Penryn MBP Benchmarks, very little improvement?

[Viper2005]

http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2008/02/macbook-pro-performance-february-2008/

Their conclusion:

At first glance the results seems counter-intuitive; shouldn’t the new MacBook Pro @ 2.4GHz be faster than the old MacBook Pro @ 2.4GHz? Isn’t the Penryn better than the Merom? It turns out the answer is, “not necessarily”.

The processor in the new MacBook Pro @ 2.4GHz (T8300) has less L2 cache than processor in the old MacBook Pro @ 2.4GHz (T7700) which explains the slight drop in performance.

However, when you consider the new MacBook Pro 2.4GHz is the base model, while the old MacBook Pro 2.4GHz was the mid-range model, the small drop in performance comes with a significant reduction in price. Plus, the new Penryn processor uses less energy than the old Merom processor, which means a cooler laptop with increased battery life.

 

[Andrmgic]

Better performance when SSE4 optimized applications start coming out, they say up to a 40% performance improvement from SSE4.

Penryn looks to be a solid update

 

[spaceballl]

I'd love to see testing from a more official source. Not that i care that much about synthetic benchmarks anyways, but I could see the 4MB 2.4ghz Merom beating the 3MB 2.4ghz Penryn. That being said, i find it tough to believe that the old 4MB CPU can beat the new 6MB CPU. Obviously, these numbers will be really close as we're talking very small differences, in general, but I look forward to Anandtech or Ars Technica's testing.

 

[MacBookJoePro]

I agree. The Peryn Processors aren't next-gen processors. They inteded them to be more like optimized processors. Sort-of saving same speed but less power and more battery life. Also with the incorporation of SSE4 instructions, we will see its biggest gain there. Since no programs or benching program incorporate it yet, we may not see any significant performance yet. I too am waiting for an official anandtech testing of the new MBP. They will be able to show the advantages of the SSE4 instruction set.

-JoE

 

[Queso]

However, when you consider the new MacBook Pro 2.4GHz is the base model, while the old MacBook Pro 2.4GHz was the mid-range model, the small drop in performance comes with a significant reduction in price. Plus, the new Penryn processor uses less energy than the old Merom processor, which means a cooler laptop with increased battery life.

I think your first point is the crux of it. If the new low-end performs the same as the old mid-range that's good enough for me.

On your second point, well, that remains to be seen. MBPs aren't exactly known for their refrigerator like qualities

 

[Pressure]

Synthetic benchmarks are really not that great at showcasing real-life performance.

 

[skiffx]

I really doubt that the mid 2007 2.6 > early 2008 2.5 everything else being equal. More testing from more reputable sources is definitely a must.

 

[mbrydone]

we should stop comparing this to the old mid range because if thats the money you ar shooting for, then get the 2.5...I agree w/ the article, the 2.4 is now the baseline and surly it is an improveent over that!

 

[Am3822]

Better performance when SSE4 optimized applications start coming out, they say up to a 40% performance improvement from SSE4.

Penryn looks to be a solid update

It's a tempting thought, but will we see SSE4-optimized version of mainstream all-purpose heavy-load applications in the near future? In other words -- will there be an optimized version of MATLAB, for example, to make up for the decreased performance because of the smaller cache? I doubt it.

 

[DocSmitty]

The methodology of that article is flawed. They showcase the low- and mid-range 2008 against the mid- and high-range 2007. While they did mention it, the results still give most people a feeling that they are losing performance by upgrading. If you've ever read the book "How to Lie with Statistics" then stuff like this becomes rather amusing to see. It's like sampling pro athletes in 2007 and college athletes in 2008, then declaring that performance has gone down.

The proper way to conduct a comparison would be to compare the 2.4/2.5 2008 to 2.2/2.4 2007 models, or go ahead and list all 3 so people can see what the real picture looks like.

 

[skiffx]

The methodology of that article is flawed. They showcase the low- and mid-range 2008 against the mid- and high-range 2007. While they did mention it, the results still give most people a feeling that they are losing performance by upgrading. If you've ever read the book "How to Lie with Statistics" then stuff like this becomes rather amusing to see. It's like sampling pro athletes in 2007 and college athletes in 2008, then declaring that performance has gone down.

The proper way to conduct a comparison would be to compare the 2.4/2.5 2008 to 2.2/2.4 2007 models, or go ahead and list all 3 so people can see what the real picture looks like.

yeah testing all 3 would be an interesting test to see actually, as well as the only proper one.

 

[Stella]

There were little improvements on the raw processor benchmarks, except for SSE4. So.. its no surprise that the MBP mirrors this.