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

[rxse7en]

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.



They still are last time I checked

That's the most important benchie for me!

B

 

[gnasher729]

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

If you look at the actual numbers, it seems that the new CPU is actually a lot faster, but the graphics card is unchanged. You can see that by checking on which tests the MacBook C2 didn't gain much; these are exactly the tests where the MacBook Pro with faster graphics card is a _lot_ better.

 

[SiliconAddict]

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.

Couple things. First off even though AMD has had the chips on the market for years they are a drop in the bucket compared the CPU's put out by Intel. Now with just about ever CPU being sold being 64-bit ready there is a legit reason for Microsoft and Apple to start moving to 64-bit. Oh and as for Windows. XP 64-bit has been in beta for years. They actually released it last year. The 64-bit moving is starting up. Watch what happens in the next two years.

 

[clevin]

If you look at the actual numbers, it seems that the new CPU is actually a lot faster, but the graphics card is unchanged. You can see that by checking on which tests the MacBook C2 didn't gain much; these are exactly the tests where the MacBook Pro with faster graphics card is a _lot_ better.

I seriously think that is due to 1G RAM, not CPU. cpu benchmark didn't show that much improvment
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808

 

[ammonialime]

I dont understand how this is even debatable, The Cnet tests show very nice improvements over the CD Macbook, not only in benchmarks but in actual application performance. Its competing very closely with a Macbook pro that is completely maxed out with Ram, faster hard drive and processor but still competes very favorably when not doing graphics intensive tasks. Seems to me people denying the improvements are trying to convince themselves that there impatience has no consequence.

 

[clevin]

I dont understand how this is even debatable, The Cnet tests show very nice improvements over the CD Macbook, not only in benchmarks but in actual application performance. Its competing very closely with a Macbook pro that is completely maxed out with Ram, faster hard drive and processor but still competes very favorably when not doing graphics intensive tasks. Seems to me people denying the improvements are trying to convince themselves that there impatience has no consequence.

we definitely talking about different benchmark here, Cnet didn't test CD MB at all.
also, nobody denying the improvement, 7% overall, higher in CPU heavy work, thats clear.

 

[whawhat]

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.

same for me. returned original and now have the c2d and loving it. big plus is the 200gb HD.

 

[daveL]

I guess it all depends on who you ask:

http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd6.html

Then, on the 15", there's double the memory, DL superdrive and FW800 - for the same price. Oh, and don't forget the GPU is no longer under clocked. I agree, anyone that waited for this revision was just stupid.

 

[ammonialime]

Devin: im sorry when i refered to the Macbook i did mean Macbook Pro.

 

[emotion]

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

10.4.8 came with large optimisations in Rosetta performance. Are we sure these benchmarks aren't just demonstrating that?

Benchmarking is an art.

 

[SiliconAddict]

10.4.8 came with large optimisations in Rosetta performance. Are we sure these benchmarks aren't just demonstrating that?

Benchmarking is an art.

I was kinda wondering that myself. You would THINK that people doing a review would have the same "patch" level on all systems. You would think....

I guess it all depends on who you ask:

http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd6.html

Then, on the 15", there's double the memory, DL superdrive and FW800 - for the same price. Oh, and don't forget the GPU is no longer under clocked. I agree, anyone that waited for this revision was just stupid.

actually the GPU is still under clocked; just not as grossly as on the original MBP. Welcome to the 1" form factor limitations...

 

[emotion]

I was kinda wondering that myself. You would THINK that people doing a review would have the same "patch" level on all systems. You would think....

I really would hope that they are this thorough.

 

[emotion]

My bad, the article does state the same patch level.

*hangs head in shame*

Edit: In my defence the cnet people aren't as thorough however http://reviews.cnet.com/Apple_MacBook_Core_2_Duo_2_0GHz/4505-3121_7-32148808.html?tag=cnetfd.mt.

Their benchmark shows a more marked improvement in the new machines on that particular benchmark too. This is the effect of the Rosetta optimisations I guess.

 

[dextertangocci]

10.4.8 came with large optimisations in Rosetta performance. Are we sure these benchmarks aren't just demonstrating that?

Benchmarking is an art.

Also, which CD MB are they comparing? 1.83 or 2Ghz? And besides, the C2D has 1GB RAM, not the 512 that came with the CD