[fowler]

Whenever I see benchmarks comparing the different intel models, I'm always a bit surprised to see that Macbook Pros almost always come in last, even when compared to regular Macbooks.

I've seen this on multiple websites.. and it's rather bothersome.

for example:

http://www.creativemac.com/articles/...e.jsp?id=43717

[mduell]

First benchmark, MBP wins 3 of 4 and loses one by 1 second... that's easily the margin of error on a hand-timed test.

Second benchmark, MBP wins every benchmark by larger margins than the clockrate difference suggests.

Third benchmark is complete nonsense. There's no reason the MBP should take twice as long as the MB. They really botched something.

[fowler]

I've seen the same results on other benchmarks, which I'm trying to find right now...

[fowler]

http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd4.html

[SierraDragon]

Originally Posted by fowler

http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd4.html

Sure some functions, esp. disk and/or cpu centric ones are, as expected, similar MB vs. MBP. But for heavier graphics the MB - also as expected, since the MB lacks a graphics card - performs very poorly. See http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd3.html

Note that on the Core Image testing the MB took almost 4 times as long as the MBPs. Core image is very important to many operations in the next Mac OS, Leopard.

The real story is the future, meaning Leopard, Aperture, Adobe CS3 and beyond. Today's 10.4 performance with 2005/2006 app versions is not all that relevant. The OS and apps will rely much more on graphics card support down the road. For best value, if one intends to run pro graphics apps in the future one should buy a pro graphics box today, not a consumer MB. Buying a MB for graphics is short sighted, a poor investment.

-Allen Wicks