WHAT IS GOING ON? Are the benchmarks not reflecting the reality?

[ptjh]

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. These don't seem to count for much according to the test.

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?

1) Are the benchmarks not reflecting the reality of performance?

2) Do the benchmarks infer that processor speed is the most important factor and therefore, that the 2.8 might be worth an upgrade?

3) Do the benchmarks imply that the nvidia chipsets are worse performers overall than intels early 2008 offerings?



Could anyone who can get their hands on one test the new 2.8 GHz MB Pro? Thanks

 

[Peace]

Nope. It means XBench and or geekbench needs to be updated and compiled using the newer architecture.

That happened before.

 

[ptjh]

Nope. It means XBench and or geekbench needs to be updated and compiled using the newer architecture.

That happened before.

So are you saying that the 2.53 MBP is likely to be faster than the old 2.6?

 

[blurb23]

So are you saying that the 2.53 MBP is likely to be faster than the old 2.6?

I'd say yes. That 1066MHz should come in handy.