Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New MacBook Dual Core 2 Benchmarks

CowboyNeal posted more than 7 years ago | from the speed-demons dept.

229

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."

cancel ×

229 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

New "MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo" Benchmarks (4, Informative)

voidptr (609) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717019)

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?

Re:New "MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo" Benchmarks (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16717059)

shut the fuck up, you whiny nerd fuck

Re:New "MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo" Benchmarks (2, Funny)

quigonn (80360) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717169)

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

You must be new here. :-)

Re:New "MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo" Benchmarks (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16717205)

"What's with the headline? It's "MacBook Pro", not MacBook. They're separate products."

So what youre saying is that because they are slightly different products, its an unfair comparrison for the benchmark? Excuse me, but hasnt every single Mac Vs PC benchmark (in the past) been done this way?

Re:New "MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo" Benchmarks (1)

voidptr (609) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717223)

No, what I'm saying is they reviewed the MPB C2D, not a MacBook that doesn't exist. The headline's just wrong.

Re:New "MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo" Benchmarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16717283)

You are excused, but your ignorance is not. It is not even a comparison anyway. And Macbook Pros are VERY different products from Macbooks.

Re:New "MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo" Benchmarks (2, Interesting)

gumbi west (610122) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717315)

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.

Re:New "MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo" Benchmarks (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16717865)

Imagine the confusion if Intel releases a "Pro Core 2 Duo" chip.

Re:New "MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo" Benchmarks (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717869)

Separating the names of the two products hasn't been a problem for users. Apparently, only Slashdot editors are the ones who get confused.

Re:New "MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo" Benchmarks (0)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717695)

Serves them right for using such stupid and confusing product names.

Re:New "MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo" Benchmarks (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717705)

``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.

Re:New "MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo" Benchmarks (1)

chasingporsches (659844) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718207)

and it's not Dual Core 2, its Core 2 Duo... that makes it sound like it's two Core 2 Duo chips.

Re:New "MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo" Benchmarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16718653)

Actually it doesn't matter which way you write it, most consumers won't have a clue what it means anyway, which makes for a crappy naming policy. Core 2 Duo - try saying it out loud - it sounds stupid.

too expensive (1)

crankshot999 (975406) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717035)

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.

Re:too expensive (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16717163)

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.

Re:too expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16717569)

Well, I just tried it. I configured a Dell XPS M1210 to match a 15 inch MacBook Pro. Same proc, same ram, same HD, same screen-size, and the Dell was $350 bucks cheaper. I'd say this myth is BUSTED.

Re:too expensive (1)

ocean-navigator (671222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717841)

Did you add in all the extra software required to actually use the Dell?

Re:too expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16717877)

So what can you do with $350+ dollars of Apple software that I can't do with free software?

Re:too expensive (1)

DDLKermit007 (911046) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718399)

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 not to get a Macbook is a cheap ass to begin with that buys the cheapest HP/Dell/Compaq they can get their hands on. What these people can't get from OSS / Pirate doesn't exist to them.

Re:too expensive (1)

kkwst2 (992504) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718811)

Garage Band so STFU?? How many pimples did you pop today?

Re:too expensive (1)

wile_e_wonka (934864) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717967)

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.

Re:too expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16718023)

Yeah, you're right about the screen, I misread that. You can get the 120 GB hd though.

Re:too expensive (1)

gb506 (738638) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717969)

That's bull, a XPS M1210 configured to similar specs to the base Macbook Pro is $17 cheaper, but lacks FireWire 800, backlit keyboard, and gigabit ethernet, and has an inferior graphic card and CD/DVD burner - and it doesn't run OSX.

Re:too expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16718005)

I'm sorry for you if you can't afford a Mac. I really am. Not everybody can afford to have all the nice things they want. But as for dell vs apple prices, they're really not that far off from eachother.

The limited configuration options makes it hard to get an exact hardward match.
This is as close as I could get them. They're pretty comparable prices.
Note that the dell has an 8x optical drive wheras the MBP has only 6x.

MacBook Pro
15-inch: 2.33GHz
  * 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
  * 2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM - 2x1GB
  * 120GB Serial ATA Drive @ 5400 rpm
  * SuperDrive 6x (DVD+R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
  * ATI Mobility Radeon X1600 graphics with 256MB SDRAM
$2,499.00

Dell XPS M1210
  * Intel® Core(TM) 2 Duo Processor T7600 (2.33GHz/667MHz/4MB)
  * 2GB Dual Shared Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz (2 Dimms)
  * 120GB 5400RPM SATA Hard Drive
  * 8x CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
  * 256MB NVIDIA® GeForce(TM) Go 7400 TurboCache(TM)
  * Integrated Audio
$2,520

Re:too expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16718229)

Yeah, I did the same thing with the $2000 (1GB ram) MBP and the 1GB Dell and I get the Dell price (same as you configured it, only 1 GB of ram instead of 2) to be $1668. As someone pointed out above, I was wrong about the screen-sized though.

So I started over with the Dell laptop with a 15 inch screen.

Dell E1505:
Eqivalent screen-size
Equivalent proc
Equivalent ram
Equivalent HD Equivalent Video Solution
Better media burner
Final Price: $1462

So is OSX and a backlight keyboard really worth the $500 difference?

Re:too expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16718599)

I'll call shenanigans on this one.
Ram is not equivalent as it's of the 533 mhz variety.
Video card has the same ram, but the dell has an x1300 vs the macbook pro's x1600.
The Dell E1505 is also 1.2 lb heavier and has a plastic construction.

This real issue here is not higher cost for equivalent laptops, it's dell having more laptop configuration options than apple. Is there a premium on apple hardware? Yes, but the gap has closed significantly now that we can make more equivalent comparisons.

Re:too expensive (1)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718963)

When I priced the Dell 1505 my result was $1523 (+20 for bluetooth). Same memory, hard drive, and video memory, the Dell has an x1400 (not x1300 as you say) and the fastest proc is 2.16GHz not 2.33. In it's favor is a superior 1680x1050 screen that Apple does not offer. Not all features will be identical but that doesn't mean that every difference is inherently in favor of Apple.

All these always come down to the fact that PC's can be configured cheaper, there are always differences that can't be factored out, and Apple people always claim the differences are proof that the Apple product is better. There's no limit to the closed-mindedness of Apple fans nor any end to the arguments they perpetuate about macs being cheaper and better than PCs nor any line they won't cross to misrepresent PC pricing/configurations to prove their fallacies true. How anyone can come up with $2600 for a an equivalent Dell is beyond me.

Re:too expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16718131)

I just priced an HP Compaq nx8430 business model laptop from HP's website, and here's the following specs:

- Intel® Core(TM)2 Duo processor T5600 (1.83-GHz, 667-MHz FSB, 2-MB L2 Cache)
- 512MB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM (1 DIMM)
- 256MB Video memory
- 80GB hard drive (5400 rpm)
- 15.4-inch WXGA display
- DVD/CDRW
- 56K modem
- 10/100/1000 NIC
- 8 cell Li-Ion battery
- Integrated Intel® Pro Wireless 3945ABG (802.11a/b/g)
- HP Biometric Fingerprint Sensor, Integrated Smart Card Reader & Embedded Security Chip (TPM 1.2)

In addition to this, I added the following:

- 512MB memory ($69)
- MultiBay II DVD+/-RW ($169.00)
- 9x5 Next Business Day On-Site Coverage with Off-site Accidential Damage Protection for 5 years ($310)

The total price was $1997.00. This was for a business class notebook, not one of the presario pieces of shit. We exclusively use HP Compaq laptops at my work and they are rockhard solid, durable, and very much worth the price. Plus on top of that they have great support, and if there is any problem with your laptop they will have the replacement part out next day delivery. The difference I see, based on specifications alone, between the MBP and the HP is:

- The Mac has 120GB hard drive rather than 80GB for the HP.
- The Mac doesn't have a modem (an extra $50 for an external adapter)

The above differences probably negate eachother based on price. The other difference:

- The HP only has a T5600 processor rather than the T7200

When considering the 5 year warranty (HP) vs the 3 year warranty (Apple), I think that is negated as well

So the final price is $2000 vs $2350. Because the Mac comes with just about everything you need, people generally assume that other machines cost just the same once they are spec'd out similarly, but not quite "more than the Macbook prices" as you state.

Took me 5 minutes to find one.. (1)

kkwst2 (992504) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718367)

I'm tired of this argument. If you want to pay more for a Mac, that's fine, but don't say you can't get a good PC for cheaper. It's just not true. The only Mac you can come close to arguing that with is the desktop Mac Pro, since they are workstation processors that Intel must be giving Apple a significant price break on. Just configured a thinkpad with better graphics, higher resolution display, wireless n integrated, $200 cheaper. And Thinkpads are not considered cheap notebooks. You can get it $2000 if you wait for a sale. Perhaps you think the little camera is worth over $200? ThinkPad Z61e 9450GBU $2,303.00 Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo T7600 (2.33GHz, 4MB L2, 667MHz FSB) (Standard) 1 Operating system: Microsoft Windows XP Professional 41U3118 1 Display type: 15.4 inch WUXGA TFT (1920x1200) (Standard) 1 Memory: 1GB PC2-5300 CL5 NP DDR2 SDRAM SODIMM 2 Graphics: 256MB ATI Mobility FireGL V5200 (Standard) 1 Ports: 3 USB 2.0, IEEE 1394, 3-1 digital media reader (SD/MMC/MS), S-Video out, External Display, External Microphone/Line-In, Headphone / Line out (Standard), Hard drive: 120GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive, Optical device: 8x Max DVD Recordable Ultrabay Enhanced Drive, Integrated communication: 56K V.92 Designed Modem (Standard), Integrated Ethernet: Integrated Gigabit Ethernet (Standard), Integrated WiFi wireless LAN: Wi-Fi wireless upgradable and Bluetooth (Standard), Integrated WiFi wireless LAN adapters: ThinkPad 11a/b/g/n Wi-Fi, Security: Client Security Solution and Integrated fingerprint reader (Standard)

Re:too expensive (1)

alcmaeon (684971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717417)

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:too expensive (1)

crankshot999 (975406) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718907)

its called linux!

Re:too expensive (2, Informative)

be-fan (61476) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717707)

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.

Re:too expensive (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717895)

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.

Re:too expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16717947)

You should invest in a grammar checker.

ONE OF FPS zomigosh!!?? JAH@! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16717087)

You know you have too much free time when you enjoy reading about in how many seconds files get unzipped :|

Temperature (3, Interesting)

tpengster (566422) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Re:Temperature (1)

Sancho (17056) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717119)

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.

Re:Temperature (1)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717319)

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.

Re:Temperature (1)

DDLKermit007 (911046) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718415)

The latest FW update does a nice job on it's own of keeping Macbooks (Pro or not) cool. Most people that have issues with cooling I've noticed haven't downloaded the FW update.

Re:Temperature (1)

God'sDuck (837829) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718893)

amen to that -- the high-pitched whine wasn't a fan, it was a faulty power converter. they replaced ours no-questions asked.

It's a Feature, Not a Bug (2, Funny)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717351)

Who DOESN'T like a weenie roast?

Re:Temperature (4, Informative)

tji (74570) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Re:Temperature (1)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717843)

well, your G4 did not have a fan (and had 12 hours battery runtime compared to MBP's 3-4)

Re:Temperature (1)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717993)

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.

Re:Temperature (1)

tji (74570) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718259)

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 baggage of x86's. But, it's hard to argue with the performance and flexibility of the new MacBook Pro's.

Re:Temperature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16718437)

It looks to me like you never had a Powerbook.

Both the old iBooks and Powerbooks have fans. In the Powerbook (at least the 12" 1GHz model I had) the fan was on most of the time, but not too loud. In the iBook I had (800MHz G4, also 12") the fan only went on after more than 30 minutes of continuous CPU crunching, I'm totally serious. But when it did, it was as noisy as a vacuum cleaner.

Re:Temperature (1)

katsiris (779774) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717467)

I just got one and it's actually not hot to the touch nor uncomfortable for the lap. It does get warm of course, but not excessively so.

Re:Temperature (1)

wavedeform (561378) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717503)

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.

Re:Temperature (1)

Mr_Matt (225037) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717541)

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 starts blowing more, too) and your MBP gets much, much cooler. If you have an earlier MBP, this just might be your problem

Re:Temperature (1)

kittenjoy (1009875) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717731)

Firstly, it's the processor that whines, and there's a fix for that, secondly if you manually up the fan speed the only way you'll get the Macbook Pro hot is while compressing video (which takes forever) or playing games. You would be doing neither of these while the computer is in your lap (if you're an ordinary individual). I suppoe you're special though.

Re:Temperature (1)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718109)

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.

Not hot at all (1)

beefstu01 (520880) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718601)

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.

Re:Temperature (1)

Matey-O (518004) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718849)

get smcFanControl. It made my mbp cucumber coooooool.

Re:Temperature (1)

pavera (320634) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718925)

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 virtually silent.

Chips also run cooler--What about power? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16717133)

The performance gains are modest. But even with performance increase, there's a modest gain in cooling. I wonder if there are any gains in power consumption or increased battery life. Anyone know?

Yay! Now who would have thought this? (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717155)

Faster chip brings faster performance!

Intel Macs - Overpriced POS (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16717167)

Does Apple even give a crap about hardware quality anymore?

Apple laptops are starting to look like the fault ridden Xbox 360 - huge numbers of people constantly reporting a variety of hardware problems and a tiny hardcore Apple fanbase desperately trying to downplay the issues.

There was a time when Apple had pride in their hardware.

Re:Intel Macs - Overpriced POS (1)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717371)

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 anymore - an Apple desktop will last for 5-10 years with no problems - but it's a nightmare to lug about ;-)

Re:Intel Macs - Overpriced POS (1)

johnpaul191 (240105) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717795)

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 story about tech support or some wonky product, but nobody i personally know. even people i know that run out an buy Rev A products seem to do fine.

i'm typing this on a core 2 duo iMac, and while this basic form factor goes back to the G5 iMac, it is slightly revised when they popped in the CPU upgrade. no problems here. my iPods have worked a-ok. my G4 tower is 6.5 years old and it still chugs along. i also work in an university edu environment that is 100 percent Mac and we have not had any significant Mac failures in the last 14 years that i have been there. i think about 10 years ago we have a power supply go bad on a machine under 2 years old. that's really about it. it really makes me wonder if you just hear more about people's issues. is it law firms hoping for class action cases? just angry consumers with a lot of bottled up anger? i have no idea. no matter what it is, i have not been scared off of Apple hardware. because of the university setting (a radio station) i have sworn off a lot of manufacturers of audio gear, but nothing like that with Macs.

i guess there are no actual statistics available for how many people have issues, just some survey over consumer satisfaction?

What was benchmarked? (2, Insightful)

laffer1 (701823) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717243)

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 :)

Re:What was benchmarked? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16717431)

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.

Something like this? [macworld.com] . GFE.

If you'd take a few minutes to look this stuff up, you'd find everything you're looking for. Don't bitch just because it's not all on one page.

Re:What was benchmarked? (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718151)

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.

Re:What was benchmarked? (1)

muuh-gnu (894733) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718665)

> The MacBook Pro is a Mac, not a PC.

Besides running some other OS than the most PCS i failt to seee why a "Mac" isnt an Apple PC, apple just happens to call a "Mac".

> Why would anyone compare it to a Dell or Toshiba that runs Winblows?

To check how it compares to other PCs?

> 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.

Then youre not the target group for such an article and you can easily click it off.

Re:What was benchmarked? (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718779)

Besides running some other OS than the most PCS i failt to seee why a "Mac" isnt an Apple PC, apple just happens to call a "Mac".
Macs only have one mouse button, a PC would have two or more. MacOS X doesn't run (legally) on any machine but a Mac. So there! *stomps off to his room*

Apple, Schmapple.. (-1, Redundant)

Channard (693317) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717437)

What really sold me on the Apple Mac Mini was the OS. But given that Apples seem to cost more than equivalent PCs, 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.

Re:Apple, Schmapple.. (1)

bealzabobs_youruncle (971430) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717565)

This is a stale argument, you could certainly build a PC cheaper but I doubt you could buy a comparable OEM PC any cheaper than an iMac. When people compare apples to Apples (pun proudly intended) properly the Apple is at least equal to if not lower in price. Take a Dell XPS 200 and compare it to the 20" iMac or an HP S7600Y against a Mac mini Core Duo, factor in iLife and OS X and there is little room for debate.

Re:Apple, Schmapple.. (0, Troll)

edschurr (999028) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718417)

(Sorry this turned out long. You can skim large paragraphs tho, except the first.)

"Apples" to apples is only relevant if one is considering the smaller set of OEM computers. Those who are like myself who builds his own computer does so to get a cheaper price and to allocate my money to specific quality parts and away from others (eg. spend $100CAD less on the video card and get nicer ram or the better Core 2 Duo). (I don't care much about overclocking and the act of putting things together.) But if I knew what OS X were like, I might want to get an Apple system for it, and I would hope they do choose quality parts given they are called "Premium" so often.

So let's see what Apple offers at $1700 (dual core, 2x1GB fast ram, and high-end video card, expandability): The closest Mac Pro was $2600. But I had to go for the cheaper ram than what I wanted for price, and was forced to spend money on PC5300 instead of my choice of PC4200 (could be getting a deal there tho). I was forced to buy a second CPU so I got the cheapest one, again to help the price; I would guess the Xeon's are more expensive than the Core 2 Duo I wanted, but I couldn't find the price quickly so ignore this. I was forced to buy a hard-drive--I have one already at home. The video card isn't quite the one I wanted but I'll ignore that. Like with the hard-drive, I would gut my computer for its DVD writer, but I have to buy one again from Apple. $900 more for something that may be faster in some regards, but isn't even exactly what I want. The case looked to be pretty damn nice though.

So obviously, the Mac Pro is not for me.

The 20" iMac looks to be close feature-wise. In customization I was forced to buy a hdd again, I picked the better cpu which seemed overpriced compared to the prices floating around in my head from yesterdays shopping/research/planning of my next computer. Of course I must be paying more for the LCD I don't want, since I have a 19" CRT at home which is just fine. I couldn't pick the right video card, so I'm stuck paying for one to be replaced. How exactly do you install a video card into this thing though? I guess I'll choose the better but still poor one instead. Oh, and there is roughly zero expandability. OK, it comes to $2400 for a underpowered computer I don't want. $700 more than the one I'm planning to build/buy, which is faster in it seems every regard. Slower to hook up that video cable I suppose.

So obviously, the iMac is not for me.

IIRC, Dell lets you do very extensive customization. When going Apple there isn't much variation you can do. I guess Apple is missing the price-point that I hang out at.

And I don't even know if I would like OS X or not. But it's a bit moot when they don't make a computer for me.

Re:Apple, Schmapple.. (1)

kkwst2 (992504) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718615)

The Xeons in the Mac Pro are indeed quite a bit more expensive than the Core 2 Duos. In fact, for $2600 the Mac Pro is a pretty damn good deal. For everything else, I would agree that you can get more hardware for your money elsewhere.

Re:Apple, Schmapple.. (1)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717667)

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.

Re:Apple, Schmapple.. (1)

kkwst2 (992504) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718563)

Whether it is worth it or not is completely subjective. It might be worth it for you. It's not for me. And yes, I've used OSX enough to decide. The original point is not irrelevant. Why can't you get an equivalent PC? You can certainly get one that is close enough for the differences to be trivial. Even if you couldn't, it wouldn't make the point "irrelevant", just impossible to prove. But you can, so it is (possible to prove, that is). I can configure a more powerful Thinkpad for at least $200 cheaper than a similar Macbook Pro. The Thinkpad doesn't have a camera, but has a higher resolutions screen, better graphics card, Wireless N (if you want it), and most importantly (for me) the pointer-nipple known as Trackpoint. For what I use a notebook for (CAD, finite element post-processing), there is just no comparison. Obviously others find the the Macbook Pro design and OSX superior and thus are quite willing to pay more for less hardware. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

Re:Apple, Schmapple.. (1)

toddhisattva (127032) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717723)

And if Apple charged the same as Microsoft for similar OS product, then you're not going to save any money.

Re:Apple, Schmapple.. (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717735)

``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.

Re:Apple, Schmapple.. (1)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717995)

Macs don't cost more than equivalent PCs. In fact, the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro are thousands less than their Dell equivalents.

Re:Apple, Schmapple.. (0, Redundant)

kkwst2 (992504) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718425)

Bullshit. See my other post. Macs do cost more. That's fine, you can make a good argument they should, but they cost more. Comparing it to Dell and then upgrading it with their horribly overpriced upgrades is not a valid argument. Only idiots do that. The Mac Pro IS the one exception, although I can still configure a faster equivalent PC from someplace like Monarch for a little cheaper, (with XP/Vista upgrade instead of OSX). I am guessing that Intel is giving Apple a significant price break on the processors.

Re:Apple, Schmapple.. (1)

DDLKermit007 (911046) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718431)

They aren't thousands. Remove one zero and you'll be right. Your usually talking $300-$400 less.

Re:Apple, Schmapple.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16718543)

Smoking some of that Steve Jobs crack, are you?

Re:Apple, Schmapple..All Apple Would Have To Do (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718003)

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?

Re:Apple, Schmapple.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16718117)

What really sold me on the Apple Mac Mini was the OS... I'd be using a PC and OSX rather than splashing out the extra cash for an Apple.

The only thing more pathetic than a PC user is a PC user trying to be a Mac user. We have a name for you people: switcheurs.

There's a good reason for your vexation at the Mac's holistic approach to platform design: You don't speak its language. Remember that the Mac was designed by artists [atspace.com] , for artists [atspace.com] , be they poets [atspace.com] , musicians [atspace.com] , or avant-garde mathematicians [atspace.com] . A shiny new Mac can introduce your frathouse hovel to a modicum of good taste, but it can't make Mac users out of dweebs [atspace.com] and squares [atspace.com] like you.

So don't force what doesn't come naturally. You'll be much happier if you stick to an OS that matches your personality. And you'll be doing the rest of us a favor, too; you leave Macs to Mac users, and we'll leave beige to you.

Interesting? (1)

warrior_s (881715) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717461)

Performance of 2.33 GHz model with 1 and 2 GB of RAM is almost same. why does doubling of RAM is not increasing the performance?.. but it sure does increase the price

15-inch MacBook Pro/2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (2GB RAM) 226 1:10 0:57 2:07 0:51 0:58 72.9 2:22 15-inch MacBook Pro/2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (1GB RAM) 222 1:11 0:57 2:07 0:51 0:58 72.1 2:39

Re:Interesting? (1)

warrior_s (881715) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717487)

Sorry about the formatting in previous one

Performance of 2.33 GHz model with 1 and 2 GB of RAM is almost same. why does doubling of RAM is not increasing the performance?.. but it sure does increase the price

15-inch MacBook Pro/2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (2GB RAM) 226 1:10 0:57 2:07 0:51 0:58 72.9 2:22

15-inch MacBook Pro/2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo (1GB RAM) 222 1:11 0:57 2:07 0:51 0:58 72.1 2:39

Re:Interesting? (1)

be-fan (61476) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717733)

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.

64 bit is the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16717533)

Faster and cooler and less power is not the point.

The point is that core 2 is a 64-bit processor. Core 1 was only a 32-bit processor. That may not matter for Joe Web Surfer, but it represents a significant limit on the future of Core 1 machines.

(Core 2 also supports the nx bit, which is hardly a panacea, but has its place in an overall security strategy. Without it, memory tricks have to be used that end up costing performance. Usually not very much, but some.)

Tired of this (0, Offtopic)

BeeBeard (999187) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717539)

I'm getting tired of seeing all these bullshit, tomshardware-like Apple stories. Does anybody have an idea about what I can do to get Appledot stories all up out of my grill when I go to the main page? I've thought about going to, for example, politics.slashdot.org, games.slashdot.org, etc. individually, but I don't want to miss a story of value that is not in any one individual category. Any ideas? Anyone? Bueller?

Re:Tired of this (3, Informative)

wbren (682133) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717577)

1. Go to your Slashdot account preferences page
2. Click the "Homepage" link at the top of that page ( http://hardware.slashdot.org/users.pl?op=edithome [slashdot.org] )
3. Uncheck the Apple section

Hope that helps.

Gracias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16718523)

That worked like gangbusters, and I also availed myself of the chance to filter out most of the other uninteresting garbage on the site. Seeing that piece of crap article marked the first time I ever felt inspired enough to customize my Slashdot preferences, and for whatever reason, I kept seeing the wrong preferences bar.

I'm posting as AC, because apparently if you have moderation points and are in fact also an asshole, then you abhor the idea of people actually receiving helpful information in the Slashdot forums. And if you are an asshole and DON'T have mod points, then you just can't control yourself and can't pass on the chance to mock others by posting chiding comments. (Hi DDLKermit007!!! "Your" the best!!11! )

Hey, thanks again.

-BeeBeard

Re:Tired of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16717599)

If you're going to complain, please RTFM first.

Thanks.

Re:Tired of this (2, Insightful)

DDLKermit007 (911046) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718443)

Your kidding me...you have to ask that? What the hell are you doing on /. if you can't figure that out?

This was more than just a chip swap. (4, Informative)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Pontless benchmarks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16717601)

I do not know about the rest of you, but when I am looking at benchmarks I'm interested in how the computer performs in relation to the one that I have now and not to the previous almost similar model. Is it worth the cost to buy a new computer? Will I gain anything? Everyone already knows each new computer is slightly better than the last. The only one these number will mean anything too are people that recently bought a MacBook Pro and they are not likely to buy another one right now anyway.

Re:Pontless benchmarks (1)

davebarnes (158106) | more than 7 years ago | (#16718547)

AC,

I agree.
To me the point of a benchmark is not to tell me how this week's machine compares with last week's.
To me the value of a benchmark lies in telling me if it is worth it for me to replace my "old piece of crap". That is, I want benchmark comparisons between this week and last year (or the year before that).
All of this information (for Macs) is actually on the Macworld website. You just have to dig for it.
I did for myself and put it at http://www.marketingtactics.com/Speedmark.html [marketingtactics.com] ,dave

Battery Life (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717765)

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?

Re:Battery Life (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717801)

``Anybody know what sort of battery life to expect out of these machines?'' ...and the answer, according to the MacBook Pro specs from Apple [apple.com] , is up to 5 hours for the 15" model, and 5.5 hours for the 17" model.

Re:Battery Life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16717939)

And they also say the 60GB iPod (5G) has 14 hours or more of battery life.

Pffft

Re:Battery Life (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16718461)

I could get at least a good four hours out of my MacBook. With my new Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro it is closer to 3:30, sometimes less, never more. These tests are completely unscientific and just based on observations over normal use from the last few days.

I bought one, and it's worth the price (2, Informative)

SystemFault (876435) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717855)

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 either. For developers, both X Window and Xcode require additional installation steps.

For those who can accept a sligntly slower CPU and half the memory (128 MB vs 256 MB) graphics, a savings of US$500 can be had by getting the base model and using the cash to upgrade the main memory from 1 GB to 2 GB (or 3 GB).

Stupid Headline (2, Interesting)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

I have one. It rocks. (1)

Soong (7225) | more than 7 years ago | (#16717965)

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.

Is this a 64-bit machine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16718025)

I've been following some debate [macintouch.com] on Macintouch about whether or not to consider this a 64-bit laptop. Apparently the processor is but the memory bus isn't. Or something.

What's the real deal as far as compatibility w/64-bit Leopard goes?

Despite what the fanbois say.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16718359)

Macs are now like ANY OTHER SYSTEM. Benchmarking them is pointless.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>