Mac Book Pro Benchmarks

I ran some benchmarks in Vista (32 bit) on the new Mac Book Pro. First, here are the specs:

2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1440 x 900 resolution
2GB memory
160GB 5400rpm hard drive
8x double-layer SuperDrive
NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT graphics with 256MB SDRAM


Benchmarks -

Super Pi -
000h 00m 53.352s

3dMark06 1280 x 854-



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

3dMark06 1024 x 768



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

PCMark05 -



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vista Performance -



-------------------------------------------------------------------------

If there is anything else you would like tested, please let me know.

 

This is a little OT, but have you tried installing XP over Bootcamp? I can't the drivers to work with my 8600m GT...

 

http://www.laptopvideo2go.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=13246

This should fix things for you dasein. Just follow the instructions here

 

What resolution was this? 1280x800?

 

I second this question... That score is very high for anything above 1024x768!

 

i ll buy this notebook; is so high 3dmark06; but u tested it under 1024X768 or higher resolution?

 

this could be better than Asus G1s

 

Was this really done at 1440x900? That's impressive.

 

why would it be at 1440x900? people have been using the free version of 3dmark for years now, all at the same resolution correct? I am guessing these results were done at the normal res of 1024x768 right?

very very good.

nearly the same score that an X1600 would make in 3dmark 05

oh I see, they did not use the default settings, why would you not use the default settings??

 

The default resolution of 3dmark06 is 1280x1024, so the MBP would have to run it either at 1440x900, or at 1024x768.

 

so compare to

G1S 3DMark06 at 1280X1024 Score: 3630
G1S 3DMark06 at 1024X768 Score: 4746

is the new MBP better?

 

I was running the free version of 3dMark06. The resolution was 1280 x 854.

 

Better drivers anyone?

 

Can you run it at 1024x768 to allow comparison with the G1S?

 

I just got my 2.2 santa rosa MBP
120 GB HD
128mb video card
ect if anyone wants benchmarks just tell me how to run them and I will run them


edit: i dont have windows though...which looks like it may be necessary

 

i think u gotta run bootcamp, install windows xp/vista, crack through drivers, run 3dmark 06

 

I was afraid of that, oh well if anyone has an extra copy of vista I'm game

 

Why would you want to buy a new Macbook Pro to run............Vista?

 

You can try Vista for free. It allows you to install without a key and use it for 30 days. So go ahead and give it a try if you have time.

 

where else can u find a 15 inch laptop with Nvidia 8600 gt that weighs only 5.6? pounds with a battery that lasts 3-4 hours. Oh and only 1 inch thick.

 

Yup, it's like Apple sacrificed a virgin to the notebook god or something, cuz I have no idea why Apple's 15 inchers are so much more portable than the competition's.

Edit: 1280x854 (I think he means 800 lol) is closer to the default resolution than 1024x768. Thus, I think any speed differences between the MBP and G1S will be small.

 

1st I like PC's and Mac's
2nd I like the versatility of having both at my finger tips
3rd compatibility with my desktop
4th I am curious to see how the macs run on windows

 

Ohhhhhh nooooooooooooo.... mac people worrying about 3dMark scores and screen res !!!!
What has Steve Jobs done?????

He's turned Mac people in PC people!

It was predicted at the time of Intel and MAcOffice that mac will just end up being another pc

Nice job Jobs... way to go!





**ignore me...im just being facetious

 

Added 3dMark06 1024x768 and Vista stats.

3dMark06 definitely said 1280x854.

 

more like PC people into Mac people.

I would never have even looked at a Mac if it couldn't run Windows natively.

 

Can you run 3DMark05? Over at MacRumors, someone ran 3DMark05 on the model with a 128MB 8600M GT and got a score of 7200 (which seemed pretty good to me). I'd be curious to see what it gets with the 256MB version.

 

Just a tiny point, but the new MBP's are now only 5.4 pounds.

I was actually surprised that this difference was noticeable (I picked up a new and old MBP in the Apple Store and could tell the difference between the two).

 

Like hwat?
Wow those scores are pretty close to the G1S

 

Not sure what you were asking about "like what"?

 

So I guess Apple seems to have left the 8600m GT's stock clock speeds alone. Now... How strange is it that at this current time, Apple, ehm... APPLE, has one [of two] of the best [DX10] gaming notebooks on the market.

 

Well, I'm not so sure about that. There's a thread at MacRumors where we've been discussing this, and at least one person seemed to see that the clockspeeds were lower than stock.

I don't know if it's clarified yet; would be interesting to hear what the clock speeds are for the MBP tested in this thread.

It's possible perhaps that even if they are underclocked, it doesn't make as much difference in performance.

Is the 8600M GT in the Asus G1S running at full stock speeds? I wasn't sure if anyone has verified that or not (no reason to think it wouldn't be, but if it is running at stock, and the 8600M GT in the MBP is underclocked, it is interesting that the performance difference isn't greater than would be expected).

 

Sorry, I left a pretty vague answer. I was trying to say whats the noticeable difference between the old & new.

Well the GeForce 8 series does run on a 80nm chip so it runs cooler than the previous video card ATi X1600, which ran on a 90nm chip. Apples previous vidoe card had issues with heat so they had to downclock the clock speeds.

 

80nm doesn't really mean much since it is a cost node and is not optimized for power savings. Half-nodes like 80nm are basically direct shrinks from full nodes, in this case 90nm.

I too would be interested to see if the 8600M GT is downclocked. (I'll probably only be slightly like the C2D X1600s). Are the new MBP's cooler? I wonder if there are any differences in case or internal layout design or would the components be responsible. 800MHz FSB Meroms and the Crestline northbridge don't appear to have lower TDPs than previous components so it'd be interesting to see where differences are coming from.

 

Gotcha.... I don't know how to quantify it in words or anything. Just that I closed both the old 5.6 pound MBP and the new 5.4 pound one and went back and forth lifting one and the other up, and I at least sensed that the difference was noticeable.

The real scientific test of course would be to do it blindfolded and see if I could actually tell which one I was picking up just based on the weight. I THINK at least that I probably could, as it was noticable enough to me.

 

this is a bit off topic but I just noticed Zadillo in the Macrumor forum.

 

Would like to point out that the CPU plays a role in 3dmark06 also. Maybe that's y it outscored the G1..

 

All I can say is I am EXTREMELY jealous of the new MBP's 8600m GT! I wish I had waited 6 months. and it's practically impossible to replace the MBP (or any laptop) graphics, correct?

 

Correct! Selling the old MBP and buying the new one is the only option.

 

The MBP doesn't have a media card reader!

 

Consider it is a MAC, it doesn't utilize media card so often...

 

Do you have an external monitor? One that can display 1280x1024 or more? Would be great if you could benchmark at standard resolution.

Also if anybody got Macbook pro benchmarks from the 128MB version I would be interested to see them!

Thank you all!

 

You can get an expresscard card reader. I think thats what I'm going to do.

Also, I don't see what it being has to do with using memory cards. I'd tend to think alot of people load images from flash memory from the digital cameras.

 

Id really be interested in seeing how the 128mb version does, And also if theres a battery time difference between 2.2/128 and 2.4/256.

 

for the "stock" 2.2Ghz MBP

http://www.notebookreview.com/default.asp?newsID=3747

 

Thats actually the 2.4 256 version, Well the scores used are, the reviewer probally didnt manage to get bootcamp working

 

Yeah, the reviewer said they didn't have a Windows disc to do a Windows install with, so they had to use other benchmarks.

 

the Xbench was from his 2.2 right? If so has anyone run the Xbench from a 2.4?

also how do you get this screen?

 

Does Vista run all the hardware? Such as the iSight? Or the Wireless? How about the hardwired LAN? Can you confirm everything runs correctly in VISTA?

Thanks,

 

I would be really curious to know what people think of the 128mb card vs. the 256, I am going to get a new MBP this month, but I want to know if it is worthwhile paying the extra arm and leg for the 256 card (because I know the extra CPU power is worthless really). So if anyone has benchmarks and MORE importantly real world experience feedback on the performance, especially in terms of running graphics intensive games (perhaps via XP or Vista with bootcamp) I and probably a big chunk of this community would be infinitely grateful!!!

Thanks!

 

i am very eagerly awaiting this...as i plan to purchase one as soon as i find the answer...