that just means I need to get adapters, and my devices have to share a fixed bandwidth. How long before other displays start using this? Are there even any that use MDP besides the overpriced Cinema display?

This could sort of allow for a MBP dock, but it still needs a power and LP cable, and it would have to duplicate all my controllers on the other end of the LP bus (ethernet, firewire, USB, audio).
 
The top-level MacBook Pro offering is still not even anywhere as fast as a QuadCore iMac, even, much less a Mac Pro. Definitely faster than the dual-core offerings, but I doubt the new MacBook Pros could break 10,000 on Geekbench, yet. Real-world speaking the processor power is probably around 50-60% faster than the top-level 2010 offerings, given the new ones feature quad-core processors. You are still talking about a 20% downclocking of the processor speed compared to the 2.8GHz i7 in the 2010 model.
 
WardC said:
The top-level MacBook Pro offering is still not even anywhere as fast as a QuadCore iMac, even, much less a Mac Pro. Definitely faster than the dual-core offerings, but I doubt the new MacBook Pros could break 10,000 on Geekbench, yet. Real-world speaking the processor power is probably around 50-60% faster than the top-level 2010 offerings, given the new ones feature quad-core processors. You are still talking about a 20% downclocking of the processor speed compared to the 2.8GHz i7 in the 2010 model.
Click to expand...

I like your accuracy!... engadget just did their preliminary review of the high end 15":

"As for performance, we were given the $2,199 configuration with a 2.2GHz quad-core Sandy Bridge Core i7, discrete AMD Radeon HD 6750M graphics, 4GB of RAM and a 750GB HD, which clocked a preliminary GeekBench score of 9647."

Which is pretty darn impressive (almost double the score) comparing to last years' models and 2009 mac pros with nehalem chips by geekbench here.

EDIT: added geekbench scores
 
Last edited:
WardC said:
Wow, maybe the 2.3GHz model with the 8MB cache could break 10,000 in geekbench. That would be really interesting.
Click to expand...

Unlikely. A 2.8 GHz desktop Nehalem quad-core i7 can't even hit 9000. Sandy Bridge improves performance somewhat, but not that much.
 
dal20402 said:
Unlikely. A 2.8 GHz desktop Nehalem quad-core i7 can't even hit 9000. Sandy Bridge improves performance somewhat, but not that much.
Click to expand...

It came very close according to engadget in my post above (edited to add results)
 
They're almost breaking 11,000 with the standard configuration!!!! Let's see those 2.3 ghz quad-cores now!

See here
 
A Mac Pro isn't just about speed. Some people buy it because it's the only machine that offers the necessary speed. But it's a workstation, the biggest advantage being ECC RAM. The purpose of a workstation is to perform its task without fail, ECC RAM plays a part in that, even if a machine doesn't crash errors in memory will still build up.
 
fs454 said:
My 8-core MP benches 10,500 in Geekbench.


The new MBP benches 10,000 in Geekbench.

I'd say we're close. Now let's remove the optical drive and refresh the design and i'm sold.
Click to expand...

I think I am already sold, I initially bought my Mac Pro because I wanted more speed than the 2010 MacBook Pros, but the 50-60% speed increase with the 2011 MacBook Pros seems great :)
 
I'd be 100% sold if they nixed the optical drive and refreshed the design a bit.

Walking around in a school where everyone owns a unibody 15" MBP, you feel like a conformist zombie. I'll stick with my air until '12.
 
Ordered the 15" 2.2ghz with 128gb SSD and High Rez Screen. Can't wait. This thing is going to outperform my 8 core mac pro and i7 imac. Exciting.
 
Just like how a dual core processor on a smartphone is not the same as on a laptop, so is that not the same as a desktop's.
 
vincenz said:
Just like how a dual core processor on a smartphone is not the same as on a laptop, so is that not the same as a desktop's.
Click to expand...

That used to be true. Check out the Geekbench scores. Won't be true again until the Mac Pro and imac refresh.
 
fs454 said:
My 8-core MP benches 10,500 in Geekbench.


The new MBP benches 10,000 in Geekbench.

I'd say we're close. Now let's remove the optical drive and refresh the design and i'm sold.
Click to expand...

There is a hackintosh that does 40.000 in Geekbench :p
 
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