I do actually and was considering running the same tests, just for fun.zelmo said:
My dual gets ~100 in Xbench and I suspect it'd fly in the Photoshop test.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
[MacBook] The Mother of all Benchmarks
- Thread starter Abulia
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My dual gets ~100 in Xbench and I suspect it'd fly in the Photoshop test.
Hmmm.... Those photoshop results are very very interesting. Many people have held off buying a Macbook (pro) for the 'photoshop' not being universal issue.
Although, if a photoshop user were going to buy a mac, he would probably buy a Macbook Pro, which was not covered in this test. I wonder if the Photoshop test in windows, on a Macbook Pro, would beat the OS X test on the same machine. Given the better performance available, and taking into account these tests, the times would be closer, and the windows version could possibly beat the OS X version. If that makes sense.
Any thoughts?
Although, if a photoshop user were going to buy a mac, he would probably buy a Macbook Pro, which was not covered in this test. I wonder if the Photoshop test in windows, on a Macbook Pro, would beat the OS X test on the same machine. Given the better performance available, and taking into account these tests, the times would be closer, and the windows version could possibly beat the OS X version. If that makes sense.
Any thoughts?
WOW. Excellent work DON. Can't believe that PS with rossetta is actually faster than running in winblows XPee natively. Thanks for all the great work you've done. As Multi said in another thread Apple should really consider rewarding you for your hard work.
MacBook Pro Results Are Still Going To Favor OS X Rosetta Photoshop Over Native XP
That makes no sense at all. What makes you think the MacBook Pro is any less effective at allowing Rosetta to run even faster @2.16GHz while XP remains a DOG?Nar1117 said:
Multimedia said:That makes no sense at all. What makes you think the MacBook Pro is any less effective at allowing Rosetta to run even faster @2.16GHz while XP remains a DOG?
What i mean is, going from the macbook to the Macbook pro, there is obviously an overall performance increase.
Now, my question is, does the performance increase effect windows or OS X more? I dont know myself, but if windows ran faster, photoshop in windows would run faster than the photoshop under rosetta, i.e. Photoshop would run better under Windows on a Macbook Pro than it does under OS X.
That Makes No Sense
No, not obviously at all. Early benchmarks show 2GHz MacBook is as fast as or superior to 2GHz MacBook Pro in performance. Probably something to do with a newer mortherboard better optimized for Core Duo.Nar1117 said:
I know what you mean and That Makes No Sense.Nar1117 said:
I ran an xbench test of a blacbook with 1GB RAM instore at apple, just for kicks, and the score was a tad over 50.
the best i could ever get on my powerbook was a tad over 40 lol!
and on my g5 its like almost 200.
and the photoshop test - on my dual 2.7Ghz G5 i can run the test in 51 seconds! lol. ( i have 6.5Gb of ram though, and no scratch disk )
the best i could ever get on my powerbook was a tad over 40 lol!
and on my g5 its like almost 200.
and the photoshop test - on my dual 2.7Ghz G5 i can run the test in 51 seconds! lol. ( i have 6.5Gb of ram though, and no scratch disk )
2GHz to 2.16GHz Is Not Going To Change Photoshop Face Off Results
2GHz to 2.16GHz Is Not Going To Change Photoshop Face Off Results.Nar1117 said:
I'm wondering if the reason the xp machine performed so badly is becuase the os doesn't know how to use a dual processor? I'm assuming OSX does this much better?
Windoze XP-Vista Whatever Does Not Know How To Use Any Processor As Well As OS X Does
More like Windoze XP-Vista Whatever Does Not Know How To Use Any Processor As Well As OS X Does.rugonnaeatthat said:
Windows XP [Edit: Pro, not Home] supports multi-processor platforms, as does Photoshop for Windows.rugonnaeatthat said:
As to the other person asking about MBP performance, you'll find that MBP benchmarks are nearly the same to MB benchmarks that are not GPU-bound. Since, for example, the Photoshop test doesn't really use the GPU, you'll see no meaningful increase in performance. (You can check the Photoshop test thread stickied in this sub-forum for some real world test results.)
If someone would like to provide me with a MBP I'd be happy to run a test suite with both machines.
Do The Tests In Parallels Workstation Don.
Yeah I vote for that next. Would be an excellent get. Of course it will be even worse. But not by much is my guess.zelmo said:
Absolutely the most comprehensive review I've probably seen of the Macbook. Simply amazing, great job!
One thing that I noticed was the near two minute decrease with the RAM jump from 1gb to 1.25gb on the photoshop tests. Very interesting.
You have definetly done an amazing job, and I'm 100% sure I'm going to purchase a MacBook now.
Thank you very much
One thing that I noticed was the near two minute decrease with the RAM jump from 1gb to 1.25gb on the photoshop tests. Very interesting.
You have definetly done an amazing job, and I'm 100% sure I'm going to purchase a MacBook now.
Thank you very much
5400 or 7200rpm drives
Thanks for doing this testing, it was quite insightful.
As for the failure of the 7200 rpm drives to out perform the 5400rpm drives, haas anyone tested the stock 7200rpm drives in the MacBook Pro compared to the 5400 ones in the same machine. I'm generally not one for conspiracy theories, but perhaps Apple is limiting the MacBooks performance for the purpose of differentiating the pro and consumer lines of machines.
Just a thought.
Thanks for doing this testing, it was quite insightful.
As for the failure of the 7200 rpm drives to out perform the 5400rpm drives, haas anyone tested the stock 7200rpm drives in the MacBook Pro compared to the 5400 ones in the same machine. I'm generally not one for conspiracy theories, but perhaps Apple is limiting the MacBooks performance for the purpose of differentiating the pro and consumer lines of machines.
Just a thought.
jne381 said:
That was what I was basically wondering at in my earlier post. Based on my experience comparing external 7200 and 5400 rpm firewire drives on my mini (which itself has a 4200 rpm drive) I have found a material (in terms of test results) and noticeable (in terms of performance) difference going from 4200 to 5400 and 5400 to 7200.
Intuitively these results make no sense unless there is something choking the performance inside the MB. Maybe the SATA interface. Can't say if Apple did anything on purpose here of course.
TM
Not So Much Difference Between Internal 2.5" 5400 & 7200 rpm Drives I Think
I think internal 2.5" HDs running at 5400 and 7200 exhibit a lot less difference than external 3.5" FW kits running at each of those speeds.anthonymoody said:
Multimedia said:
Well....yeah, apparently according to these results. The question is *why*, since if anything one would think that the FW interface should act as more of a chokedown than an internal SATA interface.
TM
Size of 2.5" Drive Makes Speed Less Important
Size. Heads don't need to move as far on smaller drives so speed doesn't make as much of a difference.anthonymoody said: