New MacBooks offer marginal speed improvements (benchmarks)
New 13-inch MacBook notebooks quietly introduced by Apple on Thursday offer up to a 10 percent performance increase on some tasks over their predecessors, official company benchmarks show.
Earlier this month, Apple ran performance tests on a pre-production 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo-based MacBook and then compared the results to those of its original 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo-based MacBook introduced last year.
A similar series of tests were performed by the Cupertino-based company back in April on its 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo?based MacBook (introduced in May), the results of which were similarly compared to the original 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo-based MacBook.
In an iPhoto common application task -- which involves importing 100 photos into an existing iPhoto library containing 2000 photos and then exporting those photos as a web page, a movie file, and preparing them for iDVD -- the new 2.2GHz MacBook was 35 percent faster than the original 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo model, while the 2.16GHz MacBook introduced in May was just 25 percent faster.
A similar iTunes application test -- which measures the speed of importing a song from the hard drive to the iTunes library, encoding a video clip for iPod, and encoding 60 minutes of music and burning it to a CD -- showed the new 2.2GHz MacBook to have a 6 percent edge over previous-generation 2.16GHz MacBook.
Apple's new 2.2GHz MacBook vs. original 2.0GHz MacBook Core Duo
Apple's 2.16GHz MacBook vs. original 2.0GHz MacBook Core Duo
Apple also tested the new 2.2GHz MacBook under several other iLife applications, but altered those tests since April, making any comparison inconclusive. It should also be noted that iLife itself has been upgraded since both previous benchmarks were conducted, though Apple made no mention of this fact in its test results.
Earlier this month, Apple ran performance tests on a pre-production 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo-based MacBook and then compared the results to those of its original 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo-based MacBook introduced last year.
A similar series of tests were performed by the Cupertino-based company back in April on its 2.16GHz Core 2 Duo?based MacBook (introduced in May), the results of which were similarly compared to the original 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo-based MacBook.
In an iPhoto common application task -- which involves importing 100 photos into an existing iPhoto library containing 2000 photos and then exporting those photos as a web page, a movie file, and preparing them for iDVD -- the new 2.2GHz MacBook was 35 percent faster than the original 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo model, while the 2.16GHz MacBook introduced in May was just 25 percent faster.
A similar iTunes application test -- which measures the speed of importing a song from the hard drive to the iTunes library, encoding a video clip for iPod, and encoding 60 minutes of music and burning it to a CD -- showed the new 2.2GHz MacBook to have a 6 percent edge over previous-generation 2.16GHz MacBook.
Apple's new 2.2GHz MacBook vs. original 2.0GHz MacBook Core Duo
Apple's 2.16GHz MacBook vs. original 2.0GHz MacBook Core Duo
Apple also tested the new 2.2GHz MacBook under several other iLife applications, but altered those tests since April, making any comparison inconclusive. It should also be noted that iLife itself has been upgraded since both previous benchmarks were conducted, though Apple made no mention of this fact in its test results.
Comments
What's important is finding out how much faster and more full featured the GMA X3100 chipset is. That's what I keenly wait for.
Also with percentage improvements you can't just subtract numbers, e.g., 135% faster - 125% faster = 10% faster.
But yes, it is going to be faster. It's 33MHz faster, the bus speed is 133MHz faster (= more memory bandwidth). The graphics are faster, where relevant, and the OS is faster, where relevant.
Were the first ones done using Tiger, and the latter ones using Leopard?
Also with percentage improvements you can't just subtract numbers, e.g., 135% faster - 125% faster = 10% faster.
But yes, it is going to be faster. It's 33MHz faster, the bus speed is 133MHz faster (= more memory bandwidth). The graphics are faster, where relevant, and the OS is faster, where relevant.
you can go upto 4GB where as the previous one 2GB limit, that way it will be faster if you have more RAM.
Earlier this month, Apple ran performance tests on a pre-production 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo-based MacBook and then compared the results to those of its original 2.0GHz Intel Core Duo-based MacBook introduced last year.
when was that? DAWN today????
i'm sort of mad. I know that technology will advance and what not, but now the processer is the same as the one in the baseline macbook pro, which i have. The black macbook pro has 160 gb hard drive, whilst the macbook pro has 120. Really the only difference between the two of them now is that mine is offered with 2gb of ram while the other is offered with one, and the video card is better than mine than in the other. this doesn't really make an almost 700 dollar price difference reasonable.
The way I see it, Apple has always been priced very Elite. Look at the $1,099 dollar MacBook, still no DVD-RW? Even $500 dollar laptops get one these days. I don't understand Apple pricing at all. Same Intel spec laptops are always much much cheaper, so the real question is; how much are you willing to pay extra for Apple?
I don't feel that the headline reflects the data that was presented. Very misleading to say the least.
i'm sort of mad. I know that technology will advance and what not, but now the processer is the same as the one in the baseline macbook pro, which i have. The black macbook pro has 160 gb hard drive, whilst the macbook pro has 120. Really the only difference between the two of them now is that mine is offered with 2gb of ram while the other is offered with one, and the video card is better than mine than in the other. this doesn't really make an almost 700 dollar price difference reasonable.
So the bigger, LED backlit screen, EC/34 slot, FW800, lit keyboard and extra USB port means nothing, or did you not notice those features? Granted, maybe they aren't worth that much to you, but it's part of the value proposition.
"New MacBooks offer marginal speed improvements (benchmarks)"
I don't feel that the headline reflects the data that was presented. Very misleading to say the least.
I agree. The MBP upgrades were a lot smaller. There's a huge difference between that negligible CPU upgrade in MBP and the MacBook update.
i'm sort of mad. I know that technology will advance and what not, but now the processer is the same as the one in the baseline macbook pro, which i have. The black macbook pro has 160 gb hard drive, whilst the macbook pro has 120. Really the only difference between the two of them now is that mine is offered with 2gb of ram while the other is offered with one, and the video card is better than mine than in the other. this doesn't really make an almost 700 dollar price difference reasonable.
Why oh why would you possibly be mad? I have that same comp (although I upgraded to the 160 HD, I agree that is a bit chincy by Apple). You have an outstanding machine. In addition to the extra RAM and much much better graphics card, you're also forgetting about the larger, higher resolution LED screen, firewire 800, express card slot, aluminum enclosure, thinner, extra USB port. The MBP will probably get updated at MWSF and surge ahead again.
This is just the way it goes. The macbook will get pretty close in specs, then the MBP gets updated and pulls away again.
To be mad is pure silliness. How long have you had your MBP? Has the time you've been able to enjoy it now not worth anything or diminished in any way by this update? Of course not.
I'm still waiting for a redesign :P
That'll probably be at least another year- at the least. What's wrong with the design? It's the pro that need a redesign. The MacBooks are directly responsible for Apple's increase in computer percentage. That's why they are getting such a speed boost because evryone loves them. Why would they tamper with something that has been so successful at this point?
So the bigger, LED backlit screen, EC/34 slot, FW800, lit keyboard and extra USB port means nothing, or did you not notice those features? Granted, maybe they aren't worth that much to you, but it's part of the value proposition.
I agree; he hasn't figured the added value proposition of the Pro. I realize it's probably part of the whole MBP video card set-up, but having a full-sized dual-link DVI output that drives a 30" monitor instead of mini-DVI that needs an "optional" adapter to output to a 1920x1200 res 23" Cinema display means a lot to me. That and all the features listed above add up to a lot more than $700, especially since you can't add them on as third party upgrades to a MacBook.
Now if Apple would offer an 2.8GHz Extreme Duo processor, drop the FW400 from the MBP (keeping the FW800 port, since it's backward compatible with just a cable) and add an eSATA port, I'd be jumping on a new MBP in a heartbeat.
The way I see it, Apple has always been priced very Elite. Look at the $1,099 dollar MacBook, still no DVD-RW? Even $500 dollar laptops get one these days. I don't understand Apple pricing at all. Same Intel spec laptops are always much much cheaper, so the real question is; how much are you willing to pay extra for Apple?
Not to mention that MacBooks remain stuck on little 13" screens, while on the PC side, 15" is pretty much the norm these days.
But I guess Steve is terrified of losing screen size as a differentiator between the MB and MB Pro, so you gotta fork over $2000 if you want a Mac laptop with a screen larger than 13". Tsk.
The truly sad thing? Macs are 'hot' right now and kicking much ass (particularly in the US notebook market) but they could be truly ANNIHILATING the competition if they were 'hot' and a better value as well.
But Steve's gotta have his margins fatter than Star Jones' buns, so here we are.
I guess when 17" becomes commonplace on the PC side, we'll finally see 15" on the MBs.
Greed... is GOOD. Right, Steve?
.
Some things to look at OTHER than processor, RAM, and drives, when comparing two machines of any kind:
* Chipset and frontside bus
* Ethernet speed
* Firewire and Firewire 800
* Lighted keys
* Sudden motion sensor
* Bluetooth 2.0 EDR
* WiFi and WiFi G
* Portability: size and weight--and size of the POWER SUPPLY too
* Remote control
* Battery life
* GPU and VRAM
* Metal case vs. soft, scratchable plastic
* Screen size and res
* Expresscard slot
* Noise and heat control
* Overall quality and reliability of components
* Bundled software
Etc.
Those things ALL add cost--and user benefit--no mater whether they come from Apple or Acer or HP.
When people compare a cheap Acer to a Dell or HP, they look at everything. Yet when it comes time to compare a cheap Acer to a Mac, they somehow can only see MHz and GB
As for how people can feel to see all the differences between a MacBook and a MacBook Pro... I just can't explain it. The specs are all right there, from GPU to screen size to lighted keys to epansion slot.
And as for screen size: 15" isn't always better than 13". 13" is better for portability, not just for price. It's a size that really makes SENSE, which is why PC makers do in fact use that size too.
And lastly, as for Apple being able to sell zillions more if they did "X"... that only applies if you're certain that Intel and other suppliers can provide that many more components. Apple takes all things into account and winds up with a price that--surprise!--is NOT more expensive than truly COMPARABLE name-brand Windows PCs with similar features and decent software bundles. Despite the often-repeated myth. (And the Mac can run Windows too anyway.)
See http://www.systemshootouts.org - I'm sure they'll be updated soon for the new MacBooks. They compare in a very fair way, since everyone's needs are different. They configure a Mac against a name-brand PC of the same price, and list what each one has that the other lacks. They won't ever be identical (anymore than some Dell is identical to some HP) but the comparison clearly shows the Mac is NOT falling short compared to a PC of the same price. And it's often ahead in big ways. Certain Macs are far CHEAPER than an equivalent name-brand PC. You can't make a blanket statement that all Macs cost more: it hasn't been true for ages.
The question is, are they being priced within shouting distance of the PC side, even considering the fact that its a Mac? I have my doubts there, which is why I won't be upgrading my Mac notebook 'til I see some better value propositions from Apple.
Ah well.
.