One might even say it is not a speed bump at all but a "capacity bump". Faster FSB, faster Graphics, higher supported memory, Santa Rosa MB.
Rocketman
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Santa Rosa MacBook (November 2007) Benchmarks
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One might even say it is not a speed bump at all but a "capacity bump". Faster FSB, faster Graphics, higher supported memory, Santa Rosa MB.
Rocketman
Since the new processors aren't exactly that much quicker than the previous generation, do they at least run cooler? That would be a plus, slightly faster, but noticeably cooler.
same temp
There is no difference in the CPU. The tiny speed difference comes from a change in the system clock for the faster bus, which means that the effective speed of the cpu (which is a multiple of the base clock) is slightly different.
The 2 GHz should be exactly the same heat output, the 2.2 GHz might be a tiny bit warmer than the 2.16 - but probably too little to measure or notice when it's in the system.
There is no difference in the CPU. The tiny speed difference comes from a change in the system clock for the faster bus, which means that the effective speed of the cpu (which is a multiple of the base clock) is slightly different.
The 2 GHz should be exactly the same heat output, the 2.2 GHz might be a tiny bit warmer than the 2.16 - but probably too little to measure or notice when it's in the system.
Primate Labs posted benchmark results comparing the new Santa Rosa MacBooks that were quietly updated last week to the Santa Rosa chipset along with the new GMA X3100 integrated video card.
In terms of pure processor speed, the MacBook updates seemed negligible (2.0GHz -> 2.0GHz, 2.16GHz -> 2.2GHz), though the underlying bus speed was increased to 800MHz from 667MHz.
The published benchmarks compared the 2.16GHz previous MacBook to the 2.2GHz new MacBook, and did significantly boost memory performance by 15% and stream performance by 25%, reflecting the increased bus speed. Integer, floating point, and overall performance, however, was only marginally improved.
Graphics performance was not tested, but the GMA X3100 should also provide performance boosts over the previous integrated video card (GMA 950).
Article Link
Help..how do i know when this upgrade has happened I need to order so delivery is beofre 30th of November but obvioulsy wnat the most up to date model..
If you order from Apple, you should be getting the new model. If you order from someone else (Amazon, for example), you need to pay attention to the specs, since they may have older models they'll want to get rid of.
Great, a test which doesn't benchmark opengl, that will help! ;DI can play Sims 2 on it about as well as it ran on my iMac G5 with Radeon 9600.
I don't have the multi-threaded expansions yet tough.
Here's my MacBook.
http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/22952
The more I reflect on this quiet update, the more I think that it's merely a way to replace the EOL'd motherboards of the previous generation. The REAL MB update is yet to come, possibly as early as MWSF '08 (along with the iMac and a substantially redesigned Mini).
Graphics performance was not tested, but the GMA X3100 should also provide performance boosts over the previous integrated video card (GMA 950).
That's weird! I would consider a new graphics card significant enough of an update to include it's performance and value!
That's weird! I would consider a new graphics card significant enough of an update to include it's performance and value!
i was wondering the same thing, wouldn't you think you would run a comparison benchmark running the same built of the OS, this benchmark is not a true comparison cause of the different build numbers of the OS
for a true comparison between the 2 systems you need to be running the same build of the OS and same memory config's, only then will it be a true comparison.
All they did in this comparison was piss in the wind or how ever you want to put it
But don't expect any more MacBook releases until about May. Maybe MacBook Pro's though.
I agree with you. It was more than just a "bump," and these new MacBooks are very impressive for the cost.
What were you expecting exactly? You'll be waiting until about May, which may suit you, but not others to wait that long.
I know this is crazy but Civ 4 performance is all I care about! Why? Everything else happens fast enough on my MacBook 1.83Ghz/1GB/160GB machine already, but Civ 4 is horrendously slow--it requires heroic effort to play it as it is now. So please, someone buy the new macbook and test it
Eidoran, you have the Macbook I am about to buy tomorrow (WOOOO!!!!! FINALLY!!!!!)
Judging by these benchmarks, with 2gb of ram, this puppy will flyyyy.
PC be gone forever!!!
aplogogies for my ignorance but can you help me
I am a graphic designer so use my current e mac for layout deisgn work. I was going to buy the 13inch mac book in white on sat but i am concerned after a comment from a colleage that this will be to smal to do layout work on.. i cant realy afford to go to the 17 inch pro and as i would install extra ram on the mac book dont see the point other than screen size. i have been told that if i were to hook my mac book up to a flat screen which will be cheaper then it would be very blocky as the resolution is not good enough on a small laptop any advice, much appreciated
I am a graphic designer so use my current e mac for layout deisgn work. I was going to buy the 13inch mac book in white on sat but i am concerned after a comment from a colleage that this will be to smal to do layout work on.. i cant realy afford to go to the 17 inch pro and as i would install extra ram on the mac book dont see the point other than screen size. i have been told that if i were to hook my mac book up to a flat screen which will be cheaper then it would be very blocky as the resolution is not good enough on a small laptop any advice, much appreciated
i really think it would depend on what resolutions the monitor supports, and if the Macbook can use them.
here is the max screen resolutions of the Macbook with the GMA950 and the GMA X3100
The maximum resolution supported on "Apple DVI displays" is 1920x1200 and 1600x1200 on VGA displays.
i would not know how high of a screen resolution you would need to go or what size monitor you would need. but in the BTO you can add a 20" Apple cinema display or a 23" Apple HD cinema display, but those are rather high in price ($599 and $899). you could find a external flat panel display for allot cheaper somewhere else but have just as good screen quality.
but it depends if it suits you, i think you can go to a Apple store and test one out in the config you want to use it in to see if you like it or not
That's a complete lie right there.
When on the road the screen is fine but you'd be just safe just getting a Mini-DVI to DVI adapter and plugging it into a good external monitor up to 1920 x 1200.
Yep. Someone tryin to upsell you right there. I'm buying my new MB tomorrow and I can't wait to see all the crap they try and sell me with it. Or if they try and sell me on a pro. Oh well, I'm just happy to have a new computer.
The MacBook doesn't have _any_ VRAM. It reserves 64 Megabyte of ordinary RAM for use by the integrated graphics card. With the new graphics card, it still has no VRAM, but it reserves 144 Megabyte of ordinary RAM for use by the graphics card. So if you have 1024 MB of RAM, the amount available for other things goes down from 960MB to 880MB.
http://barefeats.com/mbook.html
Gaming benchmarks
Not the big jump y'all were hoping for. Which is to be expected, this chipset has been available in PCs for a while and is not a whole lot better than the GMA 950.
Gaming benchmarks
Not the big jump y'all were hoping for. Which is to be expected, this chipset has been available in PCs for a while and is not a whole lot better than the GMA 950.
Maybe they should run another round at medium settings.
Yea I was thinking about that too... why did they run the tests at maximum possible graphics settings?
BTW, I'm not impressed with X3100, aside from UT2004 test which showed almost double frame rate.
UT 2K4 at Maximum Settings wasn't that bad.
I play circa 2000-2004 games in Windows on this laptop all the time now.