[killee]

It makes no sense to me - why is the BLACK model faster? The 2.2 Ghz Core 2 Duo processor and 1 Gbyte memory specs are exactly the same. The 800 Mhz bus and apparently everything else is exactly the same. The only difference is a larger hard drive and the color. So then, WHY IS BLACK FASTER?
How accurate are the test results, and have they been run multiple times on each model?

[mooncaine]

Wow, a blistering 4% speed increase! Woohoo, Ma, hold on to muh laigs, we zoomin' to the statusfear now!

[randombob]

Quote:

---

FTA: "From a benchmark perspective, these new MacBooks are giving their Pro counterparts a run for their moneyunless, of course, youre a gamer."
Or unless you use one of the growing list of Apple apps that turn into molasses without a "real" GPU, e.g. Motion, Aperture, iPhoto. Remember, GPUs are used by real tools, nowadays, too. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

---

I ordered one of these to replace my GF's aging ibook G4 as she's now getting into digital photography and needed more power/ space. I got to play around with it while setting it up and decided to try aperture on it, for shits & giggles.
I've been running Apterture for 1.5 years now, on an aging G4 1.67GHZ 17" PowerBook, and have been looking to upgrade to the new MBP's soon enough. I have been waiting & waiting, to see if they add some features that make it worth the price while I've been saving & saving, knowing full-well that since APERTURE is GPU-intensive, the MacBook wouldn't cut it for me.
I was wrong. Every edit I made was instantaneous. the ONLY time I saw lag was when using the loupe tool AFTER a Highlights/shadows edit, but everything I've read over the last 2 years states that that is the case no matter WHAT machine you're on. I have no idea why a program that's supposedly so GPU-intensive works so well on the new MB's with integrated graphics. I don't care. It saved me almost $2k in computer costs.
Because, um, I ordered my own last night. Along with 4GB from Crucial.com. expecting it tomorrow. :-D
yay me....

[howdy]

Quote:

---

So is this actually telling me that I paid $500+ for a better graphics card and bigger screen in my MacBook Pro? Granted, I need the card for faster video editing with Final Cut Studio... but $500?? Please tell me I'm missing something.

---

I'd like to also add to others who've replied to your post; one thing that hasn't been mentioned is that the MB Pro's screen is also running an LCD backlight which is better for battery performance and for the life of the backlight from what I understand.
Bottom Line: You've got the best performing "notebook" on the planet. Enjoy!
Personally, I'm glad Apple's bumped up the Macbooks, it'll drive more sales and add to my shareholdings. /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[MilSF1]

I was really excited to see that you added a test with Handbrake to the Speedmark tests, but I don'e see that column in the article. Are you not currently runnig that test?

[berlingumi]

Hi James. Did you make a mistake? You list the Speedmark Score for the Macbook Pro 2.2 at 185 but on the previous review of the Macbook Pro 2.2 the score was 220:
http://www.macworld....products/apple/
http://www.macworld....te/product00118detail1.php
I know you are using a new Speedmark test (5)... does this mean the Speedmark Score is now different for all previous systems?
If yes... thats a bad idea because I've kept a record of all the Mac's I've owned scores so I can plot how much faster each new computer/generation I am getting is.
Please clarify. Big thanks!

[elroth]

Quote:

---

...with the black model getting a score of 186 versus the white models 185 score.

---

I knew there was a reason the black one costs $200 more.

[doh123]

Quote:

---

I wish all Apple computers were updated to include 800MHz memory. Even the Mac Pro doesn't use this memory yet.
Mid and even low end PC manufacturers have been using 800MHz memory for a while now. It's time for Apple to play catchup here!

---

what catch up? You don't follow the hardware much I guess. This limitation is not added by Apple, its added by Intel. 667mhz is the max for memory for the chipsets being used. Other manufactuerers have the same limitations on the same hardware. The only places you are going to see faster than 667 on memory are on desktops and workstations where the newer chipsets can go faster than that. Apple doesnt use CPUs or Chipsets that are designed for desktops. Even the iMac has mobile versions, so they have the same limitations as laptops. The Mac Pro will be the first to see faster, but they'll need to update the motherboard in it to a newer chipset before its possible, the 5000X is has is aging.

[estumpges]

I should have double checked to see that Intel's mobile processors don't support 800MHz RAM but their desktop chips certainly do and have been available for a while now.
Dell Inspiron 530 Specs ($989)
Intel Core2 Duo Processor E4500 (2MB L2 Cache,2.20GHz,800 FSB)
2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 800MHz- 2DIMMs
250GB Serial ATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)
256MB Radeon ATI HD 2600 XT
19 inch SE198WFP Widescreen Digital Flat Panel Monitor

The point I am trying to make is that Dell and other PC manufacturers offer 800MHz memory in their desktops and Apple doesn't. It is Apple's fault that they don't use a desktop chip in their consumer desktop machines. As great as Apple's software is, it's hard to argue that they don't lag with hardware specs, updates, and expandability in many areas. Granted, the difference between 667MHz or 800MHz isn't going to make or break a purchase for most people. However, many potential buyers are deterred by the fact that you can't upgrade the video card or even pre-order a consumer Mac with a good gaming card (as you can with most PC desktops).
Frankly, I'd love to see a stylish little brother to the Mac Pro with similar specs to the Dell listed above and the ability to upgrade all components over time. If priced reasonably, I think it would be a huge hit among the Apple fans that want more than an all in one iMac but can't afford and don't need the amazing power of the Mac Pro. Apple may disagree, but I think this market is larger than they would like to admit.

[berlingumi]

Well Barefeats.com just ran through a bunch of tests comparing the new 2.2 Santa Rosa Macbook vs Macbook Pro 2.2... basically the Macbook Pro is much faster:
http://www.barefeats.com/mbook2.html
http://www.barefeats.com/mbook1.html

[Martian]

It is good to know that the second paragraph of the conclusion here says,"On the other hand, if you are running purely CPU intensive tasks (Compressor, Photoshop, After Effects), the new MacBook should compare very well with similarly clocked MacBook Pros. We'll publish those results next."

[Terrin]

I do not know Apple's reasons for doing what it does, but a recent PC Magazine test showed the MacBook Pro being the fastest Vista running machine on the planet. Apple must be doing something right. This improvement is what I have been waiting for before I buy a new Macbook. However, now I am waiting for somebody to give me back hierarchal menus in the Dock. I really am not a Leopard fan yet.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I wish all Apple computers were updated to include 800MHz memory. Even the Mac Pro doesn't use this memory yet.
Mid and even low end PC manufacturers have been using 800MHz memory for a while now. It's time for Apple to play catchup here!

---