Apple MacBook Pro Penryn tests: a little more speed, a lot less heat

Sure, more speed is great, but on OS X most bumps don't have an appreciable effect on everyday work (unless all you're doing is video encoding). We were more interested in what Intel's Penryn processors can do for the MBP's heat envelope, so we maxed out both CPU cores in this brand new machine at let 'em crank for a half an hour. Our test machine may or may not compare to a later 3rd-gen MBP in terms of heat efficiency, but here's the quick rundown:

Core Duo (2.16GHz)

• Peak: 195° F, fans over 5000 RPM
• Average: 185° F, fans about 4900 RPM
• Enclosure (bottom): very hot to the touch
• Enclosure (top): fairly hot to the touch

Penryn Core 2 Duo (2.5GHz)

• Peak: 176° F, fans about 3400 RPM
• Average: 173° F, fans about 2500 RPM (much quieter)
  
• Enclosure (bottom): warm to the touch
• Enclosure (top): warm to fairly hot to the touch

The usual Xbench tests are after the break.

• All machines tested with Xbench 1.3. Sorry, we didn't have a Mac Pro around.
  
• All machines tested were using Leopard (except the MBP in the center). MacBook uses 1GB RAM, Penryn MacBook Pro uses 4GB RAM.
  
• You can check the bold Xbench scores to compare the cumulative results for each test.

	MBP (2.5GHz Penryn)	Air (1.6GHz Core 2 Duo)	MBP (2.16GHz Core Duo)	MBP (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, Tiger)	MacBook (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo)	iMac (2.4GHz Core 2 Duo)
CPU	169.23	79.98	90.06	112.93	126.66	138.58
GCD Loop	15.33 Mops/s	9.67 Mops/s	14.89 Mops/s	13.17 Mops/s	13.43 Mops/s	14.91 Mops/s
Floating Point Basic	3.37 Gflop/s	2.03 Gflop/s	2.34 Gflop/s	2.96 Gflop/s	2.95 Gflop/s	3.23 Gflop/s
vecLib FFT	3.93 Gflop/s	1.71 Gflop/s	1.68 Gflop/s	2.98 Gflop/s	3.36 Gflop/s	3.66 Gflop/s
Floating Point Library	36.64 Mops/s	12.82 Mops/s	15.78 Mops/s	14.15 Mops/s	17.80 Mops/s	19.43 Mops/s
Thread Test	275.13	148.81	185.75	219.18	186.4	208.77
Computation	6.93 Mops/s	2.77 Mops/s	3.36 Mops/s	4.04 Mops/s	3.58 Mops/s	3.56 Mops/s
Lock Contention	9.90 Mlocks/s	7.04 Mlocks/s	9.07 Mlocks/s	10.47 Mlocks/s	8.48 Mlocks/s	11.06 Mlocks/s
	MBP (2.5GHz Penryn)	Air (1.6GHz Core 2 Duo)	MBP (2.16GHz Core Duo)	MBP (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, Tiger)	MacBook (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo)	iMac (2.4GHz)
Memory Test	168.11	140.42	129.56	137.1	150.23	150.82
System	183.01	143.51	139.25	126.92	158.95	151.56
Allocate	922.99 Kalloc/s	718.86 Kalloc/s	731.25 Kalloc/s	401.22 Kalloc/s	856.78 Kalloc/s	657.80 Kalloc/s
Fill	7424.09 MB/se	5770.30 MB/s	5565.31 MB/s	6490.47 MB/s	6480.99 MB/s	6606.88 MB/s
Copy	3522.10 MB/s	2802.78 MB/s	2652.96 MB/s	2954.03 MB/s	2914.92 MB/s	3014.12 MB/s
Stream	155.45	137.46	121.14	149.05	142.41	150.08
Copy	3059.86 MB/s	2621.64 MB/s	2400.99 MB/s	2923.94 MB/s	2799.64 MB/s	2926.68 MB/s
Scale	3008.89 MB/s	2602.03 MB/s	2412.90 MB/s	2918.16 MB/s	2797.66 MB/s	3022.24 MB/s
Add	3525.00 MB/s	3230.58 MB/s	2703.93 MB/s	3359.19 MB/s	3196.17 MB/s	3364.41 MB/s
Triad	3523.21 MB/s	3199.37 MB/s	2681.42 MB/s	3368.41 MB/s	3211.97 MB/s	3328.48 MB/s
	MBP (2.5GHz Penryn)	Air (1.6GHz Core 2 Duo)	MBP (2.16GHz Core Duo)	MBP (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, Tiger)	MacBook (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo)	iMac (2.4GHz)
Quartz Graphics Test	198.29	96.89	144.23	141.5	154.32	193.4
Line	12.43 Klines/s	6.94 Klines/s	8.84 Klines/s	9.23 Klines/s	9.69 Klines/s	11.64 Klines/s
Rectangle	70.01 Krects/s	32.23 Krects/s	49.67 Krects/s	51.59 Krects/s	51.66 Krects/s	70.02 Krects/s
Circle	15.29 Kcircles/s	7.22 Kcircles/s	11.31 Kcircles/s	13.30 Kcircles/s	11.54 Kcircles/s	15.29 Kcircles/s
Bezier	4.92 Kbeziers/s	2.49 Kbeziers/s	3.58 Kbeziers/s	3.71 Kbeziers/s	3.79 Kbeziers/s	4.51 Kbeziers/s
Text	12.17 Kchars/s	5.53 Kchars/s	9.12 Kchars/s	6.65 Kchars/s	10.39 Kchars/s	12.66 Kchars/s
OpenGL Graphics Test	165.99	17.26	175.06	129.88	23.36	152.66
Spinning Squares	210.57 frames/s	21.89 frames/s	222.08 frames/s	164.76 frames/s	29.64 frames/s	193.65 frames/s
User Interface Test	326.63	105.81	217.79	303.98	244.28	335.18
Elements	1.50 Krefresh/s	485.60 refresh/s	999.54 refresh/s	1.40 Krefresh/s	1.12 Krefresh/s	1.54 Krefresh/s
	MBP (2.5GHz Penryn)	Air (1.6GHz Core 2 Duo)	MBP (2.16GHz Core Duo)	MBP (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, Tiger)	MacBook (2.2GHz Core 2 Duo)	iMac (2.4GHz)
Disk Test	33.08	24.05	27.59	38.13	39.64	80.72
Sequential	60.60	42.21	49.22	59.81	66.07	115.15
Uncached Write	52.17 MB/s [4K blocks]	30.96 MB/s [4K blocks]	31.32 MB/s [4K blocks]	42.60 MB/s [4K blocks]	53.34 MB/s [4K blocks]	72.17 MB/s [4K blocks]
Uncached Write	47.88 MB/s [256K blocks]	31.19 MB/s [256K blocks]	28.37 MB/s [256K blocks]	39.19 MB/s [256K blocks]	47.63 MB/s [256K blocks]	66.51 MB/s [256K blocks]
Uncached Read	9.89 MB/s [4K blocks]	7.27 MB/s [4K blocks]	12.11 MB/s [4K blocks]	11.59 MB/s [4K blocks]	10.83 MB/s [4K blocks]	27.81 MB/s [4K blocks]
Uncached Read	39.17 MB/s [256K blocks]	30.42 MB/s [256K blocks]	28.65 MB/s [256K blocks]	39.37 MB/s [256K blocks]	49.62 MB/s [256K blocks]	69.83 MB/s [256K blocks]
Random	22.75	16.81	19.16	27.99	28.31	62.13
Uncached Write	0.81 MB/s [4K blocks]	0.57 MB/s [4K blocks]	0.65 MB/s [4K blocks]	1.08 MB/s [4K blocks]	1.03 MB/s [4K blocks]	2.67 MB/s [4K blocks]
Uncached Write	18.56 MB/s [256K blocks]	18.35 MB/s [256K blocks]	17.49 MB/s [256K blocks]	19.24 MB/s [256K blocks]	22.73 MB/s [256K blocks]	48.45 MB/s [256K blocks]
Uncached Read	0.41 MB/s [4K blocks]	0.35 MB/s [4K blocks]	0.46 MB/s [4K blocks]	0.41 MB/s [4K blocks]	0.48 MB/s [4K blocks]	0.63 MB/s [4K blocks]
Uncached Read	18.44 MB/s [256K blocks]	13.28 MB/s [256K blocks]	15.08 MB/s [256K blocks]	16.33 MB/s [256K blocks]	19.31 MB/s [256K blocks]	27.08 MB/s [256K blocks]

[phanbouy @ Feb 28th 2008 7:24PM]

Alright! Now we're (not) cookin'!

Still.. no particular desire for my nads to be 173 deg.

[phanbouy @ Feb 28th 2008 7:31PM]

Hey I've been looking at the benchmarks. Interesting stuff. For one thing the C2D Macbook is outperforming its Pro counterpart on CPU tests. Weird huh? Maybe due to Tiger on the MBP and not the Macbook.. wonder if Leopard's all grown up now with 10.5.2?

And something else.. that Air sure's holding it's own pretty well. Even in the disk test which I thought would be pathetic from a 4200 rpm drive it's looking good. Say what you will about the MBA... the benchmarks are looking aiight.

[Ryan Block @ Feb 28th 2008 7:52PM]

That's the CPU core, not the external temperature. 173 is significantly better than previous models.

[Zak @ Feb 28th 2008 7:58PM]

Unless you're resting your nads directly on the processor, you have nothing to worry about.

[Aguiluz @ Feb 28th 2008 8:06PM]

Ouch! Heh, at 78.33 degrees centigrade, I don't want that to rest on my lap.

(Yes, I do think in Centigrades and Metrics)

[T-Bone @ Feb 28th 2008 8:21PM]

You missed the part where it said the bottom was warm to the touch.

[phanbouy @ Feb 28th 2008 8:27PM]

Ok, I was being kinda facetious. Guess my point is that I never use any laptop directly on my lap... that the case is only warm to the touch with a miniature egg fryer inside only serves to remind that that heat is being convected and conducted elsewhere.. and hopefully not on my wedding tackle.

[Elliot @ Feb 28th 2008 9:42PM]

I'm currently using a brand-new Penryn MBP I picked up on Tuesday on my lap. It's been there for about two hours, and I'm editting and rendering in Final Cut that whole time. I barely notice the temperature through my jeans. I've never had a MBP before, but I would never even mention heat as an issue with this computer.

[zed @ Feb 28th 2008 9:52PM]

its hard to believe none of you have used a laptop as a blanket at least once.

come on now.

[Paranoid @ Feb 28th 2008 9:56PM]

@zed
im sad to admit i have :-(

[nizzy1115 @ Feb 28th 2008 10:18PM]

Even in America we talk about computer temps in Celsius. What is this *F you speak of. Off to convert so I can understand. (yes I'm american)

[Poormojo @ Feb 28th 2008 7:31PM]

The question is: how many FPS does it get with WoW?

[August Young @ Feb 28th 2008 7:32PM]

Can you say Cheap birth control?
Muhahhhahaa

[Abuzar @ Feb 28th 2008 7:35PM]

I would be getting like 3000 FPS on WOW, that's how bad it looks.

[quomen @ Feb 28th 2008 8:32PM]

You could say that WoW is a 10 dollar/month Woman control pill.

[Reid @ Feb 28th 2008 9:36PM]

August Young,

So for your money you get both the MacBook Pro, and an increase in the likelihood that you'll have more money for toys for yourself in the future? Win-win!

[Mikey @ Feb 28th 2008 7:32PM]

What is "warm to fairly hot to the touch"? A cheap infrared thermometer would be helpful here.

[T-Bone @ Feb 28th 2008 8:26PM]

Take 2:

I recently got an espresso machine, so I've been steaming milk and feeling how warm the steel pitcher is while watching the thermometer. Warm to the touch seems to be about 90-110 degrees and fairly hot approaching 120. Anything over that I would say is very hot.

[Andrew @ Feb 28th 2008 10:15PM]

Well, if anyone else wants to contribute, I'll help out. I have a 2.2 GHz Macbook and here are my results:

Under casual use, web browsing, chatting, etc: 91 F was the hottest I could find
After running a CPU stress test for about 10 minutes: 111 F was the hottest I could find. My iStat widget claims the CPU temperature to be 182 F

[Cycomachead @ Feb 29th 2008 6:27PM]

No need for a thermometer, you can use iStat pro.

[Liam @ Feb 28th 2008 7:36PM]

Hmm. That's quite lovely. I think to get jumps down in battery life, you really need to step the clock speed down. They stepped it up, and I'd expect any difference to be negligible because of that, really. But less scrotum burn is always nice.

[bart.rijksen @ Mar 7th 2008 10:34AM]

It does get better battery life. 7-15% better. The point of the better cpu is to load the task faster, so it can go into a state of sleep, in which it uses very little power, so that is better for the battery

[phanbouy @ Feb 28th 2008 7:39PM]

works well with zune.

[LukeA @ Feb 28th 2008 7:43PM]

www.apple.com/getamac

[Shane Lloyd @ Feb 28th 2008 7:44PM]

Good lord man. Have you been living under a rock? You're going to get around 100 responses to this. You do realize that people do other things besides video editing on a Mac? Aside from superior security, lack of viruses and malware, fewer crashes, and pleasing UI aesthetics, maybe start with Chris Prillo's summary: http://chris.pirillo.com/2008/02/14/50-reasons-to-switch-from-microsoft-windows-to-apples-mac-os-x/

[Mr. S. @ Feb 28th 2008 7:45PM]

Wait? Heated keyboard is not a feature? :-(

[Colin @ Feb 28th 2008 7:55PM]

The keyboard on my ancient iBook gets hot, as do both palm rests, resulting in sweaty palms. Furthermore, the plastic on the keys is off gassing that lovely armpit smell (http://www.google.com/search?q=ibook+keyboard+b.o.). So, no, heated keyboard≠feature! ;-)

[stupidnoduhdude @ Feb 28th 2008 10:22PM]

Seven years later and I'm just now finding out that my iBook wasn't the only one that had that problem? I thought Apple accidentally baked a few pairs of gym shorts into it before they sent it out...

[Colin @ Feb 28th 2008 7:51PM]

Before this descends into a yelling match:

Advantages of OS X vs. {insert OS} are generally subjective. It completely depends on your preference. I find OS X simpler and more efficient; to me, it's more logical. That's why I choose it over Windows or Gnome.

That is all. You may now commence irrational arguments!

[wesg @ Feb 28th 2008 7:56PM]

I think the days of LAPtops are over.

[Jon Doe. @ Feb 28th 2008 8:13PM]

No. All you need is SMC Fan Control installed. You see Apple like everything else Mac is more about looks and perception then functionality (At least out of the box, leave it to the community to have to fix Apple's massive blunders...its SOOOO NOT "in" to have fans rev up when you laptop gets hot. So force that thing to 6000 RPM or even 4000RPM before it hits that stupidly insane thermal threshold and the system will easily stay cool to the touch unless you are REALLY forcing the CPU\GPU.

[wesg @ Feb 28th 2008 8:37PM]

Thanks for the suggestion, John. I find that having the fans rev up to 6200 RPM is more annoying than the high temperature, but maybe I'll give SMC a try anyways.

[Andrew @ Feb 28th 2008 7:56PM]

I wonder if dust build up was a factor in your older MBP.

My year old laptop was getting really hot, until I took it apart and dusted it. It's MUCH better now.

[Reader @ Feb 28th 2008 7:58PM]

Meh I hate Apple just as much as the next Microsoft/Open Source fanboi, but saying OSX has no advantages is a little foolish.

[bondsbw @ Feb 28th 2008 8:03PM]

The OS itself has a strong Unix backbone. Most Unix systems have a very strong security system, which has been attributed to the fact that most of those platforms have not had as much need to be backwards compatible across version releases.

Time Machine, the backup system, is very easy. Just a few clicks, and you're backing up your disk. And retrieving past data is quite intuitive.

I'm most impressed with the graphics engine. You have to actually sit down at a Mac to understand, but it feels so much more "solid" than any version of Windows. You almost never see window refresh artifacts like in most other operating systems (like when you move a window over another non-responsive window).

Safari, the web browser, is very fast, stable, and standards-compliant.

I've actually timed boot-up and application use, and Mac OS X is as fast or faster than Windows Vista in almost every case, running on the same computer.

On my Macbook (and more-so on newer Macbook Pro and Air models), the multi-finger gestures are great. Two fingers right-click when tapped and scroll when you drag.

There are alot of "neat" things, like the Dashboard widgets, which may or may not affect your everyday computer use.

And alot of people like it just because it's the best thing that's not Microsoft. Many of them, including myself, feel that consumers in general would be better off with more competition in the operating system market.

Best of all, to many, is that it costs much less than Windows Vista, and there is only one version for desktop/business use that includes everything.

That's just my quick run-down. And, of course, there are some good things about Windows too, as well as Linux distros like Ubuntu. I say test drive a Mac and see if it would suit you.

[michael.dekmetzian @ Feb 28th 2008 8:04PM]

Interesting. I get a score of 136.38 on CPU, vs 169.23 for the 2.5Ghz Penryn - and i'm running a 2.6Ghz previous generation macbook pro!

Quite a considerable increase, more than the 5-10% i was expecting.. that's more like 25% not counting the clockspeed DECREASE!

I look forward to what's achievable with montevina.

[Andrew @ Feb 28th 2008 9:45PM]

Check out my reply further down, I meant to add it as a reply to you but lost it as a reply along the way.

[Greg @ Feb 28th 2008 8:06PM]

Wow. The Pro model must get a lot hotter than the MB. Mine averages around 130ºF
Still, pretty cool. It must use a lot less battery life as well.

[apexjr @ Feb 28th 2008 8:06PM]

Better or not, that is VERY hot. I suggest ripping it down and putting some artic silver on that thing. My thinkpad with a C2D T7300 is only running around 140F fully loaded. Isn't thermal trip around 200F, it will shutdown!

[michael.dekmetzian @ Feb 28th 2008 8:06PM]

Sorry, my mistake. got 161.45 when moving the power from 'normal' to 'better performance'.

closer to what i was expecting and decent for the bump, i should think.

[Jon Doe. @ Feb 28th 2008 8:07PM]

Apple MacBook Pro Penryn tests: a little more speed, a lot less heat......

and a hell of a lot less original. Hey Jobs. 2003 called. They want their PowerBook back. Apparently the PowerBooks design is the height of laptop design. *rolls eyes* seriously it’s the same damn design, tweaked over and over and over and over again. Hell even the Air is MBP. . . Just thinner, and a lot less capable.
Did Apple fire all their designers? Oh I know. They are all working on the iPhone because that is 100x more important then putting out a good OS\Laptop etc. Seriously it use to be said Apple was all style and no substance. Now it seems that style is taking a back seat as well. Shit Dell's xx30 series at least has some nice curves. My 2 year old MBP is looking to be upgraded in the next couple years. why do I not expect any major redesigns to the MBP other then it getting thinner because as well...er...Jobs knows thin is more important then design or functionality.

[phanbouy @ Feb 28th 2008 8:42PM]

jon your arguments sound canned. i can understand you're depressed that they didn't redesign the case (i personally could give 2 shits and a hanky about that -- it works so why change it?)

now if you wanna argue that MBP shoulda had more features i couldn't agree more: SSD, eSATA, 12 or 13" model, magnetic latch, etc. sure. but your argument is that it's not keeping you from getting bored?

and your MBA rant is trite. the benchmarks above show that it's plenty 'functional'. personally, i think it costs too much, at least for _my_ needs (i'd be more inclined to get an ultraportable OSX once they make one), but i think you've jumped on the FUD bandwagon. if you're going to criticize at least criticize the right things instead of using a vinegar-soaked whine-fest.

shit, you should be grateful that your 2-year-old MBP, as mine is, is still far from being obsolete.. hell look at the benchmarks; Leopard's running _faster_ than Tiger! so why on earth are you so pissed then? i'm sure there _will_ be a major overhaul in the next year or two? you sure you're really a mac user?

[Aguiluz @ Feb 28th 2008 8:07PM]

I can't play games on it...

[eddy_88_nite @ Feb 28th 2008 8:18PM]

"Enclosure (top): warm to fairly hot to the touch"

i love the way you guys test and the scientific terminology.

[Big John @ Feb 28th 2008 10:03PM]

Man, what the hell? Do you have two next to each other to test? So Ryan doesn't have an infrared thermometer. He did "scientific" tests where he could. Or did you miss the gigantic benchmark table?

[demonic_pascal @ Feb 28th 2008 11:10PM]

I would think that the 3 other detailed comparison charts would more then make for the lack of complex vocabulary for a test that really isnt that scientific to begin with...

[T-Bone @ Feb 28th 2008 8:24PM]

I recently got an espresso machine, so I've been steaming milk and feeling how warm the steel pitcher is while watching the thermometer. Warm to the touch seems to be about 90-110 degrees and fairly hot approaching 120. Anything over that I would say is very hot.

[labrats5 @ Feb 28th 2008 8:35PM]

For those wondering why 173 degrees isn't too hot to the touch ... you are idiots. I'm sorry but it's true. Do you think that the test measures INTERNAL temperature or EXTERNAL temperature? The cpu is normally 173 degrees. only maybe 100 degrees is actually felt by touching the metal case.

[phanbouy @ Feb 28th 2008 9:08PM]

i leik too reed all of teh postes befur commmentting

[phanbouy @ Feb 28th 2008 9:00PM]

lol. abuzar, none of us took you seriously to begin with i gotta tell you. i find it mothergrabbing hilarious that you're just egotistical enough to believe that we owe you some defense of why the OS we use is worth our time, especially when it's so completely transparent you're only here to troll in the first place.

but i'll give this much to ya; at least you're not pimpin your daddy's car dealership like you were the other day