Lab report: 2011 MacBook Pro benchmark results
Posted 25 February 2011 - 07:28 PM
Interesting to see the effect of the graphics cards on Frame Rate in gaming, given Apple's trumpeting of "Up to 3 times faster" graphics on their site. Of course, what you get out of the GPU depends on what you are doing with it, but I wonder if that will provide some anti Apple fodder for the PC crowd.
Nonetheless, I am getting a 15" just as soon as I see some reviews of the HiRes display option.
Posted 25 February 2011 - 07:42 PM
Some of the math is off - Handbrake scores - your comparison
15" MacBook Pro 2.0GHz Core i7 quad-core = 238
15" MacBook Pro 2.4GHz Core i5 dual core (2010) = 484
"The new MacBook Pro’s Handbrake time was 51 percent faster than the older system..."
It does the same encode in 49.17% (1/2) of the time it takes the older model or written more clearly
It does the same encode 2.03 times as fast as the old model
103% faster than the older model
Also you guys have some odd numbers in the itunes encode of the old MBP 13" Core2Duo
13" MacBook Pro 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo = 226
13" MacBook Pro 2.66GHz Core 2 Duo = 132
That's a huge difference in time for a small boost of processor speed? Is this hard drive or Ram related?
Also, since all Macs listed have 64 bit processor and can run Snow Leopard, why are you using the old version of Handbrake? I understand that you don't have all of the old Macs but is anyone really going to run old Handbrake on the new Macs. Could you at least put in an additional column for tests with the current version.
Thanks for the tests
Hate the chart design
Posted 25 February 2011 - 08:02 PM
Posted 25 February 2011 - 08:25 PM
I also would have liked to see the QuadCore i7 iMac on the chart too (even if it is a BTO system -- it's still popular and should be on the chart).
Posted 25 February 2011 - 08:36 PM
Posted 25 February 2011 - 09:25 PM
There are significant differences between the numbers reported then and now. AAC to MP3 was 9s (~10%) longer for the 2.4, but now it's 94s (~71%) longer. HandBrake encoding went from 9s (~5%) to 265s (~54%) difference.
Have the tests changed so drastically, or are the new versions of the software that much worse? It's hard to get a good sense of how much better the new systems are when the data is so inconsistent.
Posted 26 February 2011 - 02:15 AM
I know it's going to be faster, but I would imagine the majority of people upgrading will be doing so from a 3 to 5 year old machine, not a 12 month old one so there would be more relevance to the majority of your readers.
Posted 26 February 2011 - 05:15 AM
Posted 26 February 2011 - 05:40 AM