MacBook Pro Benchmarks

jfpoole writes "Geek Patrol has benchmarked a MacBook Pro and a PowerBook G4 using Geekbench, their benchmarking utility. It's impressive to see how well the MacBook Pro performs compared to the PowerBook G4 (at least when it comes to Universal Binary performance)." Their benchmarks aren't particularly surprising, and they lack the most important benchmark: Frames Per Second during Molten Core Combat (or as it is more commonly referred to since I made it up 5 seconds ago, the FPSDMCCMark, which is the only number I'm waiting for).

FPS in WOW

[Shishak]

I had a PowerBook G4 1Ghz, 1Gig RAM (all graphics set to lowest setting) and would get insane lag in Ironforge around the AH. I couldn't run my epic horse through that area without ending up in the ditch. I now have a MacBookPro, 2.0 Ghz, 2 Gigs RAM and can run around in IF with 0, none, NADA lag and 30-35 FPS. I have all options turned on and the highest resolution the laptop screen can handle. Crusing around WSG is fun as I don't get lagged to death

The MacBookPro is insanely fast. I'm not a big fan of the magnetic power cord, it seems to fall out too often with just a switch in body position. It is quite a bit hotter on my lap and I have had some random crashes while in WoW. Complete computer lock up, power down, restart to get it working again. (CTRL-ALT+Power)

I haven't gone into MC yet but will hopefully go tonight, we are killing domo so that should be some tasty lag.

All in all, I'm extremely happy with my MacBookPro

Re:Proxy for MC - Missing Bits

[DA-MAN]

You mean like missing half their bits?

No, the G4 is a 32-bit processor as well. Remember Apple never released a G5 laptop, and we are talking about laptops here. Had this been about the G5 iMac vs. the Intel iMac, you probably would have had a point though . . .

Re:yep, great benchmarks, but lacking in features.

[Yaztromo]

it HAS a FW400 port. it just doesnt do FW800 mode. its a complete mystery why that feature was so hard to add. it certainly wasnt space.

You're right -- it's the fact that no controller chipset from Intel supports FW800 that is the reason.

Apple went with Intel-based systems, including the chipset. Intel, so far as I've been able to determine through their website, has FW400 support in their chipsets, but no FW800. Adding a custom FW800 chip to the system would be non-trivial (as it's more than just space to drop in a chip -- you have to be able to connect it to the system bus somehow).

Yaz.

Re:"no firewire 800" Thank you Apple, didn't need

[AHumbleOpinion]

Oh don't worry, you are still paying for it. You just aren't getting it.

Doubtful, the Intel Macs would probably be a little more expensive if they had FW800 support. Assuming that it is even an option. I'm not sure who is manufacturing Apple's motherboards but I'm not sure if Intel manufactured boards ever got to FW800.

Re:battery life- about the same- more benchmarks

[acomj]

Macworld unscientific test (dvd playing) put the g4 at 4 minutes longer battery than the mac book pro.

They also have some benchmarks

http://www.macworld.com/2006/02/firstlooks/macbook firstlook/index.php [macworld.com]

I suspect batterlife will varry depending if your running a native intel app vs a rosetta interpreted (ppc) app.

My MacBook Pro Benchmarks

[craigtheguru]

I also performed some MacBook Pro benchmarks [craigtheguru.com] on the MacBook Pros introduced at Macworld and my results may be of interest. While the report only includes a 1.83 GHz MacBook Pro, it does include comparisons to G4 PowerBooks and a Dual G5 PowerMac.

MacBook Pro Performance Analysis [craigtheguru.com]

Yes. Intel Mac can Run Windows XP..

[ChrisA90278]

The Windows install disks don't install directly but you can get Linux to boot on an Intel Mac. This should be no surprze because Linux is open source and you can modify it to do what ever you want. OK so Linux is running, next you install VMware and create one or more virtual machines. Next you go get that Windows XP install CD and "it works" Next switch the virtual screen to full screen mode and you can't tell the rsult from "real windows". VMWare is NOT an emulator it best to think of VMware as a kind of "sandbox". OK so the procedure is not effortless but the end result is exactly what was desired.

Here is the link

http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/misc/vmware/ [osxbook.com]

Re:FireWire 800 Was Stupid

[rthille]

Umm, PCI-X 64bit 133MHz will give you 1Gbyte/second, or, about 10 times the 100MByte/second that FW800 burns.

Re:FireWire 800 Was Stupid

[illumin8]

That means, that if FW800 is on the PCI bus, it almost completely saturates the entire bus ITSELF.

Not true. The bandwidth of a 33mhz./32 bit PCI bus is roughly ~128 MB per second. The bandwidth of a FW800 interface is roughly ~82 MB a second. That's not complete saturation, and we're talking about the lowliest PCI bus available.

Throw it on a PCI 66 mhz./64 bit interface with ~ 512MB a second of throughput, or even better yet, a PCI-X 133 mhz./64 bit interface with ~ 1GB a second of bandwidth and you're not even scratching the surface of your available PCI bandwidth.