MacBook Pro Benchmarks 234
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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. (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
They also have some benchmarks
http://www.macworld.com/2006/02/firstlooks/macboo
I suspect batterlife will varry depending if your running a native intel app vs a rosetta interpreted (ppc) app.
My MacBook Pro Benchmarks (Score:5, Informative)
MacBook Pro Performance Analysis [craigtheguru.com]
Yes. Intel Mac can Run Windows XP.. (Score:3, Informative)
Here is the link
http://www.osxbook.com/book/bonus/misc/vmware/ [osxbook.com]
Re:FireWire 800 Was Stupid (Score:3, Informative)
Re:FireWire 800 Was Stupid (Score:4, Informative)
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.