Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > MacBook 2.0GHz Benchmarks

MacBook 2.0GHz Benchmarks
Thread Tools
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 11:45 AM
 
     
Jerome
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Up north
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 11:56 AM
 
What's 'vicLib FFT'?
     
photoeditor
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 12:06 PM
 
I think you mean "veclib". As far as I remember it is a test of Altivec performance. Of course the MacBook is going to bomb on this test seeing as it does not have Altivec in hardware; I'm actually amazed it does as well as it does. These Mac benchmark suites are going to have to be updated for SSE2 and SSE3, which are the Intel equivalents; and of course as software is ported it will migrate from Altivec to these standards.
     
cambro
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Laurentia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 12:18 PM
 
It's great to have early benchmarks, but Xbench isn't exactly the best for the purpose.

Also, the %increase column is just plain old wrong, or at least misleading. There are numerous fields that should be negative (MB slower) and what is shown is just |MB/PB|*100.

What this means is that the overall score (and all other scores) shown as "177% faster" is crap.
The Macbook's score represents an increase of only 77% over the 1.5 Ghz PB.

If you want to adjust this for clock speed (1.5->2.0 is a 33% increase), then the MBP is only 44% faster.

But again...Xbench isn't really the best test.
     
RogerR
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Oregon
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 12:23 PM
 
Keep in mind that of his two comparison laptops, the PowerBook had 2 gigs of RAM, the MBP only 1 gig. Even out the RAM and results would have been even more one-sided.
Of course, the MBP had a higher clocked processor, but no way to even that out.
     
Troll  (op)
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by cambro
It's great to have early benchmarks, but Xbench isn't exactly the best for the purpose.

Also, the %increase column is just plain old wrong, or at least misleading. There are numerous fields that should be negative (MB slower) and what is shown is just |MB/PB|*100.

What this means is that the overall score (and all other scores) shown as "177% faster" is crap.
The Macbook's score represents an increase of only 77% over the 1.5 Ghz PB.

If you want to adjust this for clock speed (1.5->2.0 is a 33% increase), then the MBP is only 44% faster.

But again...Xbench isn't really the best test.
I don't think it's plain wrong but maybe a little misleading when it says % increase. That column is comparing the two machines. 100% would mean that they're equal. 150 means the MBP is 50% better and 50% means the MBO is 50% worse.
     
Abbas
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 01:13 PM
 
Can anyone post scores from the latest universal version of Cinebench 9.5?
     
iobuffa
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 01:19 PM
 
Will do. Downloading Cinebench 9.5 now
iobuffa
switcher as of oct 2001
     
iobuffa
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 01:49 PM
 
Fairly new to the program, so let me know if I'm doing something wrong with it. Here's the output it gave me when I ran "all tests"

CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **

Tester : Bwana McCall

Processor : Macbook Pro
MHz : 2.0
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : Mac OS 10.4.5

Graphics Card : ATI Radeon X1600
Resolution : 1440 x 900
Color Depth : Millions

************************************************** **

Rendering (Single CPU): 305 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 563 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.84

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 347 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 781 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1367 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.94

************************************************** **
iobuffa
switcher as of oct 2001
     
Abbas
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Dec 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 02:03 PM
 
563 is pretty darn good. Here are some desktop dual core CPU scores to compare with in the PC World:

Athlon FX-60 (2.8GHz): 692
Intel Pentium 955 EE (3.46GHz): 666
Athlon64 X2-4800+ (2.4GHz): 638
Intel Pentium 840D (3.2GHz): 532
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 02:06 PM
 
Originally Posted by Troll
I don't think it's plain wrong but maybe a little misleading when it says % increase. That column is comparing the two machines. 100% would mean that they're equal. 150 means the MBP is 50% better and 50% means the MBO is 50% worse.
Well it is plain wrong... you simply can't have anything higher than 100%. Some people need to learn basic maths.
     
JKT
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: London, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 02:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Abbas
563 is pretty darn good. Here are some desktop dual core CPU scores to compare with in the PC World:

Athlon FX-60 (2.8GHz): 692
Intel Pentium 955 EE (3.46GHz): 666
Athlon64 X2-4800+ (2.4GHz): 638
Intel Pentium 840D (3.2GHz): 532
...and unsurprisingly, it is very similar to the 20" iMac CD (that link includes a few other model Macs as well)
     
cambro
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Laurentia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 02:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by JKT
you simply can't have anything higher than 100%.
Umm...
Going from 10 to 15 is an increase of 50%
going from 10 to 20 is an increase of 100%
going from 10 to 30 is an increase of 200%
going from 10 to 1000 is an increase of 9900%

You can't have more than 100% of any one thing, but you can increase that one thing by any amount, including an amount that represents much more than 100% of what you started with.

ANYWAY...original point is null because he updated his page.

More to the current point...

ROSETTA performance in comparison to a PB G4? Any results there?
     
inkhead
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 02:28 PM
 
Those benchmarks are "retarded" I don't care who tells you, their is NOTHING that has been optimized to properly test the intel processors compared to the g4, even apps that were ported over.

benchmarks are stupid. that said i've been using one and it's easily faster in most things than my quad g5, can't wait till fcp is native.
     
thephotodork
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Kaneohe, Hawaii
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 02:40 PM
 
That's a pretty bold claim to say that it is "easily faster" than your Quad G5. Are you serious? Because if you are, THAT IS AWESOME! I WANT ONE RIGHT NOW! ANYONE HAVE $2500 THAT I CAN BORROW?
PowerBook G4 12-inch 1.0GHz ComboDrive; Mac OS X (10.4.5); 100GB 5400-RPM
(Dreaming of a 2.0GHz Orp KoobCam)
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 21, 2006, 02:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Abbas
563 is pretty darn good. Here are some desktop dual core CPU scores to compare with in the PC World:

Athlon FX-60 (2.8GHz): 692
Intel Pentium 955 EE (3.46GHz): 666
Athlon64 X2-4800+ (2.4GHz): 638
Intel Pentium 840D (3.2GHz): 532
There are some more Cinebench scores in this thread.

Includes P4, G4, G5, iMac Core Duo. The BareFeats 605 score for the iMac Core Duo 2.0 seems like a bit of an outlier. Most of the 2.0 scores seem to be below 600 so far.

Originally Posted by inkhead
benchmarks are stupid. that said i've been using one and it's easily faster in most things than my quad g5, can't wait till fcp is native.
Well, I've only tested the Quad G5 and the iMac Core Duo 2.0 in the store, but my impression is that Quad G5 blows the iMac Core Duo out of the water in some things (as it should) but feels similar when doing basic stuff like surfing and the like.

By the way, the Quad Mac is roughly twice as fast as the iMac Core Duo at Cinebench. Yeah, it's just a bench, but it's a bench that actually does something, which is render images. I can tell you than there's a humungous difference in "feel" when a render takes only 20 seconds instead of 40 seconds or whatever.
( Last edited by Eug Wanker; Feb 21, 2006 at 03:03 PM. )
     
t_hah
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Tempe, AZ
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2006, 01:00 AM
 
     
aplmd
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2006, 01:31 AM
 
Here is my Cinebench 9.5 on my MBP 2.16.. (2 GB ram installed)


CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **

Tester : Ants

Processor : MBP
MHz : 2.16
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : OS 10.4.5

Graphics Card : X1600
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

************************************************** **

Rendering (Single CPU): 329 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 608 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.85

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 374 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 830 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1404 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.75

************************************************** **


Of course, have no clue what it means.....
     
Peabo
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: London, England
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2006, 08:55 AM
 
Test the intel Doom 3!
LC 16Mhz • LC 475 25Mhz • Centris 650 25Mhz • Performa 6200/75Mhz • G3 266Mhz • Snow iMac DVSE 500Mhz
G4 QS 733Mhz • 17" Powerbook 1.33Ghz • 15" MacBook Pro Core Duo 2.16Ghz • Mac Pro 8-Core 3.0 Ghz
     
Eug Wanker
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2006, 11:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by aplmd
Here is my Cinebench 9.5 on my MBP 2.16.. (2 GB ram installed)


CINEBENCH 9.5
************************************************** **

Tester : Ants

Processor : MBP
MHz : 2.16
Number of CPUs : 2
Operating System : OS 10.4.5

Graphics Card : X1600
Resolution : <fill this out>
Color Depth : <fill this out>

************************************************** **

Rendering (Single CPU): 329 CB-CPU
Rendering (Multiple CPU): 608 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.85

Shading (CINEMA 4D) : 374 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Software Lighting) : 830 CB-GFX
Shading (OpenGL Hardware Lighting) : 1404 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.75

************************************************** **


Of course, have no clue what it means.....
Thanks. I posted it here.

As for what it means... It means your laptop is pretty damn fast. It's about as fast in this app as a Power Mac G5 dual 2.3 GHz, or a dual-core Pentium D 3.2 GHz Windows desktop.

To put it another way, it's 3.7 times as fast as the fastest G4 PowerBook to date.
     
Anand
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Between heaven and hell
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 22, 2006, 12:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
Thanks. I posted it here.

As for what it means... It means your laptop is pretty damn fast. It's about as fast in this app as a Power Mac G5 dual 2.3 GHz, or a dual-core Pentium D 3.2 GHz Windows desktop.

To put it another way, it's 3.7 times as fast as the fastest G4 PowerBook to date.

That is an Apple lie. There is no way the new MBP is 3-4 times faster that the old powerbook in real applications. Cinebench is a real application. Well nobody really uses it! They do? Crap, maybe Apple did not lie!
Yes, I know I could buy a PC, but why?
     
zac4mac
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: near Boulder, Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2006, 12:25 PM
 
I was playing with my BOINC settings and thought I'd pass this comparison on...

ibook - Measured floating point speed - 478.21 million ops/sec
800 G3 Measured integer speed - 1078.41 million ops/sec

G4 Dual 550 - Measured floating point speed - 365.17 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed - 755.92 million ops/sec

G5 Dual 2.0 - Measured floating point speed - 1060.62 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed - 2211.83 million ops/sec

MBP 2.0 - Measured floating point speed - 1596.96 million ops/sec
Measured integer speed - 4299.12 million ops/sec

MBP has 1GB DDR and 7200rpm HDD, running beta ver.5.3.22_macOSX_universal

Z
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:47 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,