New rMB Core M vs. 2.66 Arrandale i7?

[puma1552]

Curious how this new rMB would stack up against my mid-2010 MBP, both in terms of processor (I've got a 2.66 i7 Arrandale, which IIRC is dual core), and GPU (NVIDIA GT 330M with 512 MB).

Still behind, or have the ultra portables surpassed these specs?

 

[Freyqq]

http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/2165465

2010 mbp 15" i7 @ 32-bit multicore = 4092
Core M @ 32-bit multicore = 3437

So, 2010 mbp wins in the CPU department. GPU definitely is faster too with the dGPU and dedicated GDDR3.

 

[2984839]

You will probably not notice much of a difference, but the i7 should be faster in theory. Obviously the Core M will take much less power to give you similar performance.

 

[lchlch]

http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/2165465

2010 mbp 15" i7 @ 32-bit multicore = 4092
Core M @ 32-bit multicore = 3437

So, 2010 mbp wins in the CPU department. GPU definitely is faster too with the dGPU and dedicated GDDR3.

Core M @ 32-bit multicore = 4837
[Source: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/2060685]

i think the core m should be the winner in the cpu department.

 

[iRun26.2]

http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/2165465

2010 mbp 15" i7 @ 32-bit multicore = 4092
Core M @ 32-bit multicore = 3437

So, 2010 mbp wins in the CPU department. GPU definitely is faster too with the dGPU and dedicated GDDR3.

Thanks for the link! I was able to look up my 2010 11" MBA score. Wow, is it ever behind the times! The Core M processor will be a significant upgrade for me! I didn't think it would be that much better.

 

[squirrrl]

http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/2165465

2010 mbp 15" i7 @ 32-bit multicore = 4092
Core M @ 32-bit multicore = 3437

So, 2010 mbp wins in the CPU department. GPU definitely is faster too with the dGPU and dedicated GDDR3.

LOL... my macbook (early 2008) scores 1070 (with 4GB RAM and an old Spinner). The new rMB should fly in comparison.

 

[danielwerner]

How can the single core scores be worse than multi core?

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Turbo Boost

How can the single core scores be worse than multi core?

The turbo boost on one core is much higher than if it is running both cores,

 

[maclook]

Yikes my i7 2011 MBA has a much better score than the Lenovo...

 

[dusk007]

The GPU is also not too far apart. Depending on settings and CPU limitation the 330M can pull ahead but on playable settings (25-40 fps range) they are quit similar.
Here are some games tested on both. You just have to select archived old GPUs for the 330M to appear.
330M is quite bad by todays standards.

 

[iRun26.2]

The GPU is also not too far apart. Depending on settings and CPU limitation the 330M can pull ahead but on playable settings (25-40 fps range) they are quit similar.
Here are some games tested on both. You just have to select archived old GPUs for the 330M to appear.
330M is quite bad by todays standards.

Link???

----------

Yikes my i7 2011 MBA has a much better score than the Lenovo...

The is something wrong with the Lenovo's implementation. Other computers using the Core M processor do much better.

 

[leman]

As stated by previous posters, Core-M CPU performance is quite comparable to the i7-620M if we look at micro benchmarks. In real life everyday applications, Core-M is likely to perform better because of its very quick power state switches and improved branch predictor.

As to the GPU performance, I'd like to wait for more game benchmarks. The Core M has around 2 times more computation power over the 330M, but I doubt that it will be able to make use of this advantage in games because of its limited TDP. Overall, I'd guess that 5300 will fare better in shader-intensive games while 330M should do better in games with simpler shaders and more overdraw.

 

[iRun26.2]

As stated by previous posters, Core-M CPU performance is quite comparable to the i7-620M if we look at micro benchmarks. In real life everyday applications, Core-M is likely to perform better because of its very quick power state switches and improved branch predictor.

As to the GPU performance, I'd like to wait for more game benchmarks. The Core M has around 2 times more computation power over the 330M, but I doubt that it will be able to make use of this advantage in games because of its limited TDP. Overall, I'd guess that 5300 will fare better in shader-intensive games while 330M should do better in games with simpler shaders and more overdraw.

Where is the 330M used?

 

[thunng8]

Scores for geekbench are close:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/608827?baseline=2060685

But you have to keep in mind that the arrandale can maintain this speed without throttling.

So for example, doing a long encode or any cpu intensive task that lasts a long time, will likely be faster on the the arrandale.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

I doubt that

Scores for geekbench are close:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/608827?baseline=2060685

But you have to keep in mind that the arrandale can maintain this speed without throttling.

So for example, doing a long encode or any cpu intensive task that lasts a long time, will likely be faster on the the arrandale.

The cooling in the 2010 was dreadful...