Macbook C2D Benchmarks are in - Only 7% faster overall says Macworld.com

[mrploddy]

Well as I thought, overall those who waited for Merom C2D's havent exactly gained much by waiting.

Macworld's real world benchmarks only report a 7% increase in system performance between the fastest CD Macbook and the fastest C2D Macbook.

Read about it here http://www.macworld.com/2006/11/firstlooks/macbookbench/index.php

Note how the tests say that hard drives made more of a difference to performance than the Merom chip.

-mrploddy

 

[kalun]

Well as I thought, overall those who waited for Merom C2D's havent exactly gained much by waiting.

Macworld's real world benchmarks only report a 7% increase in system performance between the fastest CD Macbook and the fastest C2D Macbook.

Read about it here http://www.macworld.com/2006/11/firstlooks/macbookbench/index.php

Note how the tests say that hard drives made more of a difference to performance than the Merom chip.

-mrploddy

Now that is a good analysis!
Well, the people who waited gain the potential to use draft N network card, which currently....no one uses.....

They also gain the ability to use 64-bit operation system, .....which I fail to see why you would like to do it...

 

[wako]

They also gain the ability to use 64-bit operation system, .....which I fail to see why you would like to do it...

because the next installment of OSX will be in 64bit


future proof....


I hope the people who waited for C2D thought it was worth the wait Oh by the way, there is a much better CPU coming out soon as well. Maybe you guys should wait for that, for a another small percent increase in performance

 

[iW00t]

Now that is a good analysis!
Well, the people who waited gain the potential to use draft N network card, which currently....no one uses.....

They also gain the ability to use 64-bit operation system, .....which I fail to see why you would like to do it...

Even 0.0001% improve for free beats 0% improvement due to lack of discipline and patience.

Someone is conveniently forgetting the extra ram and hard drive as well

 

[CaptainCaveMann]

Even 0.0001% improve for free beats 0% improvement due to lack of discipline and patience.

Someone is conveniently forgetting the extra ram and hard drive as well

And less heat! Dont forget that. The new c2d macbooks are MUCH cooler than the old ones. I can definately vouch for that from first hand experience.

 

[kalun]

because the next installment of OSX will be in 64bit


future proof....


I hope the people who waited for C2D thought it was worth the wait Oh by the way, there is a much better CPU coming out soon as well. Maybe you guys should wait for that, for a another small percent increase in performance

I agree that the next revision of macbook is worth waiting for.

As for future proof. I cannot think of one computer in this world that is future proof. Please feel free to prove me wrong on this one.

As for Operating system,
Leopard will be 32 bit and 64 bit.
Vista will be 32 bit and 64 bit. According to Paul Thurrott, getting 64 bit of vista is risky, due to competitive issues. The benefit you gain from a 64 bit processor as an entry-level laptop is very minimal. Pretty close to none at all at this very moment.

Will there really be a lot of 64-bit software support appear in the near future for normal computer users? Doubtful. 64-bit processor has been out for many years now (starting from AMD) and XP 64-bit has been out for several years now. However, there are still very little applications available in the marketplace.

I mean the C2D upgrade is great, no question. However, to those who have waited several months for it....well...I guess you get what you wanted.

 

[kalun]

Even 0.0001% improve for free beats 0% improvement due to lack of discipline and patience.

Someone is conveniently forgetting the extra ram and hard drive as well

Now that is a good point! Ram and hard drive upgrade is good. I just wish it happens to all the CPU speed.

And less heat! Dont forget that. The new c2d macbooks are MUCH cooler than the old ones. I can definately vouch for that from first hand experience.

I haven't seen any evidence that the new once are MUCH cooler. Unless you are talking about the "style", which is pretty subjective.

 

[CaptainCaveMann]

Now that is a good point! Ram and hard drive upgrade is good. I just wish it happens to all the CPU speed.



I haven't seen any evidence that the new once are MUCH cooler. Unless you are talking about the "style", which is pretty subjective.

No im talking about heat. Go to the apple store and pick one up for crying out loud. Its pretty obvious.

If you want proof ill try and find some posts where people have posted their temps.

 

[EvryDayImShufln]

Trust me, the new ones are MUCH cooler. I can vouch for that, as my CD MBP would get so warm it was uncomfortable. However, if you don't use your CD MBP for extended periods of time it would stay relatively cool.

But the major advantage that I see is the heat issue. C2D MBPs are much much cooler. However I don't know if the MB temperature difference can actually be felt.

Somebody who tried both macbooks would need to speak up.

 

[bousozoku]

Since the Core 2 Duo processors were supposed to be somewhat faster and have somewhat better battery life, I wish they would have addressed both. Perhaps, when they have their full review, they'll cover everything well.

 

[Garden Knowm]

Goto the apple store at start the CD and the C2D at the same time.. you can actually start the C2D and open FCP before the CD is even done booting....

love

 

[CaptainCaveMann]

Trust me, the new ones are MUCH cooler. I can vouch for that, as my CD MBP would get so warm it was uncomfortable. However, if you don't use your CD MBP for extended periods of time it would stay relatively cool.

But the major advantage that I see is the heat issue. C2D MBPs are much much cooler. However I don't know if the MB temperature difference can actually be felt.

Somebody who tried both macbooks would need to speak up.

Were actually talking about Macbooks here not MBPs but you are right on that account as well.

 

[glhiii]

All I can say is I bought the original MacBook and returned it because it was too hot. A couple of days ago I bought the MB C2D and like it much more -- in fact, I've been sitting here with it on my lap typing for about 15 minutes, and it's warm but not really hot. What I disliked about the original one especially is that the keys would get very warm. The heat on the C2D seems much more localized to the top left side. Another problem with the original one -- it mooed all the time. This one doesn't. The fans have come on a couple of time, and they are quite loud. But I've been typing and changing programs for 30 minutes, and they haven't come on at all. Temperature: 64 degrees. Both machines have/had 2 gigs of ram.

 

[kalun]

No im talking about heat. Go to the apple store and pick one up for crying out loud. Its pretty obvious.

If you want proof ill try and find some posts where people have posted their temps.

Well so far what I've found is:

4) cpu temperature if you know it, otherway give us an idea compared to your previous computer
Used to be hotter initially... Now with Fan Control on and 2Gb RAM, start iddle temperature is at 41, with couple programs running it goes to 48-53C, under some load it goes to 60... It goes to 60 even if minimum load bur running it for more than an hour. My maximum temperature was at around 75C under full processor load.

Link: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/252119/

The other issue I want to cover is CPU temperature and fan noise. Previous Core Duo versions of the MacBook have had major issues with heat and fan noise. So, how well does the Core 2 Duo do here? Well, disappointingly, my version seems to go from a little bit noisy to very noisy. I have a 60 degree celsius (140 fahrenheit) idle temperature and an 80 degree celsius (176 fahrenheit) heavy usage temperature.

Link: http://www.topicpoint.com/2006/11/review_macbook_core_2_duo_c2d.html#more

I just fail to see how C2D macbook is much cooler. To me, the heat problem is a heat or miss kind of thing.

 

[TequilaBoobs]

wtf

that article said the white mac was the fastest cuz of the fujitsu HD as opposed to the black toshiba HD, despite both running at 5400 rpm. im going to lose a lot of seconds cuz of this disparity compared to the white. booo apple!

 

[adiosk8]

Now that is a good analysis!
Well, the people who waited gain the potential to use draft N network card, which currently....no one uses.....

They also gain the ability to use 64-bit operation system, .....which I fail to see why you would like to do it...

oh dear...64 bit allows you to address more then 4 gigs of ram, and crunch numbers in 64 bits as oppose to 32 bits...which is way faster.

and the people who waited got more then 7% that this reports in a current real world test, they got a cooler running macbook with problems of a first generation fixed, dual layer burners, another gig of ram possible in this current state and a few other little things

 

[BWhaler]

All I know is it's going to be a ton faster than my 1 year old last generation 17" PowerBook.

Yes, every company picks favorable benchmarks. Why is this even worth debating?

For me, I can't wait to get my new computer. All indications are it will absolutely scream compared with what I am using today. Isn't that the only benchmark that matters?

 

[junkster]

oh dear...64 bit allows you to address more then 4 gigs of ram, and crunch numbers in 64 bits as oppose to 32 bits...which is way faster.

Note that all Intel chips going back to the original Pentium let you crunch numbers 64-bits at a time: the floating point unit operates on 64-bit values internally. Actually, it operates on 80-bit values internally. Previous x86 processors with built-in FPUs also worked with 80-bit values internally, but the external bus only became 64-bit with the Pentium.

And, for the record, the MMX extensions for the x86--over ten years old now--operated on 64-bit values. SSE2 works with 128-bit values. 64-bit math is hardly new, and you don't need a 64-bit operating system to do it.

 

[Zwhaler]

Well, it's better and that's all that matters. Oh and it's more than the CPU speed by the way.

 

[junkster]

Well as I thought, overall those who waited for Merom C2D's havent exactly gained much by waiting.

Macworld's real world benchmarks only report a 7% increase in system performance between the fastest CD Macbook and the fastest C2D Macbook.

Well, it's less silly than people who pay extra for 2.16 vs. 2.0 GHz, or 2.33 vs. 2.16 GHz (both of which are similarly small increments).

Personally, I was waiting for the C2D notebooks in hopes that Apple solved the problems that plagued the previous versions. Plus it's nice to get the extra memory and larger hard drives for the same price.

 

[junkster]

The PC Magazine benchmarks--which are actually the MB C2D vs. the MBP CD, both at 2GHz--show a lot more than a 7% increase in some tests.

http://reviews.cnet.com/Apple_MacBook_Core_2_Duo_2_0GHz/4505-3121_7-32148808.html?tag=cnetfd.mt

 

[clevin]

The PC Magazine benchmarks--which are actually the MB C2D vs. the MBP CD, both at 2GHz--show a lot more than a 7% increase in some tests.

http://reviews.cnet.com/Apple_MacBook_Core_2_Duo_2_0GHz/4505-3121_7-32148808.html?tag=cnetfd.mt

I tend not to believe anything cnet said, they, in my memory, made a lot of weird benchmarks and strange conclusions.
anyway, macworld's benchmark does show higher improvement in some kind of jobs, (mostly encoding, which is CPU heavy), OP is talking about the whole system general improvement, i don;t see any conflict here.

 

[dextertangocci]

They also gain the ability to use 64-bit operation system, .....which I fail to see why you would like to do it...

The iMac and Powemac G5's are 64bit, and they aren't more future proof than my CD MB

 

[Chundles]

7% in speedmark but check this out:

Photoshop CS2:

PowerBook G4 1.67GHz (native) - 1:35
MacBook Core Duo (rosetta) - 1:48
MacBook Core 2 Duo (rosetta) - 1:24 Black 2.0GHz
MacBook Core 2 Duo (rosetta) - 1:30 White 1.83GHz

Even the lesser 2MB cache MacBook beats the fastest G4 PowerBook in their Photoshop benchmark even though it's emulating Photoshop and the PB is running it natively.

Mind you, it looks like the black Core 2 Duo might have a slow HDD. It's slower in the iPhoto and Zip archive than the Core Duo model that preceded it whilst the mid-line white Core 2 Duo MacBook is ten seconds faster in both tests than it's black counterpart. Odd.

But that Photoshop test amazes me. These machines are running a big-arse software program on a machine the software was never designed to run on and it's doing it faster than the machine for which it was designed. That just makes my head spin.

The iMac and Powermac G5's were 64bit)

They still are last time I checked

 

[SiliconAddict]

As for future proof. I cannot think of one computer in this world that is future proof. Please feel free to prove me wrong on this one.

Maybe not proof but definitely resistant. Also keep in mind folks that it may only be a draft N card but since it has the prerequisite 3 antennas you could theoretically swap it out for a final N card since the thing is sitting in nothing more then a mini-pci slot. Swap cards, reattach the 3 antennas and reboot.