Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

New MacBook Dual Core 2 Benchmarks

Posted by CowboyNeal on Sat Nov 04, 2006 12:26 PM
from the speed-demons dept.
Portables (Apple) Businesses Hardware Apple
ApolloX writes "New Macbook Pro Benchmarks are now available. From the article: 'Like the iMac before it, Apple's MacBook Pro underwent an upgrade highlighted by a chip swap — the Core Duo processor that used to power Apple's pro laptop is gone, replaced by the next-generation Core 2 Duo. And as with our iMac benchmarks, these updated Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro models show a modest performance gain when compared to older systems running on Core Duo chips with the same clock speeds.' As expected, the new 15-inch Intel Dual Core 2 (2.33Ghz/2GB RAM) is the new king of Apple portables, with results for the 17-inch model still pending."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Ask Slashdot: Will Apple Follow Microsoft's Lead to Restrictive DRM? 326 comments
Steve Ryan asks: "The direction Microsoft are taking with Windows (for example, the DRM issues in Vista) have led me to believe Windows will soon be an OS which controls the user, rather than the other way round. I like XP, and I find it stable, but I do not want to upgrade to an OS (Vista) which is restrictive. This leaves me with either Linux or Mac OS X. I like Linux, but it may not work with my laptop, so I don't really want to risk it. OS X seems nice. I spend most of my time writing documents and surfing the web, so it should handle everything I want, and I would be happy to buy a lovely MacBook Pro. This leaves me with my question: Will Apple follow Microsoft's lead and implement a DRM loving policy?"
This discussion has been archived.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.

New MacBook Dual Core 2 Benchmarks 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • New "MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo" Benchmarks (Score:5, Informative)

    by voidptr (609) on Saturday November 04 2006, @12:30PM (#16717019) Homepage Journal
    What's with the headline? It's "MacBook Pro", not MacBook. They're separate products. And it's "Core 2 Duo". Would it have been that hard to identify the correct product being reviewed?
    • Would it have been that hard to identify the correct product being reviewed?

      You must be new here. :-)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gumbi west (610122)
      This is sort of a problem for Apple. the iBook / Powerbook had good name separation, "MacBook" and "MacBook Pro" were bad choices b/c everybody adds "pro" to everything these days to mean absolutely nothing. So you'd think you could drop it.

      As far as the no proofing, it's supposed to be part of the charm of the site. I think it's like how people like soaps to look cheap and for the sets to fall over sometimes.

    • ``Would it have been that hard to identify the correct product being reviewed?''

      Well, Apple's and Intel's naming makes it particularly easy to make these mistakes. Not saying that the submitter/editors shouldn't have gotten it right, of course.
    • and it's not Dual Core 2, its Core 2 Duo... that makes it sound like it's two Core 2 Duo chips.
      • No, what I'm saying is they reviewed the MPB C2D, not a MacBook that doesn't exist. The headline's just wrong.

  • Temperature (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tpengster (566422) <slash@tpeng s t er.com> on Saturday November 04 2006, @12:39PM (#16717093)
    I'm more interested in how hot these things run.. my old Core Duo MBP runs so hot I can't even use it on my lap, and the fan emits a really annoying loud, high-pitched whine. This computer is actually physically painful to use.
    • I've been reading that the new MBPs with C2D run up to 20 degrees F cooler. I can't speak for whether it's the processor or a change to the default fan speed that causes this.
    • I'm more interested in how hot these things run.. my old Core Duo MBP runs so hot I can't even use it on my lap, and the fan emits a really annoying loud, high-pitched whine. This computer is actually physically painful to use.

      Take it back to the shop and have the motherboard replaced. Since I had this done to my MBP it runs noticably cooler.
      • amen to that -- the high-pitched whine wasn't a fan, it was a faulty power converter. they replaced ours no-questions asked.
    • Who DOESN'T like a weenie roast?

    • Re:Temperature (Score:5, Informative)

      by tji (74570) on Saturday November 04 2006, @01:14PM (#16717429)
      I didn't have a first-gen MBP, but I just bought the new Core 2 Duo version, the base system with 2.16GHz CPUs.

      I have no heat issues with this machine. The bottom of it is warm to the touch, but certainly not hot to the point of being uncomfortable. I find that it runs cooler than my PowerBook G4 1.67GHz.

        • 12 hours battery runtime on a G4?

          The best my 1 year old G4 gets is 2.5-3.5 hours depending if I have the screen reasonably dimmed.
        • Actually, you're wrong on both counts. The PowerBook does have fans, although they are slow or even stopped until you put the system under load and it heats up. When it was new, the battery life on the G4 was around 2.5 hours. Now, with an aged battery, it's nowhere near that. The MBP's battery life seems good, compared to the weak battery in my PowerBook. With new batteries in the PB, they would probably be pretty close.

          I always liked the PowerPC processors, and the architecture without all the bag
    • I was worried about that, too. I just upgraded from a 1GHz PowerBook G4 to a 2.33 GHz MacBook Pro. The MBP doesn't seem to tun hotter than my G4 when used for general email/web surfing, at least. I haven't used it much for media creation and editing yet.
    • You might be one of the lucky ones whose MBPs had too much thermal grease applied to the processor heat sink. Apple put the fan temperature sensors on the heat pipes leading from the processor - the excess in thermal grease actually insulates the heat pipes, keeping the fans off and the processor way too hot.

      There's a couple of sites that demonstrate how to disassemble your MBP to get to the processor - reapply an appropriate amount of thermal paste, your heat pipes start working properly (and your fan sta
    • Initial reports from people who've bought them say they run pretty cool. They extended the vent at the back to the length of the chassis and apparently the fans run longer and harder. It's not the coldest laptop in the world, but you can't cook food with it like you could the last version.
    • I just got my 2.33 GHz MacBook Pro, no problems whatsoever. The fans are quiet, but very efficient, I guess. I've watched a few movies while crunching some numbers in the background, giving the processor a run for its money, and the bottom has never reached the point where I had to move the computer off of my lap.
    • get smcFanControl. It made my mbp cucumber coooooool.
    • As others have said, no heat issues here...
      2.33ghz 1 week old, runs significantly cooler than my dell 1.67 pentium M that this laptop replaced. I never had a Core 1, but this laptop runs cooler than my old dell, cooler than my wifes ibook g4, cooler than my brother's powerbook g4... it is the coolest running laptop I've used in 3-4 years.

      As other's have stated as well, the bottom gets warm to the touch, but not hot, never uncomfortable on the lap or legs.
      Also, no noticeable fan noise at all. It runs virtu
  • Faster chip brings faster performance!

  • What was benchmarked? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by laffer1 (701823) <luke&foolishgames,com> on Saturday November 04 2006, @12:53PM (#16717243) Homepage
    I was excited to see the headline. I look at the site and its just comparing several models to a baseline previous MacBook Pro. What is the point in that? I want to see real benchmarks like perhaps windows running on it vs a comparable "PC" laptop from say dell, toshiba or some other vendor. I'd also like to see a benchmark compared to desktop models like iMacs, Mac Pros, etc. To put it in perspective, maybe some benchmarks from G4/G5 models as well.

    I want to know how apple compares to other vendors now that apples to apples comparisons are more fair. You could argue driver support if the mac loses, but its not like dell ships great drivers for their modified chipsets either. I have an iBook now and it would be nice to know how PC operating systems run on this thing. I now have a good reason to want to run BSD on one of these :)
    • I want to see real benchmarks like perhaps windows running on it vs a comparable "PC" laptop from say dell, toshiba or some other vendor.

      The MacBook Pro is a Mac, not a PC. Why would anyone compare it to a Dell or Toshiba that runs Winblows? I buy a Mac to run MacOS X and couldn't care less about hacking it to work with Windows so I can run PC viruses and spyware.
              • I'm amazed that people don't know about the second virtual button on Apple's laptops with OS X. Hold both fingers on the track pad. Click. Boom, right-click. And to be honest, I think that it works better than actually having a second button. My thumb isn't very accurate, so sometimes, on a PC laptop, I hit the wrong button. With one, big button to hit, I never mistakenly right-click when I want to left-click. The second physical button works well on mice because you click right- and left-buttons with diffe

  • This was more than just a chip swap. (Score:5, Informative)

    by SeaFox (739806) on Saturday November 04 2006, @01:28PM (#16717551)
    From the article: 'Like the iMac before it, Apple's MacBook Pro underwent an upgrade highlighted by a chip swap -- the Core Duo processor that used to power Apple's pro laptop is gone, replaced by the next-generation Core 2 Duo.

    It also gained dual-layer Superdrives and Firewire 800 back, and comes with more RAM standard and higher maximum RAM than the previous model, which is more than you can say for the iMac upgrade.
  • Anybody know what sort of battery life to expect out of these machines? I love how my iBook gets over 5 hours of use from one battery charge, but I think the MacBook and MacBook Pro don't do that well. However, the Core 2 is supposed to be more efficient than the Core. So, perhaps the battery life on these new machines can impress me?
  • I picked up a 2.33 GHz MBP (US$2500) a couple of days ago and it meets my expectations. No problems with noise or heat issues, and the build quality and design is much better than the offerings back in 2002 when I bought an iBook 700 MHz G3 and a PB 800 MHz G4. The magnetic power connector by itself is a big improvement.

    The included printed documentation is rather lacking for a notebook in this price range. Additionally, there in no recordable CD or DVD included. And as noted before, there is no modem e

  • Stupid Headline (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Saturday November 04 2006, @02:20PM (#16717943)
    New MacBook Dual Core 2 Benchmarks

    This headline does more than suggest, it actually states, that the system under benchmark has two Core 2 processors. That would be a total of four processing cores spread over two chips, and quite a burden on the poor system's batteries.

    WRONG! What it has is a Core 2 Duo dual-processor chip.

    It's bad enough the the submitter can't properly write the headline. That the Slashdot editor let it through in this form deserves having him (or her) sent back to Remedial English, and not allowed near a keyboard until they pass it.

  • Someone asked about temperature. At its hottest I can still have it on my lap (wearing pants, dunno if it's cool enough to Quake nekkid or anytihng). Most of the time it runs cool. It's fast and snappy. It rules.

    Most annoying part is that I had to recompile all the open source things I'd built for my previous ppc machine. Apparently the emulator doesn't work for command line things.

  • Running one right now (Score:4, Informative)

    by melted (227442) on Saturday November 04 2006, @04:35PM (#16719029) Homepage
    2.33GHz, 2GB RAM, 160GB HDD. It's scary fast, even in Aperture. After reading horror stories on the web I thought it'd run ridiculously hot. Not so, my friends. The bottom does get hot when you do something hardcore (LiveType realtime rendering or a hardcore Aperture session), but not as hot as to be unbearable. Overall, I'm very pleased with my purchase, and this is hands down the best laptop I've ever used.

    My son is very pleased, too - he can't get enough of Photo Booth. :0)

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      No you can't. Once you add enough upgrades to match the Apple, then the price is more than the Macbook. Look at all the stuff it has standard before you do the math.
        • I'm not sure what you mean saying that's a comparible computer. For example, that XPS doesn't come with a 15 in screen, nor a 120 GB hard drive.
            • Yay, an AC troll. I'll bite even though your too big a chickenshit to get moded correctly. Your config I know doesn't include: Comparable Screen (flatly not available), FireWire 800, Backlit Keyboard, Gigabit Ethernet, inferior Graphics Card and lacks CD/DVD burner. Oh, and it's missing OSX. Not to mention the iLife software that beats the hell out of anything Dell provides. There isn't even a PC program comparable to Garage Band so STFU.

              Guaranteed, anyone who pisses and moans over the price as a reason n

    • macbooks are too expensive for me to buy one, if they ever come down in price that would be great.But right now you can buy a pc with the same config cheaper.

      Really? I didn't know non-Apple branded PC's shipped with MacOS X. I'll have to check into this.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by be-fan (61476)
      You can buy a PC with the same config cheaper, but not substantially cheaper. I can't speak for the MBP, but when I got my Macbook this summer, I did some looking around, and even if you ignore things like build-quality, most comparable x86 laptops were less than 10% cheaper. If you got a comparably small and sturdy machine, the price was actually substantially higher.
    • But right now you can buy a pc with the same config cheaper.

      No, you can't. Apple has been beating Dell on price for many months now.
    • As someone that maintains Macbooks and other Mac laptops I'd say that the quality control isn't good. This week a 14-month old 17" G4 went down with a motherboard problem - it's essentially a write off due to the massive price of a new board. Happens all the time. All I say to people is make sure you buy the AppleCare extended warranty, it's expensive but in the majority of cases worth it. However I think this advice applies to most laptops not Apple in general. It's also why I don't bother owning one anymo
    • seriously, if you are not just trying to start a flame war, i wonder if it is just the abundance of people's complaints being heard louder than before. i only one Apple portable (an ibook) that's worked flawlessly for the last 5 years. i have never had a serious issue with my desktops (going back to before the Macintosh). out of people i directly know with Apple computers, nobody has had a serious issue that Apple did not resolve in a decent way. i know somebody that knows somebody that had some terrible st
    • No matter how much you pay for a PC. You'll never get OSX. Its worth it for that alone. Your original point is irrelevant anyway since there isn't an exact equivalent PC when comparing one to a mac.
    • ``if someone could get a legit version of OSX running on a PC''

      Not going to happen. The license of OS X forbids it running on non-Apple hardware.
    • Macs don't cost more than equivalent PCs. In fact, the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro are thousands less than their Dell equivalents.
    • if someone could get a legit version of OSX running on a PC, I'd be using a PC and OSX rather than splashing out the extra cash for an Apple.

      All Apple has to do is unbundle their hardware/software, price the MacBook at a comparable cost to the PC, and price OSX at the difference between the current cost and the hardware only cost. You'd still pay the same overall, yet get your hardware at Dell/HP/IBM prices. Would that make you happier?

    • Increasing the RAM from 1GB to 2GB will only increase performance if your benchmark uses more than 1GB of RAM. This benchmark doesn't, so there shouldn't be any difference in performance.

    • Re:4gb of ram? (Score:4, Informative)

      by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Saturday November 04 2006, @06:57PM (#16720203) Homepage

      The chipset is only capable of addressing 32 bits or 4 gigs of memory. Many "64 bit" desktops are the same way. The problem is that while the chipset can see the full 4 gigs of ram, a portion of it (~768mb) is hidden by other address space (video card shadowing, PCI memory addresses, etc). The machine can hold 4 gigs of ram, you just won't be able to see it all. I have a friend with a Dell desktop with the same "problem".

      Frankly I like Apple approach as opposed to what many others do ("Supprots 4+ GIGs* (* unable to see top 1/2 gig)").

      The problem should go away when they stop using the current chipset (which was designed for the 32 bit Core) and move to the next chipset that was designed specifically for the Core 2 chips.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.