2.66 c2d vs i5 benchmarks show 66 is the winner?

Every benchmark I see the 2.66 c2d out shines the i5... very few times does the i5 beat (not by much) the 2.3 i5. I only bring this up as im in the market and the 2.66 is cheaper allowing me to buy more stuff for my new mac. I could even get a 2.8 c2d. I would like to know peoples thoughts on this.

 

Battery life is better on the Core i processors, but yes, the performance in normal applications the Core 2 Duo will be faster. There are some newer programs optimized for the multiple threads (some video editing software, 3d rendering, etc), but usually the clock speed makes it king. Also, the 320m is better than the HD 3000. Not by a large margin, but still noticeable.

I'm sure though that the i5 has better battery life, not sure how much though.

 

Um, no.

Passmark:

i5 2415: 2952
C2D P8800: 1889
C2D T9600: 2031

I had a 2010 MBP 13(C2D & 320M) early this year, and compared to my MSI with the same i5 process as the new MBP, i5 wins. i5 processors are waaaay faster in everything.

I don't know where you guys are getting you info, but it's wrong. Please post your sources.

 

To add to my last post, the slowest standard i3 is faster than the fastest C2D.

 

Lab report: 2011 MacBook Pro benchmark results Review | Macworld

Look at the numbers..

 

Maybe you should look at the numbers:

Speedmark 6.5 results:

2.3GHz i5 Macbook: 140

2.66GHz C2D MBP: 137

And, Speedmark 6.5 is an old benchmark that can't correctly measure the performance of the newer processors. So, even on that limited benchmark program, the i5 still wins.

Passmark(I posted it above) is a true processor benchmark with just about ever processor in the world.

Check theses benchmarks too, the i5 owns the C2D in every test:

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i5-2415M-Notebook-Processor.49627.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-2-Duo-P8800-Notebook-Processor.26535.0.html

---------

 

140 to 137 how big of performance gain is that?

 

Please, don't just look at one benchmark. Use common sense, if two out three benchmarks show the i5 faster, what are you going to believe?

 

Im not saying anything really (I dont undestand enough to have an opinion) what I am asking is how BIG of diffrence is it really.. since the i5 is still a duo core chip and at a lower clock speed.

 

The i5 is about 40% faster than C2D.

 

Am I the only one sensing a little hypocrisy? First we are given false information on benchmarks and it seems as if the OP was putting down newer technology. Then, when a benchmark using an old test is given, they question how that benchmark translates to real world performance. So we were supposed to take the original (inaccurate) benchmarks as fact meaning that the Core 2 Duo is noticeably faster only to see the real numbers and question them?

Further research should be conducted on Intel's Sandy Bridge line (I assume you are talking about the i5 in the baseline 13" MacBook Pro). If not, more research needs to be conducted on Intel's last generation of processors. Either way, Intel has actually been able to keep lower clock speeds while gaining performance. You can't do a direct GHz to GHz comparison. The same thing happened with the release of the Pentium M processor a while back (2004-2005 maybe). People were comparing them to higher clocked Pentium 4 processors but the Pentium M's were still beating them despite coming in at a slower clock speed.

Ever since then, with each new generation of processor, you haven't been able to conduct a direct GHz to GHz comparison between each generation. That just means that 1GHz in a certain series does not equate to 1GHz in an older generation.

 

the new processors are much faster.

most things average people do with their computers are not limited by the processor. it's the hard drive and the internet connection. How much difference does the benchmark implicate for real world usage? Depends. Could be nothing depending on what you are doing.

 

I think people don't always understand what clock speed is. Clock speed is the frequency with which the computer "operates". However, the actual performance is based on the architecture.

Rather then explaining architecture think about it this way. Say you have a chip that just counts +1 every clock cycle. Now say you clock that counter chip at 4ghz. It won't do anything, it can't run an OS, but it can run at 4ghz just counting + 1 every 1/4g seconds. Now say you have a Pentium 4 2 ghz. The pentium 4 2 ghz is a much, much better processor, but its clock speed is lower.

That is an exaggeration, but you can see why clock speed is a bad way to rate a processor.

 

a simpler way to say things... this doesn't take every little thing into account, but its a simple way of understanding how the Hz can throw you off, since they are not a speed rating.

say you want to get a certain task done (like opening up a file, program, or whatever)...
Say on CPU A it will take 50 operations to get that task done.
Say on CPU B it will take 20 operations to get that task done.
Say CPU A is 4GHz, and CPU B is 2GHz.
which one will get the task done first?
CPU A is twice as fast, and in the same time it takes CPU B to get 20 operations done, CPU A will have finished 40 of them

that means CPU A is still not done with the task (only 40 out of 50 done), and CPU B is done (20 out of 20 done)... so CPU B at 2GHz would actually be a faster processor.

You cannot go by "speed ratings" or the Hz (Frequency) as it will throw you off when comparing different processors. Now if your comparing the same exact design of processor, then a high Hz would get done faster... CPU B at 4GHz vs CPU B at 2GHz... of course at 4GHz it will be faster.

People use benchmarks to try to figure out what is really faster since it can get complicated... the problem is Benchmarks can often be faulty... testing on area of the processor, or doing certain tasks and not others... some are designed around things available at the time, but people use the same benchmark years later, and it has no idea how to properly test newer hardware so the results are flawed.

Don't ever limit yourself to one or two or just a few benchmarks.. look at many many tests, and try to find tests similar to what you'll be doing.

If all this is too complicated and you don't care to learn how it works, then you probably aren't an advanced enough user to even notice the difference.

 

Good post, but I would say there are definitely people who for example play video games who don't care how computer architecture works, but want better graphics.

 

Then understanding at least the idea of a processor architecture is even more important for these folks. You don't need to understand any of the details of the architecture or how it works. You just need to be able to look at benchmark results and ignore clock speed. Same with graphics cards. Ignore everything but benchmark results.

Here are some reasonable sources:

Best Gaming CPUs For The Money: October 2011 : Best Gaming CPUs For The Money, October Updates

Best Graphics Cards For The Money: November 2011 : Best Graphics Cards For The Money, November Update

these concern desktop parts primarily, but desktop parts aren't too dissimilar from performance mobile parts as far as processors. Also there is a nice graphics card hierarchy chart, which may help you with comparison on that front.

 

C2duo kicks i7

just joking

 

Apple 13-inch MacBook Pro/2.3GHz Core i5 (Early 2011) Laptop Computer Review | PCWorld


there is another one saying 2.66 is not far behind i5... im so confused! lol I already bought the i5, it's coming by the end of the week.

 

The HD 3000 scores close to the 320m in benches and game


But it can be overclocked

 

so your saying processors... but talking about complete system performance. There is much more to a machines performance than just the processor. In processor intensive uses, the i5 will stomp all over the C2D. If your running benchmarks thats heavily using the hard drive and ram and the GPU, then your not going to see that benefit.

 

I got a new i5 mbp..

Later ill add in an ssd. And the intel 3000 can do most of what I want. I mean the xbox 360 can play skyrim and thats like 6 years old. Im sure the 3000 can do it.. I hope, if not its ok.

 

Not necessarily true.

Xbox 360 games are custom developed for the 360. When you custom develop something you can enhance performance for it.

Modern Warfare 1 ran at almost high PC level on a $400 box that was old. No $400 PC was running Modern Warfare 1 at that level. The reason is the code was not optimized specifically for that hardware.

An Xbox 360 can run a toned down version of BF3. A HD 3000 does not have that option, because a specialized copy of BF3 was not developed for it. Skyrim has low requirements, not sure if a HD3000 can handle it.

 

Benchmarks have never equated to real-world performance, or at least not in my experience.

 

You forget that the Xbox also has a dGPU that, when combined with the set hardware like you mentioned, equals to better performance.

 

indeed, and the i5 would still be sensibly faster than the core2duo model

 

It's funny how slow my new i5 is compared to my 2.4 c2d... LION SUX! I miss SL, as I believe this is the cause of the i5 being so slow. I might make a youtube video with my wires 15" 2008 MBP vs mine, her MBP is faster.

 

Try backing up your claims with your own data. Install some CPU benchmarking software onto both computers (C2D and i5) and posting screen captures of the results.


Just to recap, we've already told you several times that the C2D is not faster than the i5. To save you the trouble, I multi-quoted the relevant posts:
**tHE j0KER is known to buy and resell God knows how many laptops, many of the MBPs of different ages covering several different processors. I think he knows what he's talking about.

 

I don't think it's the hardware bud, lion is really messing up..

 

Well, I dislike OSX altogether, but that's more of a ideological issue than what's being talked about.

Do you have a backup of Lion from before you've noticed it mess up? Could try that, but if you don't you could try updating all the drivers and see if that does something.

 

its running ok for now.

 

If Loin has an issue slowing Macbooks, down, say by 15% vs. SL, than it would slow i5 and C2D models equally.

The C2D on Lion would be 15% slower than the same Macbook running SL. Same for i5 and i7.

Proportionally, benchmarks would be the same.

 

I had snow leopard on the c2d

lion is running ok for now, but at the same time the beach ball shows up more.

 

Isn't i5 faster than C2D, so Lion might be a little faster on i5? Though, I think the beach ball issue has more to do with your HDD and it might actually be deteriorating over time. My beachball issues were solved after moving to an SSD, as OS X doesn't use the CPU that much compared to windows.

 

Yep, most of the time any loading issues will be associated with the storage system. Even with an SSD, it will still be the slowest part of any computer.

Now, if there's a way to use RAM or CPU cache as a storage device that retains data without power........

 

the beachball just means the application is not being responsive. it can be related to processing power, but it's more likely the hard drive, as stated. (technically it's the fault of the application, but the hardware it's waiting on is the hard drive)