Hi, looking to upgrade to mac pro. How much improvement compared to 2.16 macbook pro?

[poipu420]

Hi,
I currently have a macbook pro and it has been quite awhile since I shopped for new equipment. I am mostly a web developer and now looking into getting into video editing. I was wondering how much improvement will I gain from this system:

One 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Nehalem" processor
3GB (3 x 1GB) of 1066MHz DDR3 ECC memory
640GB Serial ATA 3Gb/s 7200 rpm
18x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 512MB GDDR3 memory

Can someone care to comment?

My specs I have are:

Model Name: MacBook Pro
Model Identifier: MacBookPro1,2
Processor Name: Intel Core Duo
Processor Speed: 2.16 GHz
Number Of Processors: 1
Total Number Of Cores: 2
L2 Cache: 2 MB
Memory: 1 GB
Bus Speed: 667 MHz

THANKS!

 

[iBookG4user]

You might want to take a look at this

 

[poipu420]

You might want to take a look at this

whoa,
It looks like I can possibly gain way more than 2x the performance although I don't fully understand the tests yet. I will read some more.

 

[iBookG4user]

whoa,
It looks like I can possibly gain way more than 2x the performance although I don't fully understand the tests yet. I will read some more.

The funny thing is that the new quad core MacBook Pros might even be faster than the base Mac Pro. New MacBook Pro benchmarks.

 

[Mac Hammer Fan]

In real world? I doubt that.
Anyway, I have a MacBook 2.2 Ghz and the Mac Pro Quad 2.66 blows the MacBook away.
The Hexacore looks the most attractive MacPro in my opinion.

 

[alust2013]

The funny thing is that the new quad core MacBook Pros might even be faster than the base Mac Pro. New MacBook Pro benchmarks.

I highly doubt that. The MBPs won't sustain those high turbo frequencies for that long, however the Pro will, so they will most likely have better performance in real world applications.

 

[iBookG4user]

In real world? I doubt that.

It is interesting how someone with the exact machine the OP is considering is coming to defend it.

Regardless, there is no denying that the performance of the new quad core MacBook Pros is approaching Mac Pro speeds.

 

[rmitchell248]

It is interesting how someone with the exact machine the OP is considering is coming to defend it.

Regardless, there is no denying that the performance of the new quad core MacBook Pros is approaching Mac Pro speeds.

You are correct, they are approaching the speeds... The problem is sustaining them! My car will do 300 kilometers per hour in a straight line for a minute or two but does that make it better than a race car that does 300 for hours on end? Will my oiling system keep up with that of the race cars and support my engine through the high rpm turns and braking ect? To break it down for you.. Load up an intensive operation on both the laptop and the mac pro and see what you get. You will have one machine running nice and cool chugging along 24 hours a day and then you will have another that is just smoldering hot and getting close to a shut down if not already shut down.

The fact of the matter is the 99% of the geekbenchers will NEVER use more than 40% of the processing power that they are raving about in their reviews. It is pretty lame!

 

[derbothaus]

Nice analogy. If you have your Macbook revved to full clock for hours on end you will shorten the life of your Mac. They are not meant for heavy use. Little boosts here and there but Apple and the thermal envelope are counting on you surfin the web more than rendering. 80ºC+ for extended periods will shorten the life. Heavy lifters are still advised to get a Mac Pro. An iMac has the same drawbacks. Also Mac Pro's can have processor upgrades. Use geekbench as a loose line in the sand. It only tests mem and proc. Nothing else. A 5400RPM drive is going to feel like slow regardless of your processor.