Updated white MacBook gets benchmarked, outperforms unibody counterpart

The white MacBook may look a little out of place among Apple's current laptop offerings, but those looking for the best bang for the buck may want to give the newly-updated model some serious consideration, as it actually outperforms its more expensive unibody counterpart. That word comes from the folks at MacWorld, who ran some benchmarks and found that 2.13GHz white MacBook was about five percent faster than the 2GHz unibody MacBook on average. That's obviously largely attributable to the faster processor, but the speedier 800MHz DDR2 memory didn't hurt things either, even if it still lags a bit behind the unibody's 1,066MHz DDR3 RAM. For comparison's sake, Macworld also found that the 1.8GHz MacBook Air was a full 12 percent slower than the white MacBook, while the 2.4GHz MacBook Pro offered a 10.5 percent performance gain, and displayed an even bigger advantage when its higher-end graphics came into play.

[John @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:02PM]

Extra! Extra! Faster processors make computers faster! Read all about i!

[GRAMMAR POLICE @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:07PM]

+1

[Jordan @ Jun 3rd 2009 9:59PM]

haha this is crazy. How much bigger is 2.13 than 2? about 5 percent maybe? great tests macworld, you are a gentleman and a scholar

[Lando06 @ Jun 3rd 2009 8:12PM]

HA!!!

[m3tric @ Jun 3rd 2009 8:50PM]

Brilliant! And so right on. Looks like Engadget is riding Jobs' pommel horse once again.

[aznofazns @ Jun 3rd 2009 10:44PM]

wow engadget readers never fail to post what I want to say before I can say it.

[LondonConsultant @ Jun 4th 2009 3:08AM]

Faster processors may make computers faster, but I wonder if slower processors make computers slower?...

[Patriks7 @ Jun 4th 2009 3:28AM]

Yeah, when I read that I was like "No fuck a 2.13 GHz will outperform a 2.0 GHz."

[musback @ Jun 14th 2009 3:29PM]

So any daddy's rich schoolgirl with the regular macbook has a more powerful computer than a "I study graphics so [u]i need to[/u] buy a macbook pro" douche?

[DR House @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:03PM]

2.13 ghz cpu were found 5% faster than 2GHZ cpu? holy cow engadget,,,

THE SKY IS BLUE,THE GRASS IS GREEN OMG

[Joseph @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:31PM]

still doesnt overtake the usability of the unibody. glass trackpad and solid construction are not worth the extra .05% Glad i dont need fw on my unibody, but the unibody case is better than my MBP in terms of solidity. makes a huge difference when you hold it with 1 hand and there is no flex.

[FRiC @ Jun 3rd 2009 8:33PM]

I have the 2.0 GHz white MacBook, and the touchpad is flush with the palmrest and I always brush the pad while typing. I wish I'd bought one of the unibody ones with the recessed touchpad.

[Andrew Moulton @ Jun 3rd 2009 9:07PM]

umm.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth
...ouch

[Amrosorma @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:04PM]

News flash to casual tech blogs and people who actually believe Apple's hype: DDR3 memory doesn't do anything for real world performance.

Unless you're dealing with Core i7 architecture and some pretty niche applications/benchmarks...But these are MacBooks we're talking about.

[patriotsn1 @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:05PM]

shittttt for $999 you could be dealing with core i7 architecture!

[b @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:38PM]

nehalem mobile cpus aren't even out yet... what's the point of comparing desktop pricing to laptop? it's a bit like comparing a ferrari to rolls-royce... so ferrari's cheaper and faster, so it rules??? jerk off!

[Andrew Moulton @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:40PM]

I would like to argue it's more like comparing a house boat to an apartment...but still, valid point

[xValentine @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:58PM]

@b

Yeah right Ferrari's are cheaper than Rolls Royce's.

-_-

[Newone @ Jun 3rd 2009 8:22PM]

I have a motherboard that takes either DDR2 or DDR3 memories. Been waiting for the DDR3 to come to a price and performance point that it would make sence to switch to DDR3.

But as the performance gain from DDR2 is miniscule I haven't done it yet. DDR3 is a disappointment, and no reasobn to select one machine instead of another.

[CraigJ @ Jun 3rd 2009 10:48PM]

DDR3 may or may not depending on what you are doing. 1066 vs. 800, however, definitely does.

[Rob47 @ Jun 4th 2009 5:00AM]

@xValentine

Ferraris are much cheaper than Rolls Royces, it works out at about £100,000 cheaper infact.

[patriotsn1 @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:04PM]

Haha, why is "standard keyboard" on the list of features? Did they really run out of more significant things to list?

[Greg @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:08PM]

I think the two main reasons are business reasons (I don't really understand or believe in this at all, but think of how Apple charges $10 for new iPod touch "features"), as well as regional regions (U.S. keyboard vs. U.K keyboard, etc).

[alexisawesomex @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:09PM]

its a standard keyboard because the Unibody 2.4 is backlit.

[Mike P. @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:09PM]

I think they're referring to different keyboard formats. In Canada it's common to see "Standard US English" as well as "Canadian Multilingual Standard". Big difference because I can't stand the multilingual keyboard when typing in English, so it is important that they list it.

[YOYO @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:54PM]

there are core i7 laptops

http://www.sagernotebook.com/product_customed.php?pid=171297&action=customize and there still cheaper thrna 17 in mac pro

[Ruben @ Jun 3rd 2009 8:04PM]

Albeit, those laptops you mentioned have enough battery power to only keep the sleep light on, they are almost as powerful as the base Mac Pro (hell, the graphics processor beats the hell out of it) and cost about the same price too.

[The Walrus @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:10PM]

Wait, wait, wait... so the $300 aluminum body doesn't help with performance and is completely superficial?

[3rdman @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:16PM]

It doesn't help with performance but its not really superficial either, as it serves as the structure and (exo?)skeleton of the laptop and helps make it weigh less.

[Epsilon-Not @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:17PM]

Uh... are there any laptops whose body construction materials improve performance? I thought the main point of them was to stop the insides from falling out, and maybe look nice.

[MetallicAfan @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:20PM]

Yep, Steve Jobs' taste of aesthetic perfection.

[Zak @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:21PM]

Walrus - how dumb would you have to be to believe that aluminum improves performance? I mean Apple has never said it improves performance, and neither has anybody else. You, apparently, are the only person on earth who actually thought it improved performance. Good job on that.

[Sneakz @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:25PM]

I guess Zak has never heard of sarcasm...

[Kamil @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:27PM]

Cost of having a macbook:

$999 + (1) Sense of Sarcasm

[Zak @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:30PM]

Being sarcastic about the aluminum helping performance would only work if somebody had ever made a claim like that. But since nobody ever has, Walrus fails, and so do you for not figuring that out.

[chispito @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:35PM]

Heat-wise, yes the body construction directly affects performance.

[jon @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:36PM]

Ah! Now sarcasm requires precedent.

[Andrew Moulton @ Jun 3rd 2009 8:04PM]

If you count sexyness superficial.
You do?
ehh...then....umm....environmental friendlyness, I suppose.

[Lundmark @ Jun 3rd 2009 9:18PM]

I think it actually can affect performance, as aluminium transfers heat much more efficiently than plastic, hence making the notebook run cooler (internally at least).

[Andrew Moulton @ Jun 3rd 2009 9:21PM]

yes, that too...damn i miss mine....had to sell it :-(

[The Walrus @ Jun 3rd 2009 10:31PM]

Zak, I'm terribly, terribly sorry I insulted one of your Gods. What do I need to sacrifice to cleanse myself of this atrocity that I have committed?

Can you spot the sarcasm now?

[digitallysick @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:17PM]

Why not 2.5ghz or 2.8? that would be nice

[iKrolm @ Jun 3rd 2009 8:25PM]

There's a 2.8 GHz option on the 15" just like there's a 2.4Ghz on the 13".

[Kamil @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:20PM]

obvious and pointless post is obvious and pointless.....

[ipodrulz @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:45PM]

Just like your comment.

[Kamil @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:46PM]

so was yours....

and arguably mine....

[Andrew Moulton @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:49PM]

Both of yours were.

[Kamil @ Jun 3rd 2009 7:50PM]

yay! pointless comments!

just like every other engadget comment by readers

[Andrew Moulton @ Jun 3rd 2009 8:03PM]

so true.

[Steve @ Jun 3rd 2009 8:06PM]

Why do all you people feel a need to make comments that don't need to be made?