New Core 2 Duo MacBook Pros only see 10 percent speed bump
By Cyrus Farivar 
posted Nov 3rd 2006 9:36PM
posted Nov 3rd 2006 9:36PM
We're not really sure how exactly Apple measured the new Core 2 Duo MacBook Pros in order to get a purported 39 percent speed increase from the previous models, but then again, that's what we depend upon the free and independent press for. Macworld has taken the new MBPs for a test flight and, guess what, Apple's been pulling our legs. Yep, Macworld could only get a 10 percent bump on the new 2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo MBP (just like those Core 2 Duo iMacs) when compared to the original 2.16GHz Intel Core Duo MBP running the Speedmark benchmark. The top of the line 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo MBP with 2GB of RAM, as expected, was the leader of the pack, coming in with a Speedmark score of 226 ("19 percent faster than the older model"), and bested its companions in every category ranging from running Unreal Tournament 2004 to video Cinema 4D rendering. Now all we need are some Core 2 Duo MacBooks and we'll have the family fully upgraded -- that is, until they get those quad-core chips going.
Can any one tell us wether we can sue Apple for false advertising?
We folks here in Hong Kong can do it but I'm not quite sure about the US laws.
and as we all knew, Apple lied too much one way the other.
From http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/
"Up to 39% faster than its predecessor.(1) [...]
1. Based on estimated SPECint_rate_base2000 results for the 2.33GHz 17-inch MacBook Pro with Core 2 Duo. Testing conducted by Apple in October 2006 using preproduction MacBook Pro units with Core 2 Duo;"
Sue Apple? Have you already bought one of these and are upset that it hasn't met the expectations? Or are you someone who just likes to sue whenever and wherever possible? Mindless thinking like this keeps the courts clogged with useless lawsuits. The sue! sue! sue! mentality is a small and feeble one.
Wow Eric, you're full of shit. What company DOESN'T exaggerate their product. Besides, the Macworld article claims the 10% speed increase is on the 2.16Ghz MacBook Pro, NOT the 2.33Ghz MacBook Pro, which sees even greater performance. Not to mention, they didn't even test the applications Apple claimed received greater boosts in performance (Final Cut Pro).
Looking at the article again, Compressor, which is a VERY intense process application, runs a whole 33% faster in the 2.33Ghz Core 2 Duo MBP than the previous 2.16Ghz Core Duo MBP.
You can't sue Apple based on false advertising because they didn't guarantee you 39% faster. The web site says "up to 39% faster" and then goes on to specify that 39% faster is based on spec_int_base2000, comparing the top of the line 2.33 Ghz Core 2 Duo to the previously top of the line 2.16 Ghz Core Duo.
The MacWorld measure of 10% faster is based on their Speedmark measure, which is derived from a battery of tests... and they specifically compared the now low end 2.16 Ghz Core 2 Duo with the previously high end 2.16 Ghz Core Duo...
"Looking at individual tests, some results—specifically ones that taxed either the hard drive or the graphics card—showed smaller performance gains, while other more CPU-intensive tasks saw more substantial improvements, thanks to the Core 2 Duo’s improved processing efficiency. Compressor 2.3, for example, ran 30 percent faster on the new 2.33GHz system than on the older 2.16GHz model. The 2.33GHz MacBook Pro was 40 percent faster than the older 2.16GHz model at MP3-encoding using iTunes."
According to Macworld, they encountered tests such as Compressor and MP3 encoding in iTunes that were 30% and 40% faster than the previous top end MacBook Pro. So there you have it. No false advertising, just RTFA.
Oh, and one more thing... I am very very disappointed in this Engadget post, and the blatant sensationalism of it...
"We're not really sure how exactly Apple measured the new Core 2 Duo MacBook Pros in order to get a purported 39 percent speed increase from the previous models..."
"Macworld has taken the new MBPs for a test flight and, guess what, Apple's been pulling our legs"
No... If you're not sure how Apple got the 39% measure, you didn't read the article. RTFA... Even MacWorld was able to get 30-40% improvements on specific tests (mp3 encode in itunes, and Compressor). The 10% was OVERALL improvement based on Macworld's artificial and derived speedmark benchmark, but Apple was very clear about how they got 39% improvement.
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/intel.html
Shame on you for this poor sensationalist journalism.
i wanted to vote for your post a numerous times (+) ...
it would only allow me to do so once...
anywise.. right you are.... this is a veery stupid post from engadgets side....
Big deal. I bought one and it rocks so hard you don't even know. Good stuff.
Don't get me wrong...
I'm not anti-Mac...
But it does seem that every other story on Engadget lately is about a Apple product.
I mean I'm getting sick of hearing how Apple removed a hole from one of their products... (i.e. the i-Sight indicator)... Or how Apple filed yet another patent...
I think Apple has come out with some very clever "gadgets" but I think Engadget needs to devote more time to seeking out the lesser known gadgets and bringing then to our attention. Thats what this blog was when I first discovered it... Now it just seems Mac-ifed
Thats just what I think...
http://soggycowdesigns.com
What's sensationalist about engadget's article? They're just calling it like macworld saw it.
And justifying lying or exaggerating by one company because they all do it is pathetic and shows how twisted people have become in our money-grubbing society.
It's a basic rule of sales that you don't lie to your customers. Just because you can get away with it in consumer products doesn't change that it's crooked.
booyah!
Gotta love the bewildered applets. Everyone on the PC side new Apple was full of crap with it's 39% hand-jobs. Macworld confirms it and what do fanboys do? Whine and defend a corporation. Man, talk about witless tools.
Hmmm.... I may be the only one, but seriously, they tested Unreal 2004 on a Core 2 Duo, what did they expect?
My desktop which is a 2 year old eMachine with a Celeron 330D @ 2.66 Ghz and a 128 mb Geforce FX 5500 PCI card (yes, not AGP, not PCI-Express but PCI standard) can run Unreal 2004 fine.
If a Core 2 duo can not run UR2k4, then there are some serious issues at stake here.
Oh, and another point, the fact that they use it shows why if you are a gamer, get a PC.
Talk about writing something up just to get traffic. As someone pointed out, get your facts right before you go mouthing off. The claim is for the 17" MacBook Pro. Which at the bottom of the MacWorld article they say they haven't even got yet. And Apple clearly state what was used in the comparison in the web page for the new MacBooks. Obviously you didn't take the time to "report" facts.
MacWorld never compared Apple's claim in their article. Only you guys did. What kind of hack "writers" work at Engadget anyway? This is just becoming a tabloid-blog. Someone call Calacanis to find some good people, please.
Oh lawdy lawdy, Apple exaggerated on a benchmark to make their computers sound faster! What is the world coming to!?
Jesus people, they've only been reporting ridiculously biased benchmarks since what, 1980?
I don't know about you guys, but I think the all around upgrades are the bigger part of the bump. More memory standard, bigger drives, etc. for the same price... I wouldn't bitch about the processor only being 10% faster, true or not.
Never thought engadget and the bulk of the readers where that ignorant, the new MBP is OVERAL 10% faster which is logical, graphics cards, drives and memory didn't get a speed boost, only the processor, if you do processor intens tasks like audio or video encoding, or real time effects which use the cpu (a la FCP) you will easily see the speed difference and measure 30 to 40% increase.
But then again the bulk of these readers run only benchmarks on their machines, pff time to drop this site and move over to more intelligent site/readers base ...
Ender, you sweet 'lil corporate tool, the ONLY specific task that hit jobs' hyped numbers was an mp3 conversion using a test bed machine with a faster cpu and TWICE AS MUCH RAM.
You guys ... you REALLY do need drag and drop, doncha?
Hey crescent, it's still a proof of claim though isn't it. Apple didn't lie if their new machine hit their advertised speed.
I'm no mathematician, but if Apple said "up to 39% faster" and Macworld's tests showed at least one app ran 40% faster, then Apple's been selling themselves short. They should change their web site to say "up to 40% faster according to independent test results!"
It's not Apple's fault if you don't read the fine print.
"I think Apple has come out with some very clever "gadgets" but I think Engadget needs to devote more time to seeking out the lesser known gadgets and bringing then to our attention. Thats what this blog was when I first discovered it... Now it just seems Mac-ifed
Thats just what I think... "
Pfft. Wake up.. you PC users have brought nothing to the table. Without Apple this would be a very very slow industry
c0cks... marketing is marketing, get over it. SPECrate is a multithreaded, parallel application. its designed to make multi-cpu/core systems look better. apple is going to use whatever benchmark lets them make the highest performance delta claim.
again, get over it, its just a benchmark. is it really going to let you surf pr0n any faster!?
Yes marketing is marketing however Apple's marketing has always wafted with the distinct scent o bullshit. 39% for only 1 or 2 benchmarks? Then what is the point of using that stat. I own an iPod. I own a Crapbook Pro (That is in for repairs for its 5th time since Feb. Typing this on my old Thinkpad.)
And I call BS on Apple. Yes marketing is pungent no matter where you go but again Apple's BS has always been a lot stronger then most.
The question is not "how much faster than the last model". The question is "Is this model or last model fast enough for me?" In a few months you'll get a faster machine anyway...
I think it gets pretty obvious where the 64-bit power kicks in. In MacWorld's test it's in encoding. MPEG2 encoding and iTunes encoding seems around 30% faster. Even Rosetta emulation with Photoshop seems faster. I think this goes in line with what assumptions I have over a 64-bit processor. If they did a test focused on what 64-bit is better on I think we would get a clearer result, ya'll.
Nothing to do with 64bit Andreas. OSX is running 32bit still. Where the 30-40% speed gains come from in the media encoding tests are from...
a) The 2.16Ghz to 2.33Ghz boost
b) The 4MB L2 cache up from 2MB
c) Core 2 processes 128bit SSE instructions in one clock cycle now instead of two in the older CPUs. This was also why AltiVec on the PowerPC was so useful and SSE on Intel wasn't, until now. Media encoding is often done with SSE/AltiVec code via Apple's Accelerate framework.
The Rosetta improvements are stunning too. Neglected in this Engadget piece.
I have to say, the original Engadget piece here by Cyrus is pretty shoddy. If Cyrus had read both Apple's and MacWorld's benchmark results, and presumably understood them too, then no decent tech journalist would have came out with leader like that. I don't expect anything too in depth from Engaget but blatantly misleading pieces when it's so easy to check facts aren't doing Engaget any favours.
Well...I guess those $1399 Macbook Pro refurbs are looking better and better.
How about when Apple is with PPC, it always said G4/G5 is XXX times faster than Intel Architecture.
And overnight they switch to Intel, and said the intel chip is 5x6x faster than the PowerPC!
I think even core duo isn't 5x6x faster than Penumn 4 !
False Advertising does not necessary to be Fake, Misleading also counts.
If I could get a job talking smak about something that I didn't even know how someone else did.... I'ld just be sitting on my couch, like I do everyday, but getting paid!
Most of the applications in this benchmark are Universal 32bit or 32 bit PPC only applications that will see little to no speed increase on the Core 2 Duo CPUs. However, true Universal 64 bit applications will get a nice kick in the pants due to additional registers added in the EM64T architecture. Speed increases on PPC were nominal since the total number of registers did not change between 32 and 64 bits.
In other words, these apps need to be ported to 64 bit Universal apps before a noticeable improvement will be seen on Core 2 Duo CPUs.
I couldn't resist this 'lil applets gush: "Pfft. Wake up.. you PC users have brought nothing to the table. Without Apple this would be a very very slow industry."
One word, tool: motorola. One more: Intel.
You guys are so easy.
Honestly -
WHO CARES!
They're running cooler, they run longer on the same battery charge and most importantly, the old 2.16 with Intel ready software were already fast enough!
Glad they cleaned up the heat issue and throw in some battery gains.
Now to those of you who think 10% isn't great leap - go buy the older units, they're $1000 cheaper than new - and that's a two week timeframe that this new discount took to get to market. Go buy a mac people!
Looking at the Apple site, they specifically mention that some of the results were based on the performance of PowerBook G4 units! Re-read http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/:
"A 2.16GHz or 2.33GHz Intel Core 2 Duo. Up to 39% faster than its predecessor.(1)"
And the (1)?: "Based on estimated SPECint_rate_base2000 results for the 2.33GHz 17-inch MacBook Pro with Core 2 Duo. Testing conducted by Apple in October 2006 using preproduction MacBook Pro units with Core 2 Duo; MacBook Pro systems with Core Duo and PowerBook G4 systems were shipping units."
Anyone care to deny the new MacBookPros are less than 39% faster than a 1.67GHz PowerBook?
I don't know why you girls are bitching. You're the dumbasses throwing down over $2K. That's for a laptop that runs a platform without any apps that take advantage of the architecture.
I sure like the brushed aluminum, though!!