Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ftaok

macrumors 603
Original poster
Jan 23, 2002
6,491
1,573
East Coast
Hey all. Thought some may be interested in some not-so-scientific benchmarks.

Here's the particulars.

1.67 Core Duo mini
512MB RAM
1650x1050 resolution

1.83 MacBook Pro
512MB RAM
1440x900 resolution

Apple Store - King of Prussia, PA

I test both machines without the aid of a stopwatch. I created a new iMovie (version 6) project and added 2 photos to the time line with Ken Burns Effect ON. Then I added a fade out followed by a fade in transition.

On each machine, after hitting the "Apply" button, a dialog popped up indicating that iMovie was importing the photo. Then the photo clip showed up in the timeline with the obligatory red progress indicator.

The mini "seemed" to be much faster than the MBP. I would estimate that the mini took about 2 to 3 seconds to process the photo while the MBP took about 4 to 5 seconds. The fade in/out transitions took about 1 second on both machines.

I was very surprised with the performance of the mini. However, I was a little disappointed with the playback of a 1080p movie trailer (Talledgea Nights). Of course, the baby was hungry and the Apple Stores bandwith was lacking. The entire trailer hadn't finished downloading when I was playing the clip. The actual FPS dropped down to about 16 (out of 24) in a few instances. I'm hoping that it was just because it was still downloading that made the video choppy.

ft
 

Shamus

macrumors 6502a
Feb 26, 2006
651
0
id dare say that the frame skipping would be because of the mediocre graphics in the mini.
 

Eidorian

macrumors Penryn
Mar 23, 2005
29,190
386
Indianapolis
Yeah, the shared video memory more than likely impaired the FPS for the video. Still, they appear to be rather fast machines for rendering and encoding.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.