No way is the new MBP only "slightly" faster than the old.

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by WilliamG, Oct 17, 2008.

  1. WilliamG macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #1
    I've had the new 2.53Ghz MBP since day 1 (err.. 2 days go!), and there's no comparison in terms of speed. Games run MILES better. I can play The Witcher pretty much maxed out etc. This is in comparison to my old 2.4Ghz Penryn MBP.

    Also, if you use LightRoom2, you're in for a REAL treat. Finally I can use the brush tool without ANY lag at all. It's unbelievably fast in that regard. How come benchmarks aren't showing this? My apps start faster, my apps RUN faster.

    And yes, this is in comparison to a FRESHLY installed 2.4Ghz Penryn system with 4GB DDR-2.

    Anyway, for those on the fence, jump over to new MBP!
     
  2. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #2
    The GPU is a slight improvement in clock speed and manufacturing processes it is still essentially still an 8600M GT series.

    The processor isn't an improvement at all clock per clock.
     
  3. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #3
    If I remember correctly, the 2.4 wasn't as fast as the 2.5 or 2.6 because of the L2 cache. So you got the FSB, the CPU, and the cache playing in your favor :)
     
  4. WilliamG thread starter macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2008
    Location:
    Seattle
    #4
    Yes, and all those things just add up to awesomeness. Then you add the GPU and what's not to like?

    People always expect miracles with a new Apple product. There hasn't been anything completely amazing in laptop technology since mobile processors came around (Pentium M and then dual cores)
     
  5. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #5
    I believe that the large cache is only a benefit to encoding video. You get diminishing returns around 3-4 MB of L2 cache.

    The frontside bus wasn't much of a bottleneck to begin with either.
     
  6. iShater macrumors 604

    iShater

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2002
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #6
    I was checking out barefeats and the 2.6 was "better' than the 2.4 by 10% or so. So I expect the new ones to be "better" than his by that margin at least.

    Just a guess.

    CPU
    Graphics
     
  7. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #7
    5-10% sounds about right to me as well. Sadly that does amount to only "slightly" faster.
     
  8. qsoundrich macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2007
    #8
    I'd also like to hear more comparisons (objective) between the new 2.4 and the most recent 2.4 (that you can still buy on Amazon.)
     
  9. Purple Pelican macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    #9
    And once Snow Leopard comes out, the system will be taking advantage of the 9400M chipset (didn't they say over 54 GFLOPS and 15 parallel cores) using OpenCL... Then you'll see an even bigger performance gap
     
  10. Ryuukumori macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
  11. Purple Pelican macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2008
    #11
    Mid-2009 is a good guess. Jobs said it would release about a year after it was officially announced in the 6/2008 WWDC.
     
  12. vm7118 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    #12
    you guys are underestimating the 9600m GT. sure, it ain't no 9800m GT, but here is the first paragraph from notebook check:

    "Compared to the 8600M GT or 9500M GS, the 9600M GT was produced in 65nm (allows higher clock rates with the same current consumption) and features a new PureVideo HD video processor (VP3) and HybridPower support."

    so let's see... 65nm manufacturing process = cooler, less power. higher clock rate = faster. entirely new video processor. HybridPower support (switch to integrated 9400 when 9600 is unnecessary), potential GeForceBoost support under Vista.

    all in a newer, more attractive package. with greater L2 cache. an easier to disassemble casing with user-replacable hard disk.

    the only downsides are really the keyboard (ridiculous, there's nothing wrong with the new keyboard. it definitely LOOKS better, and functionality is a push) and the lack of a matte screen (buy a freakin anti-glare covering).

    those are hardly deal-breakers standing in the way of a fantastic new laptop.
     
  13. tbae12 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    #13
    Your comparison of the 2.4 GHz previous generation of the MBP and the new 2.53GHz MBP isn't fair. The 2.4GHz MBP has only a 256MB graphics card while the 2.53 GHz MBP has a 512 MB graphics card. And benchmark tests are usually the 2.5 GHz+ previous generation MBP versus the new 2.53 GHz MBP, both of which have a 512 GHz graphics card.
     
  14. McGiord macrumors 601

    McGiord

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2003
    Location:
    Dark Castle
  15. ptjh macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #15
    What I want to know is why the new MBP is outperformed by a laptop made nearly a year ago i.e. the 2.6 MBP? I know it has 0.7 improvement in clock speed but what about apple's 'wonderful improvment's' with the DDR3 and better graphics performance.

    MacBook Pro (Late 2008)
    Intel Core 2 Duo T9400 @ 2.53GHz 3290

    MacBook Pro (Early 2008)
    Intel Core 2 Duo T9500 @ 2.60GHz 3375

    http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/category/geekbench/

    WHAT IS GOING ON? Are the benchmarks not reflecting the reality?
     
  16. bkeezy macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #16

    hes telling you that had you moved up from a 2.5 or 2.6 you may have not noticed such a difference, b-t-dubs :)
     
  17. ptjh macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #17
    So by this logic the 2.8 GHz should be miles faster than the 2.53 clocked MBP since clockspeed seems to be the main factor making the difference (seen as the 2.6 actually performed better according to the tests)?
     
  18. bkeezy macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    #18
    i would imagine so...
     
  19. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #19
    This is a sad reality. Keep in mind that the current Core 2 Duo processors aren't improved in anyway over the older ones except in having a lower TDP.
     
  20. andybill macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2008
    #20
    excuse me, what is your problem? you are is negative. is it because of your "down on your luck avatar"?

    Apple upgraded their machines all the way around, true, in more areas then others.
    But why so negative? I see an increase as a positive thing.
     
  21. radx macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2008
    #21
    I don't think you'll see much improvement in cpus until those quadcore mobile penryns show up.. which will probably be next 17" update?
     
  22. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #22
    Don't expect magical performance increases since we're not getting any sort of new processor architecture? Penryn is still Penryn. There are diminishing returns on large L2 caches.

    5-10% is what you should expect over the older hardware. I'm not saying that they're not better. They're just not significantly better over what you got last week.

    Two more cores would do that. ;)
     
  23. LinMac macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2007
    #23
    Geekbench scores show my new 2.8GHz is faster than my old Mid 2007 Macbook Pro, but not by all that much. I like the new one a lot more, but honestly the difference in raw performance isn't going to be that much in terms of CPU/memory speed.

    A SSD can definitely make the new models feel a lot faster, but if you're comparing them then I think you'll find they're closer than not.
     
  24. ptjh macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #24
     
  25. Davidkoh macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2008
    #25
    The increase in performance is bigger on the graphics department then the CPU department. Both is increased, the graphics by more ;)
     

Share This Page