26 replies to this topic

[rob_ART]

http://barefeats.com/mbps01.html

In this first article, I pit the 2010 MBP 2.66 (17") against a 2011 MBP 2.30 quad-core (17") and 2011 MBP 2.7 dual-core (13") running Starcraft, Portal, L4D2, and WoW at 1280x800 (since that's the max for the 13") and with setting that make games playable on the 13".

Next I will test the three 2011 MacBook Pros (2.0, 2.2, 2.3) against the 2010 MacBook Pro (2.66) using a 27" LED Cinema display at 2560x1600 and High settings.

Any suggestions?

[Janichsan]

A direct comparison of the new 13" MBP with its direct successor would be nice.

[Mister Mumbles]

Janichsan, on 04 March 2011 - 03:16 PM, said:

A direct comparison of the new 13" MBP with its direct predecessor would be nice.

Fixed. Yes, a direct comparison is always helpful.

[Sneaky Snake]

That is Starcraft 2 right? for the Starcraft test?

[The Liberator]

Sneaky Snake, on 05 March 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

That is Starcraft 2 right? for the Starcraft test?

Well, errr why would it not be? The frames per second on the tests show that it could not be SC, but SCII.  They are too low for it to be the first game.

Liberator.

[ltcommander.data]

A HD 3000 vs. 320M shootout would definitely be interesting. It should be noted though that the HD 3000 is clocked differently in different models for max Turbo Boost. 1200MHz on the 2.0GHz Core i7 2635QM quad core and 1300MHz on the 2.2GHz Core i7 2720QM and 2.3GHz Core i7 2820QM quad cores and 2.7GHz Core i7 2620M dual core. The 2.3GHz dual core 13.3" model appears to be using a custom Core i5 2415M presumably because Apple is using a higher clock speed 1200MHz or 1300MHz HD 3000, whereas the normal 2.3GHz dual core models clock at 1100MHz. It would be good to figure out definitively what clock speed the 2.3GHz Core i5 2415M really clocks it's GPU at.

For all models, it'd be good to see an OpenCL faceoff between the HD 6750 and 330M GT and confirm that the 13" models lack GPU accelerated OpenCL. Some results for the HD 6490 would also be nice. I'm thinking it'll slot between the 9600M GT and 330M GT.

As well, previously after touting H.264 hardware accelerated decode in Snow Leopard, only select nVidia GPUs were ever officially supported. Can you confirm whether H.264 hardware accelerated decode has been dropped in the new MacBook Pros now that they use Intel and ATI GPUs or are they actually supported now?

A shootout using Civ V would also be great and will perhaps give the new quad core CPUs more of a workout compared to other games. And perhaps Borderlands and an older game like Call of Duty 4 or Quake Wars that the drivers should be very well optimized for by now.

And as a comparison point it'd be good to put a desktop GPU in there. I'm thinking the Mobility HD 6750 should slot in somewhere in between the HD 4670 and HD 5670 in the iMacs, probably very close to the HD 5670 actually since it's really a Mobility HD 5730.

[Janichsan]

Mister Mumbles, on 04 March 2011 - 06:54 PM, said:

Janichsan, on 04 March 2011 - 03:16 PM, said:

A direct comparison of the new 13" MBP with its direct predecessor would be nice.

Fixed. Yes, a direct comparison is always helpful.

Err... yes. I mean: no – I want a benchmark comparison with next year's 13" MBPs...  

[rob_ART]

Sneaky Snake, on 05 March 2011 - 12:56 AM, said:

That is Starcraft 2 right? for the Starcraft test?

Yes. Starcraft 2.

[rob_ART]

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll work them into future postings or update existing ones.

Meanwhile, here's a High Rez, High Quality round of testing with the 2011 MacBook Pro compared to two popular Mac desktops used for gaming:

http://barefeats.com/mbps03.html

[Sneaky Snake]

rob_ART, on 10 March 2011 - 12:42 PM, said:

Thanks for the suggestions. I'll work them into future postings or update existing ones.

Meanwhile, here's a High Rez, High Quality round of testing with the 2011 MacBook Pro compared to two popular Mac desktops used for gaming:

http://barefeats.com/mbps03.html

Looks like the 6750M is a massive stepup from the 330M. It gets more then double the frames in pretty much every test. Obviously the quad core helps, but most games are a lot more GPU dependent

[rob_ART]

I compared the 2011 MacBook Pro with Radeon HD 6750, Radeon HD 6490, and Intel HD 3000 running Portal and X-Plane:
http://www.barefeats.com/mbps04.html

It includes the 2010 MacBook Pro with GeForce 330M and MacBook Air with GeForce 320M.

[Sneaky Snake]

rob_ART, on 23 March 2011 - 06:04 AM, said:

I compared the 2011 MacBook Pro with Radeon HD 6750, Radeon HD 6490, and Intel HD 3000 running Portal and X-Plane:
http://www.barefeats.com/mbps04.html

It includes the 2010 MacBook Pro with GeForce 330M and MacBook Air with GeForce 320M.

Thanks for the benchies!

So it looks like the 6490M is a little worse then the 330M, but the quad core CPU makes up for it, so they get around the same frames

[XxtraLarGe]

This is really helpful info. I'm probably going to buy one of these in August (hopefully there will be an iPod Touch deal). Only thing I'm curious about is if it's worth the extra $225 to upgrade from the 2.2 GHz to the 2.3 GHz?

Also Rob, if you're checking this thread still I have a suggestion. If I click on a link to get to a benchmark, the only way to get back to the home page is by clicking back. How about making your logo image (http://barefeats.com...s09/bf_logo.gif) a link back to the home page?

rob_ART, on 04 March 2011 - 12:35 PM, said:

http://barefeats.com/mbps01.html

In this first article, I pit the 2010 MBP 2.66 (17") against a 2011 MBP 2.30 quad-core (17") and 2011 MBP 2.7 dual-core (13") running Starcraft, Portal, L4D2, and WoW at 1280x800 (since that's the max for the 13") and with setting that make games playable on the 13".

Next I will test the three 2011 MacBook Pros (2.0, 2.2, 2.3) against the 2010 MacBook Pro (2.66) using a 27" LED Cinema display at 2560x1600 and High settings.

Any suggestions?

Of course right after I post this, I noticed the "index" link. Still, I think linking the logo to the front page is a good idea.

XxtraLarGe, on 13 June 2011 - 09:21 AM, said:

This is really helpful info. I'm probably going to buy one of these in August (hopefully there will be an iPod Touch deal). Only thing I'm curious about is if it's worth the extra $225 to upgrade from the 2.2 GHz to the 2.3 GHz?

Also Rob, if you're checking this thread still I have a suggestion. If I click on a link to get to a benchmark, the only way to get back to the home page is by clicking back. How about making your logo image (http://barefeats.com...s09/bf_logo.gif) a link back to the home page?

[DrJohnFever]

XxtraLarGe, on 13 June 2011 - 09:24 AM, said:

This is really helpful info. I'm probably going to buy one of these in August (hopefully there will be an iPod Touch deal). Only thing I'm curious about is if it's worth the extra $225 to upgrade from the 2.2 GHz to the 2.3 GHz?

You also get a slight amount more cache, but IMHO, 2mb of cache and 100MHz is barely worth $75, let alone $225.

[XxtraLarGe]

Just ordered my 17" MacBook Pro w/2.2 GHz i7, 8GB RAM, 750 GB HD, 17" matte screen.     

I know there will probably be a new one in November or so, but I've heard it will have an SSD HD & no optical drive. I wouldn't be a fan of either of those changes.

[DrJohnFever]

Nice! Tell us how it fares.

[Sneaky Snake]

XxtraLarGe, on 11 August 2011 - 02:29 PM, said:

Just ordered my 17" MacBook Pro w/2.2 GHz i7, 8GB RAM, 750 GB HD, 17" matte screen.     

I know there will probably be a new one in November or so, but I've heard it will have an SSD HD & no optical drive. I wouldn't be a fan of either of those changes.

How are you not a fan of like 10x faster drive speed (i.e. an SSD)? I will never buy a computer again without one after using one

[ltcommander.data]

Sneaky Snake, on 11 August 2011 - 05:02 PM, said:

How are you not a fan of like 10x faster drive speed (i.e. an SSD)? I will never buy a computer again without one after using one

Well if it's like the blade SSDs in the MacBook Air, limited capacity and limited third-part upgrade options could be a concern. Going from 750GB to 256GB can be a problem if the notebook is intended as the primary computer and having to attach external hard drives all the time isn't convenient.

In any case, I'm thinking there won't actually be a major redesign this year. Intel's doing a minor Sandy Bridge refresh with 200MHz clock speed bumps so those will be added and perhaps high-res screens will finally be standard, 1440x900 for the 13" and 1680x1050 for the 15". That avoids concern that production upsets with a major design change could effect Christmas sales. The next major redesign can then occur in Q2 2012 when Ivy Bridge arrives, which will probably be necessary anyways to take advantage of lower thermal requirements as the Ultrabook initiative takes hold at Intel starting with Ivy Bridge.

[XxtraLarGe]

ltcommander.data, on 11 August 2011 - 10:54 PM, said:

Sneaky Snake, on 11 August 2011 - 05:02 PM, said:

How are you not a fan of like 10x faster drive speed (i.e. an SSD)? I will never buy a computer again without one after using one

Well if it's like the blade SSDs in the MacBook Air, limited capacity and limited third-part upgrade options could be a concern. Going from 750GB to 256GB can be a problem if the notebook is intended as the primary computer and having to attach external hard drives all the time isn't convenient.

That's exactly it.

[teflon]

There's replacements for the MBA SSDs, and there were after about 2 days on the market with that particular design, just Apple blocked them, I think. TRIM support is there in OSX, too, but it is software limited to Apple drives only, with minor tweaks enabling it very simply.

The only point that still holds water is the capacity of the drives. It's tough to go back 5 years in capacity. Heck, I had a 250GB drive in my Cube since 2004, and that was pretty cheap back then... 256GB would be an absolute pain to live with again. I'd need to have a second HDD in there for storage, to make it OK again. That's only possible if Apple design around that, or there's an optical drive for me to replace.