Benchmarks of Apple's new MacBook Pros find speeds 13%-53% faster
The addition of Intel's latest-generation Sandy Bridge processors has boosted the performance of Apple's new line of MacBook Pros by between 13 percent and 53 percent faster than their predecessors.
Speedmark 6.5 tests administered by Macworld found that the entry-level 13-inch MacBook Pro with a 2.3GHz Core i5 dual-core processor earned a score of 140, versus its predecessor's score of 106. That means the new 13-inch MacBook Pro is 35 percent faster than the model released last April.
While the new system was faster at "just about everything," it did fall short in playing the game Call of Duty 4, averaging 26 frames per second versus 33 frames in last year's model. This is due to the use of Intel's integrated HD Graphics 3000 in the Sandy Bridge processor, while last year's model included a discrete Nvidia graphics card.
The 13-inch 2.7GHz Core i7 MacBook Pro was 13 percent faster than last year's offering with a score of 155. It sports a 2.7GHz Core i7 processor, but again relies on Intel's discrete graphics.
The 15-inch MacBook Pro with 2.0GHz quad-core Core i7 MacBook Pro came in 33 percent faster than last year's 15-inch model with a 2.4GHz Core i5 dual-core system. And the 15-inch 2.2GHz Core i7 quad-core came in 38 percent faster than last year's model.
The new 17-inch MacBook Pro has similar specifications to the high-end 15-inch model, and was 53 percent faster than last year's 17-inch model. Both the new 15- and 17-inch MacBook Pros feature discrete Radeon HD 6750M graphics with 1GB of dedicated video memory that makes them display 31 percent more frames per second in Call of Duty 4.
Macworld also had the new MacBook Pros square off against Apple's iMac all-in-one desktop line, and found that the 2.0GHz 15-inch MacBook Pro beat out the entry-level 3.06GHz dual core Core i3 iMac by one speedmark point. They also found the 15- and 17-inch 2.2GHz MacBook Pros to be about 7 percent faster than the high-end standard configuration iMac with a 2.7GHz quad-core Core i5 processor.
For more, see AppleInsider's coverage of Apple's new line of MacBook Pros:
Apple's new 15- and 17-inch MacBook Pros feature quad-core i7 chips, AMD graphics
Apple's new 13-inch MacBook Pros sport dual-core Core i5, i7 chips
First Look: Inside Apple's fast new Thunderbolt port on MacBook Pros
Teardown of Apple's 15-inch MacBook Pro finds large Thunderbolt chip
Speedmark 6.5 tests administered by Macworld found that the entry-level 13-inch MacBook Pro with a 2.3GHz Core i5 dual-core processor earned a score of 140, versus its predecessor's score of 106. That means the new 13-inch MacBook Pro is 35 percent faster than the model released last April.
While the new system was faster at "just about everything," it did fall short in playing the game Call of Duty 4, averaging 26 frames per second versus 33 frames in last year's model. This is due to the use of Intel's integrated HD Graphics 3000 in the Sandy Bridge processor, while last year's model included a discrete Nvidia graphics card.
The 13-inch 2.7GHz Core i7 MacBook Pro was 13 percent faster than last year's offering with a score of 155. It sports a 2.7GHz Core i7 processor, but again relies on Intel's discrete graphics.
The 15-inch MacBook Pro with 2.0GHz quad-core Core i7 MacBook Pro came in 33 percent faster than last year's 15-inch model with a 2.4GHz Core i5 dual-core system. And the 15-inch 2.2GHz Core i7 quad-core came in 38 percent faster than last year's model.
The new 17-inch MacBook Pro has similar specifications to the high-end 15-inch model, and was 53 percent faster than last year's 17-inch model. Both the new 15- and 17-inch MacBook Pros feature discrete Radeon HD 6750M graphics with 1GB of dedicated video memory that makes them display 31 percent more frames per second in Call of Duty 4.
Macworld also had the new MacBook Pros square off against Apple's iMac all-in-one desktop line, and found that the 2.0GHz 15-inch MacBook Pro beat out the entry-level 3.06GHz dual core Core i3 iMac by one speedmark point. They also found the 15- and 17-inch 2.2GHz MacBook Pros to be about 7 percent faster than the high-end standard configuration iMac with a 2.7GHz quad-core Core i5 processor.
For more, see AppleInsider's coverage of Apple's new line of MacBook Pros:
Apple's new 15- and 17-inch MacBook Pros feature quad-core i7 chips, AMD graphics
Apple's new 13-inch MacBook Pros sport dual-core Core i5, i7 chips
First Look: Inside Apple's fast new Thunderbolt port on MacBook Pros
Teardown of Apple's 15-inch MacBook Pro finds large Thunderbolt chip
Comments
They could easily have has the best line out ever of MacBooks, still at least the 15-17" MacBooks have everything a pro could desire.
I am very pleased.
are teh macbook pros with discreet graphics OK for windows games? I am particularly interested in FPS games, and I know I will be playing much Duke Nukem Forever when it arrives this summer
I’m more interested in real world battery tests under various usage models. I would expect that idle that the new MBPs exceed the previous MBPs.
I haven't had a chance to look at GPU benchmarks. I know you and I both own the currrent 13" MBP. What do you think of the integrated graphics chip on the MBP compared to what we currently have?
I also never thought I would see a day moving foward where Apple would put out a product where they posted lower battery times. However I think Apple is rating differently now based on WIFI usage
on my 2.2ghz MBP 15" I can play TF2, SC2, WoW, and LFD2 all at max settings flawlessly. I have yet to install Windows and try out Bad Company 2.
I am very pleased.
Just saw your post after I posted...thanks for the answer!
Such a shame that Apple decided to hobble the 13" MacBook Pro with the pathetic intel integrated graphics chip.
They could easily have has the best line out ever of MacBooks, still at least the 15-17" MacBooks have everything a pro could desire.
If the overall performance is higher than before it?s hyperbolic to say it?s hobbled. While I would liked to have had a dGPU in the new 13? MBP that can?t happen without something else being removed, like the ODD, or being reduced, like the battery. The former would be great, the latter would be bad.
I say pick your battles. Is pathetic battery life worth getting a dGPU? Is still using the Nvidia 320M worth it if they have to keep using C2D? When you weigh the pros and cons I think this is the best move. It?s also the move that most predicted would happen. Nothing else really makes sense until they do a case change that can allow a larger logic board.
Bought last years' model and I knew that this would eventually happen, but having to see the leap of technology that Apple makes after having recently dropped thousands of dollars in cash on the quickly depreciating laptop makes me want to kill myself.
I have the current 13" MBP and I am really happy with it. One of the best MBPs I have ever owned.
In some ways its does suck how fast technology changes but we we always wait around we would never buy anything.
Such a shame that Apple decided to hobble the 13" MacBook Pro with the pathetic intel integrated graphics chip.
They could easily have has the best line out ever of MacBooks, still at least the 15-17" MacBooks have everything a pro could desire.
cant speak to the current models, but when I had the opportunity to open up a few MBPs of the first unibody generation (first ones with sealed battery) to upgrade some ram, I can tell you that it is (or was with that generation anyhow) purely engineering and not marketing, you simply cant fit the GPU and fan in the current 13 inch chasie its just too thin and narrow, its pretty amazing that it can fit everything in that is in, I have never seen such tight space margins on a laptop.
What do you think of the integrated graphics chip on the MBP compared to what we currently have?
It?s better than the alternatives while they are still keeping the internal optical drive.
I also never thought I would see a day moving foward where Apple would put out a product where they posted lower battery times. However I think Apple is rating differently now based on WIFI usage
There previous usage was based on WiFi productivity, and while Apple and Sony had the most stringent testing methods they still didn?t represent ?real world? usage. Note that Steve mentioned this change in their testing method during the MBA presentation last October.
I get a solid 6.5 to 7.5 hours of actual usage from my10-hour battery MBP doing my normal routine so I assume there new method is somewhat inline with my usage patterns. I suspect that it?s not any worse than before and likely a little better but I want to see comparisons (using a new battery in an last gen MBP, not one with a few hundred cycles on the battery, like mine).
I love how they compared the MBP's to the iMac's. While impressive that the MBP's scored higher, it's not too unexpected as the iMac's were just as in need of an update as the MBP's.
Still the 53% improvement for the 17" is really nice. Glad to see they finally gave the MBP's quad-core's and GPU's with 1GB of memory.
We knew the graphics would take a hit on the MBP's. Nothing to be done about that without adding a discrete card, which might happen in next year's redesign if Apple finally drops the SuperDrive from the MB line.
No AACS support for Blu-ray movie playback in SL or Lion. No change in the speed of the SuperDrive since 2007, I recall correctly. That?s a pretty long stagnation. I can?t see how we can not expect Apple to depreciate the ODD with the next case change.
It?s better than the alternatives while they are still keeping the internal optical drive.
There previous usage was based on WiFi productivity, and while Apple and Sony had the most stringent testing methods they still didn?t represent ?real world? usage. Note that Steve mentioned this change in their testing method during the MBA presentation last October.
I get a solid 6.5 to 7.5 hours of actual usage from my10-hour battery MBP doing my normal routine so I assume there new method is somewhat inline with my usage patterns. I suspect that it?s not any worse than before and likely a little better but I want to see comparisons (using a new battery in an last gen MBP, not one with a few hundred cycles on the battery, like mine).
Yeah I am not sure why the optical drive isn't a thing of the past by now. Nice to see you back posting.
By the way I decided to break down and get myself an MBA. I use it more now then my MBP.
http://www.laptopmag.com/review/lapt...11.aspx?page=1
It looks like that the battery life lasts about 5:25. I do wish Apple could bring more lightness and longer battery life into MBP. Under 2kg in weight, and ten hours of battery life would be a sweet spot for MBP.
Bought last years' model and I knew that this would eventually happen, but having to see the leap of technology that Apple makes after having recently dropped thousands of dollars in cash on the quickly depreciating laptop makes me want to kill myself.
That's a little harsh isn't it?
I really like the $1800 15 inch, it looks sweet. just wondering if anyone can give me some idea if its any good for windows gaming? not looking for a gaming laptop, I want a high end nice professional laptop that can boot windows and play games from time to time.
are teh macbook pros with discreet graphics OK for windows games? I am particularly interested in FPS games, and I know I will be playing much Duke Nukem Forever when it arrives this summer
I play games on my 2010 MBP using Win7 and Bootcamp, and it's pretty good. I play NFS:Shift, L4D, L4D2, BF2:BC, Crysis, Civ V, HL2 and Fallout 3 etc in 1680*1050 on my 15" machine.
I usually play in full detail, but with no AA.
Such a shame that Apple decided to hobble the 13" MacBook Pro with the pathetic intel integrated graphics chip.
They could easily have has the best line out ever of MacBooks, still at least the 15-17" MacBooks have everything a pro could desire.
I say pick your battles. Is pathetic battery life worth getting a dGPU? Is still using the Nvidia 320M worth it if they have to keep using C2D? When you weigh the pros and cons I think this is the best move. It’s also the move that most predicted would happen. Nothing else really makes sense until they do a case change that can allow a larger logic board.
Heard a knowledgeable engineer speculate that a mid-level dGPU in an external closure hooked to TB is technically feasible and could improve graphics performance on the 13" some - but given the engineering and software involved, and the likely price tag (and kludginess factor) seems like a long-shot for such a small market niche.
However, if TB scales up by 10x over the next few years as projected, all kinds of never before possible enhancements become not only possible but nearly inevitable on ALL TB-equipped computers.
Also, the 1st gen TBolt internal parts are big enough to help 'splain why no room (with the, yes, superfluous ODD still the biggest single component) for a discrete GPU in the 13" case space.
Bought last years' model and I knew that this would eventually happen, but having to see the leap of technology that Apple makes after having recently dropped thousands of dollars in cash on the quickly depreciating laptop makes me want to kill myself.
That's a little harsh isn't it?
Jump! Jump! (J/K, really....)