|
|
San Francisco
60 posts
|
I just received a MacBook Pro - 2.0 GHz with 2 GB RAM from Apple (sadly just a loaner - but I'm not gonna give this back :). Here's how it stacks up rendering a test scene (all renders using default render threads (1 thread per core):
PowerBook G4 1.0 GHz: 343.0 sec
PowerBook G4 1.67 GHz: 179.4 sec
MacBook Pro 2.0 GHz: 36.3 sec
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 26.0 sec
So, in our tests, on this one scene, the MBP 2.0 is 4.9x faster than the top of the line PowerBook G4 (I've been told by Apple this scene renders in 33.8 on a 2.1 MBP so that's 5.3x). It's about 10x faster than my own 1 GHz PB and is 70% as fast as a Quad G5. That's amazing.
Anyhoo, lots of Mac websites are bagging on the Intel switch, then doing benchmarks on Rosetta and single threaded apps which is not only unfair, but pretty weasel-ish. Here's what you can expect when 201 ships.
|
|
3/10/2006 - 2:32 PM
|
|
|
London, UK
7321 posts
|
Hmm... Would it be worth $2000 to get my render times reduced by a factor of almost five? :D
As for the Intel Mac benchmarks, I posted a rant about it at NewTek's forums. It's something that has annoyed me greatly. I'm all for running real-world benchmarks on the Intel machines that aren't the 3-4 times faster, but claiming that the fact that you only get a 50% speed-up at disk-intensive tasks proves the CPUs aren't as much faster as claimed is just idiotic.
|
|
3/10/2006 - 3:10 PM
|
|
|
2088 posts
|
That sounds really exciting. Can you tell us how fast this scene renders on a dual 2.7 (I think Brad's machine), and possibly some window systems just to have a comparison? never the less, my 1.0 G4 is dieing to be replaced... I guess this will give me the push I need.
Yazan
|
|
3/10/2006 - 3:15 PM
|
|
|
Citizen Of The World
2447 posts
|
I assume that everyone here in the Mac Forum saw the other announcement in the News forum that Luxology has released a Universal Binary version of modo for Intel Macs?
It's available for download now.
--------------------------------------------------
Download a free office suite: http://www.openoffice.org/
|
|
3/10/2006 - 3:41 PM
|
|
|
2088 posts
|
Yeah, also can anyone tell us their experience of using the modeling modo 103 and how it compared to their other system(s) PPC?
Yazan
|
|
3/10/2006 - 4:07 PM
|
|
|
Citizen Of The World
2447 posts
|
Quote from Yazan Malkosh :
Yeah, also can anyone tell us their experience of using the modeling modo 103 and how it compared to their other system(s) PPC?
I haven't downloaded the new Universal Binary version of modo. I just assumed there would not be any advantage for PowerPC (G4, G5) users. I thought it was just for Intel Mac users.
--------------------------------------------------
Download a free office suite: http://www.openoffice.org/
|
|
3/10/2006 - 5:41 PM
|
|
|
Germany
387 posts
|
First of all: these are really good news. Pretty d**n fast these MacBook Pros.
But it really shows how old my PowerBook is. And I seriously don't want to know how long it would take for that scene to render on it.
And for those who are wondering: it's a PowerBook G4 Titanium 400MHz with 512MB RAM. It's good for the more "usual" stuff, but not for 3D. Thank god I still have my Dual G4 PowerMac for that. Although that's also 3 1/2 years old. Man, I need a new machine...
KosmoK
|
|
3/10/2006 - 5:45 PM
|
|
|
San Francisco
60 posts
|
Quote from Beamtracer :
I haven't downloaded the new Universal Binary version of modo. I just assumed there would not be any advantage for PowerPC (G4, G5) users. I thought it was just for Intel Mac users.
Correct - the only difference between the UB 103 and the PPC 103, other than, you know, being a UB, is the licensing. There is no compelling reason to update unless you're on an Intel box.
|
|
3/10/2006 - 5:54 PM
|
|
|
2088 posts
|
Quote from Beamtracer :
I haven't downloaded the new Universal Binary version of modo. I just assumed there would not be any advantage for PowerPC (G4, G5) users. I thought it was just for Intel Mac users.
I didn't assume there is anything behind using it on a G4 or G5, but is there a difference in responsiveness on the itntel macs for 103? speed of opening objects? and such
Yazan
|
|
3/10/2006 - 6:12 PM
|
|
|
London, UK
7321 posts
|
Quote from Yazan Malkosh :
I didn't assume there is anything behind using it on a G4 or G5, but is there a difference in responsiveness on the itntel macs for 103? speed of opening objects? and such
Yazan
The difference should be tremendous. Especially when it comes to loading stuff (I've heard this is one of the slower aspects of Rosetta -- once it's built up a cache of translated code, it gets faster).
|
|
3/10/2006 - 6:31 PM
|
|
|
Santa Cruz, CA
594 posts
|
Quote from Matthew Craig :
MacBook Pro 2.0 GHz: 36.3 sec
Quad G5 2.5 GHz: 26.0 sec
<snip>
... and is 70% as fast as a Quad G5. That's amazing.
As a newish Quad owner I find that both terrifing and exhilerating. August through '07 is going to be an interesting time...(rumored announce time of the ProMac line...)
As long as they don't kick the Quad TOO badly I won't be all that hurt...much. 8)
------------------------------------------
* We dance where angels fear to tread *
|
|
3/10/2006 - 8:38 PM
|
|
|
London, UK
7321 posts
|
Regardless of how fast the "Pro Mac" is, the quad is still one hell of a machine.
|
|
3/10/2006 - 8:42 PM
|
|
|
Santa Cruz, CA
594 posts
|
Quote from Captain Obvious :
Regardless of how fast the "Pro Mac" is, the quad is still one hell of a machine.
Yes, yes it is. Blows the doors off my old box (dual 1.0 G4). I did weigh holding out till '07 vs the quad.
------------------------------------------
* We dance where angels fear to tread *
|
|
3/10/2006 - 8:57 PM
|
|
|
Earth
153 posts
|
I must say, after seeing those numbers I'm REALLY tempted to get myself a mac. But the awful fact is that most of my gam... err entertainment apps run best on a PC.
Oh well. That's life.
--[http://www.killerslime.com]--
|
|
3/11/2006 - 6:54 AM
|
|
|
Culver City, CA
138 posts
|
Man, oh man. I am so waiting for mine to arrive : )
|
|
3/11/2006 - 9:15 AM
|
|
|
Martian Megalopolis, Olympus Mons, Mars
7710 posts
|
I emailed this to the various Mac sites AND to Walt Mossberg at WSJ...maybe Lux will get some coverage out of it.
"Rommel, you magnificent bastard. I read your book!" -George Patton
http://aoleonthemartiangirl.com
|
|
3/11/2006 - 5:56 PM
|
|
|
1158 posts
|
Wow. Nice.
I played with a MacBook at an Apple store in Chicago and it felt very fast. It felt desktop fast. I think this whole Intel switch is really coming together nicely.
Man, that sets the bar pretty high for the Pro Macs coming soon-ish. I'm still thrilled with the performance of my Dual 2.7, but come August-ish, must?have?new?Mac?
Homina? That just sunk in. 70% as fast as a Quad?!!!!?? Gulp.
|
|
3/11/2006 - 9:44 PM
|
|
|
London, UK
7321 posts
|
I think it's pretty odd, to be honest. When running the Xbench user interface benchmark, a Macbook Pro gets a score seven times higher than the old PowerBook. Sure, a Core Duo at 2GHz is faster than a G4 at 1.67GHz, and the X1600 is faster than the 9700, but not that much faster. Something at the heart of OS X is just plain poorly written for PowerPC, it seems. The same story repeats itself on the Power Macs and iMacs... The Intel Macs are simply snappier.
|
|
3/12/2006 - 12:10 AM
|
|
|
San Francisco
60 posts
|
Quote from Captain Obvious :
I think it's pretty odd, to be honest. When running the Xbench user interface benchmark, a Macbook Pro gets a score seven times higher than the old PowerBook. Sure, a Core Duo at 2GHz is faster than a G4 at 1.67GHz, and the X1600 is faster than the 9700, but not that much faster. Something at the heart of OS X is just plain poorly written for PowerPC, it seems. The same story repeats itself on the Power Macs and iMacs... The Intel Macs are simply snappier.
So I've been using this MBP over the weekend and the difference is, quite literally, stunning. I'm used to "Slumming" when I'm at home with my TiBook (since most of my time is spent on my Intel iMac or Quad). Like the good Captain says, the main impression you get is of snappiness. Of course benchmark wise it's an order of magnitude better than my TiBook, but just *using* it is exhilerating. I told Brad friday that despite the fact it's about identical to my iMac (except for faster HD), just being in what I call the notebook frame of mind makes it seem just ludicrously fast.
I am simply not returning this to Apple.
|
|
3/12/2006 - 10:12 AM
|
|
|
London, UK
7321 posts
|
You're making me want one, too. My iBook is everything but snappy. :(
|
|
3/12/2006 - 12:19 PM
|
|
|
|
|
