Slashdot Log In
MacBook Pro Benchmarks
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Thu Feb 23, 2006 03:59 PM
from the no-surprises-here dept.
from the no-surprises-here dept.
jfpoole writes "Geek Patrol has benchmarked a MacBook Pro and a PowerBook G4 using Geekbench, their benchmarking utility. It's impressive to see how well the MacBook Pro performs compared to the PowerBook G4 (at least when it comes to Universal Binary performance)." Their benchmarks aren't particularly surprising, and they lack the most important benchmark: Frames Per Second during Molten Core Combat (or as it is more commonly referred to since I made it up 5 seconds ago, the FPSDMCCMark, which is the only number I'm waiting for).
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
It's nice to see improved benchmarks, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's nice to see improved benchmarks, but... (Score:4, Funny)
You're not fooling anyone. We all know that every time you boot your antiquated G4, you think about selling one of your kidneys to buy a new MacBook.
Rationalization is a beatiful thing.
Parent
Re:It's nice to see improved benchmarks, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
And even though it pains me to admit it here in public, this being
So what do I do with that iBook ? Well I run Firefox (no, it doesn't look like the other Mac OS apps, what do I care?), CopyWrite (The *only* thing that would keep me using that machine; it exports to RTF though so I'd go back to OOo without trouble) and ssh. All that (mostly) on a WiFi link. Of course (apart from CopyWrite, which is an app I've been thinking of writing for years) I could do all of that on a random laptop without trouble. So why an Apple?
Because
On the other hand, the Unix software often feels out of place, there is little "free" (as in libre) native software (for a Unix user, maybe it feels like heaven for a Windowe person), the interface isn't all that great, the bundled software isn't all that great either (iPhoto is probably the worst offender there, or maybe despite the few hours I spent trying to "get" it, I just didn't), in other words, don't listen to the hype, sliced bread is good, Apple is too, but that's it.
Anyway to get back to the subject at hand, a lot of Linux people (those people who write Debian books, who admin hundreds of Linux machines, who have been running Linux for 6 to 10 years, whop have all their workstations running it at work and at home) have Apple laptops. Just because they are sick of the elusive driver search, of the great parameter poking game.
I talked to a lot of them. Most of them aren't overly fond of the Apple interface. They all grew up with the Unix way of doing things. Things like sloppy focus. Or like virtual desktops. Yet they all got i/PowerBooks. Because that was better than spending ages getting Linux running on whatever hardware was available.
So yes, poke fun at those people who (in your opinion) bought some overpriced hardware, but when I got a *very nice* Vaio laptop, the C1XD PictureBook (you can look it up if you like), you would have been astounded at the number of subsystems that weren't supported in Linux. Still, that machine never had anything but EXT2 partitions. Same with the IBM notebook before it.
So my iBook, at 1200 € might seem overpriced to you (at the time I added a few options, the same machine is about 950 now), however it *works*. It comes with most of the Unix stuff, it sleeps on demand, setting it up took all of five minutes, if I had to choose between it an the *same* machine running Linux (whatever the CPU), I'd pick Linux without a second thought, however Linux isn't there yet. A
Parent
Re:It's nice to see improved benchmarks, but... (Score:4, Funny)
You can't totally future-proof something. I think a better term would be future-resistant.
Parent
molten core combat (Score:2, Funny)
not really surprised though, i think the major objection to intel chips for most applications was stability not speed. ditto for the graphics cards. more boxes = more games = more devs on the cards.
props to the amusing summary though.
Amazing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
Slashdotted while still red (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe they should benchmark web servers next.
Hosted on a G4? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hosted on a G4? (Score:3, Funny)
Why just benched against another Mac? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why just benched against another Mac? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why just benched against another Mac? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Lame (Score:4, Funny)
FPS in WOW (Score:5, Informative)
The MacBookPro is insanely fast. I'm not a big fan of the magnetic power cord, it seems to fall out too often with just a switch in body position. It is quite a bit hotter on my lap and I have had some random crashes while in WoW. Complete computer lock up, power down, restart to get it working again. (CTRL-ALT+Power)
I haven't gone into MC yet but will hopefully go tonight, we are killing domo so that should be some tasty lag.
All in all, I'm extremely happy with my MacBookPro
Re:FPS in WOW (Score:2)
Damn (Score:3, Funny)
I'd like to see WoW on there. (Score:2)
battery life (Score:3, Interesting)
3 hours? 5? DVD playing? airport on/off?
because, that's, you know kinda important when it comes to laptops...
Re:battery life- about the same- more benchmarks (Score:3, Informative)
They also have some benchmarks
http://www.macworld.com/2006/02/firstlooks/macboo
I suspect batterlife will varry depending if your running a native intel app vs a rosetta interpreted (ppc) app.
Taco! Enough with the Molten Core references! (Score:5, Funny)
Dear Apple: Slashdot needs to review 5 of these indefinitely. Thank you XOXO ;) Seriously, i'm waiting for someone to give good benchmarks on these- especially testing for Warcraft. Now that it has a new Universal Binary I can't wait to see how it holds up against a modern windows machine.
'Not only did the new iMac wipe the floor with the old model in their tests, but using MacWorld's own test methodology would allow MacSpeedZone to conclude that the new Intel iMac is almost as fast as a PowerMac Quad G5.' I see only one way to solve this: Give me one. I'll run WoW on it, and decide.
I'm still waiting for the most important benchmark: frames per second in molten core combat.
We get it. You use your Mac for WoW.
FireWire 800 Was Stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
In theory, a FW 800 Express Card should be superior to FW800 built onto the PCI bus.
When the next generation of FW controllers come out that sit on the PCIe bus, then it will make sense. FW800 is just a little to early. Soon.
Re:FireWire 800 Was Stupid (Score:3, Informative)
Re:FireWire 800 Was Stupid (Score:4, Informative)
Not true. The bandwidth of a 33mhz./32 bit PCI bus is roughly ~128 MB per second. The bandwidth of a FW800 interface is roughly ~82 MB a second. That's not complete saturation, and we're talking about the lowliest PCI bus available.
Throw it on a PCI 66 mhz./64 bit interface with ~ 512MB a second of throughput, or even better yet, a PCI-X 133 mhz./64 bit interface with ~ 1GB a second of bandwidth and you're not even scratching the surface of your available PCI bandwidth.
Parent
My MacBook Pro Benchmarks (Score:5, Informative)
MacBook Pro Performance Analysis [craigtheguru.com]
WOW is GPU, not CPU intensive (Score:4, Insightful)
A 2003 Dual 2 GHz G5 will play WOW poorly if you have a vanilla video card, but not because of the G5. In fact, if you watch processor use while the game is "challenged," you'll notice that with dual G5s, the CPUs are running about 60%. Turn one off and the processor redlines, but the gameplay doesn't change drastically. Put in a higher end PCI card, and it plays like a totally different machine.
The last revision of G5 Macs have PCIe, and better video cards. The Intel Macs have the same stuff or better. It's no surprise that WOW plays better with a much better video card.
The G5/Core Duo are not being compared when you pit them against each other playing WOW; it's pretty much just the video card difference.
drm ignorance (Score:3, Insightful)
Benchmarks are useless (Score:4, Insightful)
Benchmarks measure the edges of the envelope where users rarely visit. If you're not doing serious number crunching or running last week's must-have video game, you don't need to worry about benchmarks. It's like worrying about the top speed of an Italian Sports car, when you're never going to drive it faster than 100 Kph. In other words, if you're content with the size of your penis you can safely ignore benchmarks.
Re:yep, great benchmarks, but lacking in features. (Score:2)
Actually, it's a relatively recent addition to the Powerbook line. My older Powerbook doesn't have it.
There's no proof Apple's using any of the DRM, so your point is moot.
I'm lusting after one of these puppies, but there's no way the purchase makes sense for me until there's more software availabl
Re:yep, great benchmarks, but lacking in features. (Score:2, Insightful)
Weather or not jobs likes it, these things are being loaded with DRM. I'm a loyal apple user, well used to be, but if this continues my g5 will be the last apple computer i buy.
as for the firewire 800, my friend's 17 inch was bought in 2003(if my chronology is right) and had fw800. 3 years is a long time in the computing world.
Re:yep, great benchmarks, but lacking in features. (Score:2)
>>they added in a DRM'ed chipset.
>There's no proof Apple's using any of the DRM, so your point is moot.
This is hilarious. They added the chipset so it wouldn't be used? Wow, that's creative.
Re:yep, great benchmarks, but lacking in features. (Score:2)
It was standard on the 15" and 17" models, but has never been available on the 12" model. And somehow, we've survived.
Besides which, for those few who need it, I'd imagine a slot-card for the new MacBook Pro that features FW-800 will be available in the near future.
Yaz.
Re:yep, great benchmarks, but lacking in features. (Score:2)
Look, like it or not very few Mac users have ever used the FW800 port. I have both a 12" PowerBook G4 and a PowerMac G5. I have a few FW400 devices, but not a single FW800 device. If I had FW800 on the PowerBook, about the only use it might be put to would be to transfer very large data files between the PB and the PM.
This certainly isn't the first time Apple (or any other laptop maker for that matt
Re:yep, great benchmarks, but lacking in features. (Score:3, Insightful)
Media PCs (Score:2)
Re:yep, great benchmarks, but lacking in features. (Score:2)
Get your laptop out of the boardroom once in a while, okay? :). I use composite and S-Video out all the time, often to play videos and video blogs I've downloaded off the net on my TV.
Of course, I do so using the Apple mini-DVI to Composite/S-Video adapter. I don't need a million-and-one ports built into my PowerBook.
Yaz.
Re:yep, great benchmarks, but lacking in features. (Score:3, Informative)
You're right -- it's the fact that no controller chipset from Intel supports FW800 that is the reason.
Apple went with Intel-based systems, including the chipset. Intel, so far as I've been able to determine through their website, has FW400 support in their chipsets, but no FW800. Adding a custom FW800 chip to the system would be non-trivial (as it's more than just spa
"no firewire 800" Thank you Apple, didn't need it (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you Apple. I prefer not paying for things I do not need, SCSI in the old days, FW800 today. The few pros who need it can add it.
Re:"no firewire 800" Thank you Apple, didn't need (Score:3, Informative)
Doubtful, the Intel Macs would probably be a little more expensive if they had FW800 support. Assuming that it is even an option. I'm not sure who is manufacturing Apple's motherboards but I'm not sure if Intel manufactured boards ever got to FW800.
Re:yep, great benchmarks, but lacking in features. (Score:2)
What, do Monster.com and Dice.com have permanent moderation privileges here?
Re:yep, great benchmarks, but lacking in features. (Score:2)
Re:yep, great benchmarks, but lacking in features. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're only proving plasmacutter's point about Apple zealots and DRM. DRM does matter. It matters because DRM tells us what we can and cannot do with the software/media that we bought. It matters because we, as in the user, have to give up control of our computers and files when we accept DRM. It matters because if nothing changes within the next few years, we're all going to be using locked down computers. I have lusted for Macs since OS X was released years ago, but since the Intel switch and Apple's stance with DRM, I have lost much of my enthusiasm with Macs and Apple in general. I don't want to buy a machine with TPM chips that may be used for much more evil purposes (such as locking down my media). I want to buy a machine that does what I, the customer wants, not what Apple or Microsoft or the **AA wants. Thankfully I can still buy and build some computers that aren't DRM-encumbered.
DRM matters. That's the bottom line. And I, for one, am not going to give up my freedoms, even for "ease of use" and other minor benefits. Nobody should tell me what I can do with my media, or with a certain OS (points at Apple and OS X), but that's why I don't use that stuff anyway; I prefer to be [gnu.org] free [freebsd.org] instead.
Parent
Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Proxy for MC (Score:2)
Either way, though, once you get the game installed on the store machine (which will take a half-hour or so anyway), you have to download the monstrous 1.0-1.9 patc
Re:Proxy for MC (Score:2)
Re:Proxy for MC - Missing Bits (Score:2)
You mean like missing half their bits?
Yonah is a 32-bit Intel processor. No 64-bit extensions.
Re:Proxy for MC - Missing Bits (Score:3, Informative)
No, the G4 is a 32-bit processor as well. Remember Apple never released a G5 laptop, and we are talking about laptops here. Had this been about the G5 iMac vs. the Intel iMac, you probably would have had a point though . . .
Re:L2BWL (Score:2)
Re:I'm waiting for rev2 also... (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Intel Mac can Run Windows XP.. (Score:3, Informative)