Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

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).
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MacBook Pro Benchmarks

Comments Filter:
  • by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @05:01PM (#14787790) Journal
    Having owned a Powerbook G4 for almost a year now, I have no regrets. It's still going to take a while for them to get the kinks out. It's gonna be great when the 2nd revision comes out though!
  • by Anubis333 ( 103791 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @05:16PM (#14787897) Homepage
    Given that many of the same apps run on both Mac and PC platforms, why don't more people bench Mac vs. PC? I mean we are even talking about virtually the same architecture, the mac is now just another OS running on x86 hardware like Linux et al. I know it's interesting to see how the latest Mac stacks up against last years model, but how bout someone bench the latest Mac against it's contemporaries? The reason this isn't often done is because they usually get thrashed pretty bad, and feathers get ruffled (see: Adobe "PC Preferred" ad campaign, or Apple's SPEC processor benchmarks that were rejected because they were not completely legit). Windows always gets put against Linux, but Mac never seems to get benched against other platforms, and it is much, much closer to PC, as both platforms run many of the same apps. Just my two pennies...
  • Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by chrismcdirty ( 677039 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @05:17PM (#14787901) Homepage
    1.83GHz, at a time when Pentium4 processors run somewhere close to 3.80GHz. I think the MHz myth is close to buried. The new myth has to do with power consumption!
  • by plasmacutter ( 901737 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @05:17PM (#14787902)
    i guess those kexts, the existence of fairplay and the itunes store, the expansion of itunes to video, and the AACS standards are not convincing enough?

    Weather or not jobs likes it, these things are being loaded with DRM. I'm a loyal apple user, well used to be, but if this continues my g5 will be the last apple computer i buy.

    as for the firewire 800, my friend's 17 inch was bought in 2003(if my chronology is right) and had fw800. 3 years is a long time in the computing world.
  • If you want FW800 get an ExpressCard with it. Have you seen the inside pics of the MacBook? There is *NO* room for any other ports. It's packed full. They dropped the things that the fewest people use. Do people still use AV outs on a notebook? Every projector I've seen in the last several years had DVI/VGA hookups.
  • by idobi ( 820896 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @05:37PM (#14788096) Homepage
    Because if you benchmark commonly used apps now, it'd be pointless. Windows would win because native versions of Photoshop and a dozen other apps important to mac users are not yet available.
  • by rthille ( 8526 ) <web-slashdot@ranga[ ]rg ['t.o' in gap]> on Thursday February 23, 2006 @05:51PM (#14788221) Homepage Journal
    I can almost guarantee you that new intel macs will not support legacy bios. EFI is the new 'bios', and macs will never bother to support the old cruft.
  • by AHumbleOpinion ( 546848 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @06:16PM (#14788434) Homepage
    ... no firewire 800 for one thing ...

    Thank you Apple. I prefer not paying for things I do not need, SCSI in the old days, FW800 today. The few pros who need it can add it.
  • by linguae ( 763922 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @06:29PM (#14788544)
    You were probably modded 'troll' because you started on about DRM as if it actually mattered [emphasis mine]

    You're only proving plasmacutter's point about Apple zealots and DRM. DRM does matter. It matters because DRM tells us what we can and cannot do with the software/media that we bought. It matters because we, as in the user, have to give up control of our computers and files when we accept DRM. It matters because if nothing changes within the next few years, we're all going to be using locked down computers. I have lusted for Macs since OS X was released years ago, but since the Intel switch and Apple's stance with DRM, I have lost much of my enthusiasm with Macs and Apple in general. I don't want to buy a machine with TPM chips that may be used for much more evil purposes (such as locking down my media). I want to buy a machine that does what I, the customer wants, not what Apple or Microsoft or the **AA wants. Thankfully I can still buy and build some computers that aren't DRM-encumbered.

    DRM matters. That's the bottom line. And I, for one, am not going to give up my freedoms, even for "ease of use" and other minor benefits. Nobody should tell me what I can do with my media, or with a certain OS (points at Apple and OS X), but that's why I don't use that stuff anyway; I prefer to be [] free [] instead.

  • by DECS ( 891519 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @07:40PM (#14789080) Homepage Journal
    WOW plays poorly on G4 Macs because they have outdated graphics cards compared to gamer PCs.

    A 2003 Dual 2 GHz G5 will play WOW poorly if you have a vanilla video card, but not because of the G5. In fact, if you watch processor use while the game is "challenged," you'll notice that with dual G5s, the CPUs are running about 60%. Turn one off and the processor redlines, but the gameplay doesn't change drastically. Put in a higher end PCI card, and it plays like a totally different machine.

    The last revision of G5 Macs have PCIe, and better video cards. The Intel Macs have the same stuff or better. It's no surprise that WOW plays better with a much better video card.

    The G5/Core Duo are not being compared when you pit them against each other playing WOW; it's pretty much just the video card difference.

  • drm ignorance (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Kombinat ( 805502 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @08:00PM (#14789204) Homepage
    The ignorance of the drm really scares me. It makes clear that the silent tactic of introducing socalled trusted computing step by step actually works. I really would like to love Apple and get one of the MacBookPros but no way I spend money on this. People, take care, but maybe its to late already. What do you need to wake up? How about 'trusted' harddisk? ge/Storage_Use_Case_Whitepaper_v07.pdf []
  • As much as I hate to admit it, I bought a G4 iBook. Right about when Steve announced Apple would *Switch* (well, they wanted everybody else to switch, they just followed their own advice).

    And even though it pains me to admit it here in public, this being /., me being a geek (and I've been a geek for longer than most of you have been alive too), not only am I pertfectly happy with the performance of my machine (actually a G3 would probably have been fine too) but by the time it's old enough to need replacing, I sincerely hope Linux will be up to date on laptop hardware. So I can dump Apple altogether. Because I'm not really all that fond of it.

    So what do I do with that iBook ? Well I run Firefox (no, it doesn't look like the other Mac OS apps, what do I care?), CopyWrite (The *only* thing that would keep me using that machine; it exports to RTF though so I'd go back to OOo without trouble) and ssh. All that (mostly) on a WiFi link. Of course (apart from CopyWrite, which is an app I've been thinking of writing for years) I could do all of that on a random laptop without trouble. So why an Apple?

    Because :
    • It's cheap
    • It works (Linux can "just work" but you never know prior to buying the hardware and nowadays I no longer have time to tinker around)
    • It has the same or better battery life than a random laptop that Linux would not fully run on (i.e. not sleep with the screen closed, not support the built-in Wi-Fi, etc. And don't give me the "check beforehand bit, you *don't know* what you'll get beforehand. You expect revision B3 of the chipset and you get A2 (unsupported)...
    • The "unixy" bits come with the system. Yes, they are weird (the filesystem layout really takes some getting used to), the documentation is incomplete (a bitr like windows in that regard, with a bit of poking in a few websites and the dev documentation you get there eventually)
    • To sum it up: It's Unix and it works. All of it. If Sun had made it at that price I would have gotten that but they didn't.

    On the other hand, the Unix software often feels out of place, there is little "free" (as in libre) native software (for a Unix user, maybe it feels like heaven for a Windowe person), the interface isn't all that great, the bundled software isn't all that great either (iPhoto is probably the worst offender there, or maybe despite the few hours I spent trying to "get" it, I just didn't), in other words, don't listen to the hype, sliced bread is good, Apple is too, but that's it.

    Anyway to get back to the subject at hand, a lot of Linux people (those people who write Debian books, who admin hundreds of Linux machines, who have been running Linux for 6 to 10 years, whop have all their workstations running it at work and at home) have Apple laptops. Just because they are sick of the elusive driver search, of the great parameter poking game.

    I talked to a lot of them. Most of them aren't overly fond of the Apple interface. They all grew up with the Unix way of doing things. Things like sloppy focus. Or like virtual desktops. Yet they all got i/PowerBooks. Because that was better than spending ages getting Linux running on whatever hardware was available.

    So yes, poke fun at those people who (in your opinion) bought some overpriced hardware, but when I got a *very nice* Vaio laptop, the C1XD PictureBook (you can look it up if you like), you would have been astounded at the number of subsystems that weren't supported in Linux. Still, that machine never had anything but EXT2 partitions. Same with the IBM notebook before it.

    So my iBook, at 1200 € might seem overpriced to you (at the time I added a few options, the same machine is about 950 now), however it *works*. It comes with most of the Unix stuff, it sleeps on demand, setting it up took all of five minutes, if I had to choose between it an the *same* machine running Linux (whatever the CPU), I'd pick Linux without a second thought, however Linux isn't there yet. A

  • by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Thursday February 23, 2006 @09:40PM (#14789649) Homepage Journal
    Benchmarks are useless, and this one doubly so. One great thing about the Mac is that it does lots of stuff OUTSIDE the processor. My 1.42Ghz PPC iBook is dog slow compared to new PCs, if all you're measuring is CPU speed, and it's video card is an embarrassing "mobility" chipset. Yet it's smooth and responsive even in the middle of a lengthy compile with multiple applications open and running.

    Benchmarks measure the edges of the envelope where users rarely visit. If you're not doing serious number crunching or running last week's must-have video game, you don't need to worry about benchmarks. It's like worrying about the top speed of an Italian Sports car, when you're never going to drive it faster than 100 Kph. In other words, if you're content with the size of your penis you can safely ignore benchmarks.

Air is water with holes in it.