Benchmarks show Core i7 MacBook Pros offer 50% speed boost
Preliminary benchmark tests with Apple's new 15-inch Intel Core i7 MacBook Pro shows the notebook's CPU has gained a 50 percent performance boost over its Core 2 Duo predecessor.
In a series of quick benchmark tests conducted by Gizmodo, the 15-inch MacBook Pro with a Intel Core i7 2.66GHz processor came in significantly faster than the previous-generation notebook, powered by a Core 2 Duo processor. The April 2010 hardware performed about 50 percent better than a previous-generation 15-inch MacBook Pro with a 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo when compared head-to-head in Geekbench tests.
The latest hardware also posted significant performance gains in tests with Xbench, and re-encoding a file with Handbrake 64-bit improved a time of 32:19 on the Core 2 Duo processor to 19:54 on the Core i7. Results in Xbench were not as consistent, because the software has not been updated.
The initial tests confirm claims by Apple that its new Core i5 and Core i7 MacBook Pro models are the fastest Mac notebooks the company has ever released. The high-end models, announced Tuesday, start at $1,799 for the 15-inch MacBook Pro and $2,299 for the 17-inch MacBook Pro.
The tests also fall in line with previous benchmarks done with the processors on Windows PCs. Across the board, Intel's new mobile processors based on the Arrandale architecture offer improved speed and lower power consumption. Unlike the Core 2 Duo CPUs, Arrandale processors have the major northbridge chipset memory controller components built in.
Benchmarks credited to Gizmodo.
Tuesday's comparison tested only the CPUs of the computers, and did not take into account the upgraded Nvidia GeForce GT330M found in the latest 15-and 17-inch MacBook Pros.
In all, the new 15-inch and 17-inch MacBook Pro models are up to 50 percent faster than the previous systems, Apple has said. Intel's 32 nanometer process employed in the Intel Core i5 and i7 processors integrates the memory controller and Level 3 cache for faster access to system memory. In addition, "Hyper-Threading" technology improves data throughput by creating virtual processing cores, while Turbo Boost optimizes performance between the two processor cores, accelerating the system from 2.66 GHz to 3.06 GHz for intensive dual core tasks, and up to 3.33 GHz for single core tasks.
Even with the performance improvements, Apple claims the battery life on its latest notebooks has improved to between 8 and 9 hours on a single charge -- the longest-lasting Mac notebook battery ever. This is due largely to a new proprietary graphics switching feature developed by Apple and implemented in the high-end systems. The 15- and 17-inch MacBook Pros will dynamically switch between an integrated, low-power Intel graphics processor and a discrete Nvidia graphics chip, depending on the needs of the user and the power required by the application in use.
The Nvidia 330M is said to be more than twice as fast as the low-end 320M found exclusively in the new 13-inch model.
In a series of quick benchmark tests conducted by Gizmodo, the 15-inch MacBook Pro with a Intel Core i7 2.66GHz processor came in significantly faster than the previous-generation notebook, powered by a Core 2 Duo processor. The April 2010 hardware performed about 50 percent better than a previous-generation 15-inch MacBook Pro with a 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo when compared head-to-head in Geekbench tests.
The latest hardware also posted significant performance gains in tests with Xbench, and re-encoding a file with Handbrake 64-bit improved a time of 32:19 on the Core 2 Duo processor to 19:54 on the Core i7. Results in Xbench were not as consistent, because the software has not been updated.
The initial tests confirm claims by Apple that its new Core i5 and Core i7 MacBook Pro models are the fastest Mac notebooks the company has ever released. The high-end models, announced Tuesday, start at $1,799 for the 15-inch MacBook Pro and $2,299 for the 17-inch MacBook Pro.
The tests also fall in line with previous benchmarks done with the processors on Windows PCs. Across the board, Intel's new mobile processors based on the Arrandale architecture offer improved speed and lower power consumption. Unlike the Core 2 Duo CPUs, Arrandale processors have the major northbridge chipset memory controller components built in.
Benchmarks credited to Gizmodo.
Tuesday's comparison tested only the CPUs of the computers, and did not take into account the upgraded Nvidia GeForce GT330M found in the latest 15-and 17-inch MacBook Pros.
In all, the new 15-inch and 17-inch MacBook Pro models are up to 50 percent faster than the previous systems, Apple has said. Intel's 32 nanometer process employed in the Intel Core i5 and i7 processors integrates the memory controller and Level 3 cache for faster access to system memory. In addition, "Hyper-Threading" technology improves data throughput by creating virtual processing cores, while Turbo Boost optimizes performance between the two processor cores, accelerating the system from 2.66 GHz to 3.06 GHz for intensive dual core tasks, and up to 3.33 GHz for single core tasks.
Even with the performance improvements, Apple claims the battery life on its latest notebooks has improved to between 8 and 9 hours on a single charge -- the longest-lasting Mac notebook battery ever. This is due largely to a new proprietary graphics switching feature developed by Apple and implemented in the high-end systems. The 15- and 17-inch MacBook Pros will dynamically switch between an integrated, low-power Intel graphics processor and a discrete Nvidia graphics chip, depending on the needs of the user and the power required by the application in use.
The Nvidia 330M is said to be more than twice as fast as the low-end 320M found exclusively in the new 13-inch model.
Comments
Looks like we're back to the old dialogue again?
Non tech-saavy computer owner: "My computer is a 2.8 Core2Duo, so it's faster than your 2.66 i7."
Tech-savvy computer owner: "Errrr... no, mines a i7."
Non tech-saavy computer owner: "Nu-uh"
Tech-saavy computer owner: "Yuh-huh"
Non tech-saavy computer owner: "My dad can beat up your dad..."
Damn. That looks pretty good. Not to mention the faster graphics card.
My current, soon to be former, MBP is a 2.66GHz (the last pre-uni-body). I bet it tops 50%, especially the graphics card.
Time for an upgrade, methinks.
So, as it turns out, the speed isn't as important as achitecture.
Looks like we're back to the old dialogue again?
Yep, the megahertz, now gigahertz myth still lives.
Just ordered it from my local mac shop. 15" Hi-Res Glossy, 2.66GHz, 8GB, 128GB SSD. Plus CS5 upgrade preordered. Looking forward to design websites on my first mac. If I like it I'll swap my desktop PC with an iMac :]
Trust me. You'll like it.
Just ordered it from my local mac shop. 15" Hi-Res Glossy, 2.66GHz, 8GB, 128GB SSD. Plus CS5 upgrade preordered. Looking forward to design websites on my first mac. If I like it I'll swap my desktop PC with an iMac :]
Once you go Mac, you never go back, unless you're bi.
I like Apple's switching solution. It's nice that Apple really puts that kind of thought into making it seamless for the user. Try doing that on a Window's machine. You either use a high-horspower, battery-sucking GPU chip or a slow, inefficient GPU to save battery. Can't do both as I understand it.
Nice that Apple thinks ahead like that. Perhaps one day it will be done well on a single chip but this is good.
I'd like to see how the 2.4 and 2.53GHz i5 compare to the 2.53, 2.66 and 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo chips in the previous 15" MBPs. Also wouldn't hurt to see the benchmarks for the 2.93 and 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo chips in the previous 17" MBPs compared to the i5 and i7. It will help me decide between buying a new MBP, or previous/refurbished one at a discount.
You are to focused on CPU speed that is a mistake with Macs. Goe with the new to get all the other improvements. Some of those more impressive than the CPU.
Dave
This new refresh will be my first venture into buying apple computers. Plan is either a 15inch or 17inch, i7, 4 or 8 gigs, gloss hi-res screen.
I like Apple's switching solution. It's nice that Apple really puts that kind of thought into making it seamless for the user. Try doing that on a Window's machine. You either use a high-horspower, battery-sucking GPU chip or a slow, inefficient CPU to save battery. Can't do both as I understand it.
Nice that Apple thinks ahead like that. Perhaps one day it will be done well on a single chip but this is good.
It probably is done well on single chips, but the Intel GPU is baked right into the CPU package so it's likely impossible for any external GPU to match that kind of low power draw. It will almost always be more efficient to shut down the external GPU when it's not needed than to ignore the internal one and try to do it all by adjusting the external GPU.
Delivery between the 16th (hope so!) and the 22nd.
Here it is:
15-inch MacBook Pro
Ships: 2 - 4 Business days Delivers: Apr 16 - Apr 22 by 2-3 day shipping Part number: Z0J6
Configuration
$2,179.00
MacBook Pro 15-inch Hi-Res Antiglare Widescreen Display
Backlit Keyboard (English) & User's Guide
Accessory kit
2.66GHz Intel Core i7
4GB 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM - 2x2GB
500GB Serial ATA Drive @ 7200 rpm
SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD- RW)
MacBook Pro 15-inch Hi-Res Antiglare Widescreen Display
Backlit Keyboard (English) & User's Guide
**unless you were unlucky enough to purchase a 13" Macbook Pro**
The i7's are all well and good, but isnt the 13" laptop their best seller. No 50% speed increases there. Just a price increase for the British, and a small speed bump that hardly anyone will notice.
<< insert slow hand clap here >>
So, as it turns out, the speed isn't as important as achitecture.
That has been apparent ever since AMD started kicking Intel's butt a decode or more ago, when comparing clockspeed vs. clockspeed (or dollar for dollar, but that's a different point).
Clock speed used to form a part of the chip's name. It used to be everything. But not anymore.
In modern times, the architecture is just as important as the clockspeed.
I'd like to see how the 2.4 and 2.53GHz i5 compare to the 2.53, 2.66 and 2.8GHz Core 2 Duo chips in the previous 15" MBPs. Also wouldn't hurt to see the benchmarks for the 2.93 and 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo chips in the previous 17" MBPs compared to the i5 and i7. It will help me decide between buying a new MBP, or previous/refurbished one at a discount.
I agree completely. Would like to see these comparisons made.
I wish they would make it a little easier for those in the market to understand what processor is in each laptop (with model numbers), instead of hiding behind frequencies and CPU families.
The following links gives the CPU details and benchmarks from the previous top-end MacBook Pros (T9600), to the current models (i5-520M, i5-540M, i7-640M), plus enhanced mobile CPUs not used (i7-720QM, i7-820QM, i7-920XM). I would have thought Apple would have included a quad i7 mobile CPU at the prices they're charging, though the i7-640M (despite only having two cores with four threads) is a still mildly better performer than the quad-core, eight-threaded i7-720QM.
In order of benchmark performance --
http://ark.intel.com/Compare.aspx?id...60,43124,43126,
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-...st.2436.0.html
There is little doubt that battery life has a lot to do with their CPU choices. All of the quad-core mobile CPUs use a bit more power, making the performance trade-offs not worth it to the average power-user as the i7-620M appears to be the top-end, battery saving mobile CPU in Intel's processor line.
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_look...20+%40+2.67GHz
Their GPU choices are modest at best, but again probably are focused toward better battery life.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-...ist.844.0.html
It certainly would be nice to see Apple choosing something approaching this GPU (nVidia GTX 285M) --
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/vi...Force+GTX+285M
Instead of this GPU (nVidia GT 330M) --
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/vi...eForce+GT+330M
Not everyone runs their laptops on batteries 24/7....
I just wonder what's holding Apple back from making a high-end gaming computer. Though it's fairly certain they couldn't touch a Malibal Veda X8100 if you were to compare 'apples to Apples' at the same cost (excluding any consideration of OS) -- http://www.malibal.com/products/laptops/veda.shtml
Well, you can't please everybody....
I wonder what Intel thinks of Apple's advertising of Intel's integrated graphics chip. When performance is not needed, use Intel. When you need performance, switch to NVidia. Intel would like people to think their solution is the greatest thing since sliced bread but in reality, it's nowhere near what it should be.
I like Apple's switching solution. It's nice that Apple really puts that kind of thought into making it seamless for the user. Try doing that on a Window's machine. You either use a high-horspower, battery-sucking GPU chip or a slow, inefficient CPU to save battery. Can't do both as I understand it.
Nice that Apple thinks ahead like that. Perhaps one day it will be done well on a single chip but this is good.
The misinformation here is just unreal.
1) The Intel integrated on the new Arrandale processors is about equal to the performance of the nVidia 9400m everyone was so happy with (rightfully so) except it sucks next to no power. HD video acceleration too. Pretty cool for what it is - ultra low power, and dirt cheap (comes with the CPU). Most users will be using that Intel integrated 90%+ of the time and not even realize it.
2) "Apple's switching solution". I love this one especially. No, this is not Apple's own proprietary switching solution. This is, in fact, nVidia Optimus technology. It's been available on PC's for months now. Don't believe me? See here: nVidia Optimus
Apple doesn't "think like that". They're using technology developed by other companies that's been out on other devices for months already. This is nothing new.
Having said that, I do like Macs, and I will be upgrading my MBP. I just hate bad information
2) "Apple's switching solution". I love this one especially. No, this is not Apple's own proprietary switching solution. This is, in fact, nVidia Optimus technology. It's been available on PC's for months now. Don't believe me? See here: nVidia Optimus
Apple doesn't "think like that". They're using technology developed by other companies that's been out on other devices for months already. This is nothing new.
Then what about this AppleInsider article?
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...t_optimus.html
Not only is Apple late to the game, they aren't really bringing anything new to the table. I was waiting for this update to purchase, but was hoping for a little something extra.