Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Macbooks  (Read 6810 times)
pflower
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 216


« on: March 01, 2011, 07:35:08 AM »
ReplyReply

My old macbook pro has died and I have been looking at the new ones.

The 15 inch versions come in two flavours - 2.0 GHZ with a Radeon HD 6490M with 256MB GDDRS and a 2.2 GHZ with a Radeon 6750M with 1GB GDDRS.  The difference is £300 (the 2.2GHZ also has a 750GB disk as opposed to a 500GB).  The disk size is irrelevant to me since I only use it for work in progress and then finalise on desktops and back up to external disks.

Having said that anyone got any thoughts as to the likely performance improvements of the 2.2GHZ model?  I do mostly Lightroom processing, a little light Photoshop and very very light FCP on the laptop - haven't really been too concerned about the performance of my old macbook.

Any thoughts?

Logged
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #1 on: March 07, 2011, 08:42:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Should change your title to add “Pro”. No MacBooks have been released lately.

People are saying that these are viable desktop replacements, particularly with Thunderbolt.

Bare Feats  Macworld
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #2 on: March 07, 2011, 08:50:03 AM »
ReplyReply

And there’s always Capture One.
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
JBerardi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 136


« Reply #3 on: March 07, 2011, 10:27:39 AM »
ReplyReply

For £300, get the cheaper one and put a high-quality SSD in there. You'll see way more benefit from that than you will the extra graphics muscle.
Logged
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 776



WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 07, 2011, 01:07:58 PM »
ReplyReply

And there’s always Capture One.

I ran my own C1 tests yesterday.

The 15.4 2.2 macbook pro compared to my windows 7 desktop I7Quad 3.2 with 24 gigs of ram.  The desktop runs an ssd so I worked off of and saved to a 1tb hard drive on the windows machine.

Process 100 1DsmkIII raws to 16 bit tiffs.

Desktop 374 seconds
Macbook 520 seconds.

Old desktop, w7 core2duo, 8gb ram 1276 seconds.


I think 8mb of ram inthe macbook will help.....
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #5 on: March 07, 2011, 09:37:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I ran my own C1 tests yesterday.

The 15.4 2.2 macbook pro compared to my windows 7 desktop I7Quad 3.2 with 24 gigs of ram.  The desktop runs an ssd so I worked off of and saved to a 1tb hard drive on the windows machine.

Process 100 1DsmkIII raws to 16 bit tiffs.

Desktop 374 seconds
Macbook 520 seconds.

So that’s with 4GB in the MBP? Can you advise how much RAM the PC is using in this sort of scenario? I have a 3.06Ghz iMac and a 2.4 13" MBP, and find the spinning gear while waiting for previews in C1 a bit annoying. I haven’t been able to find anything on what C1 likes the most, RAM, CPU, GPU, or fast disk access. Have 8GB RAM on the iMac, and 4GB (soon to go to 8GB) on the MBP. Thinking about an SSD for the MBP.

Old desktop, w7 core2duo, 8gb ram 1276 seconds.

Certainly a massive difference!


I think 8mb of ram inthe macbook will help.....

It could be useful to be able to use more than 8GB in the laptop, if that were possible. I won’t be upgrading for at least 12 months, so any optimisation that I can do in the interim will be very nice to have.

Any more info about your experiences would be appreciated. Oh, and BTW congrats Craig on getting the MBP after your recent experience (sounds like a dodgy logic board to me).  Smiley
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 776



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 07, 2011, 10:21:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Can you advise how much RAM the PC is using in this sort of scenario?

The pc desktop only uses about 4.5 gigs of ram to running the C1 test.  CPU is mostly maxed out.


Here is another data point.  I picked up the low end 13 inch macbook pro for a backup and screw around computer today.  The 100 raw c1 batch test took 785 seconds
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #7 on: March 07, 2011, 11:15:26 PM »
ReplyReply

The pc desktop only uses about 4.5 gigs of ram to running the C1 test.  CPU is mostly maxed out.

I’ll test out some stuff from my Aptus 22 when I’ve loaded C1 v6 on the iMac (with Activity Monitor). I do know that C1 is very threaded; wonder if the newer CPUs handle threads more efficiently.

Here is another data point.  I picked up the low end 13 inch macbook pro for a backup and screw around computer today.  The 100 raw c1 batch test took 785 seconds

Much slower than its big brother. I reckon this machine is ‘one step forward, one step back’ in that the CPU is much better, but the video is a bit uurrrgghhh! Seems less able than the GeForce 320M on my 2010 model. Wonder if it’s Apple/Intel politics or simply that the Intel design freezes out alternative video (I suspect the latter). But I like the size for portability.

I will probably get a 15 or 17 to replace my desktop maybe late this year, and suffer with what I have until then. Thanks again for your input.
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
RobSaecker
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272


WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 08, 2011, 12:53:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Much slower than its big brother. I reckon this machine is ‘one step forward, one step back’ in that the CPU is much better, but the video is a bit uurrrgghhh! Seems less able than the GeForce 320M on my 2010 model. Wonder if it’s Apple/Intel politics or simply that the Intel design freezes out alternative video (I suspect the latter).

It's the latter. nVidia sued Intel over Intel's decision to cut them out of the chipset business. I think it's been settled by an Intel payout, though I could be wrong.
Logged

Rob
photo blog - http://robsaecker.com
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #9 on: March 08, 2011, 05:19:37 PM »
ReplyReply

It's the latter. nVidia sued Intel over Intel's decision to cut them out of the chipset business. I think it's been settled by an Intel payout, though I could be wrong.

Sounds like Intel. They were absolutely flabbergasted/put out for years that Apple went with Moto for their CPUs. How very dare they!
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2011, 06:04:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Story about integrated graphics in MBP 13s. Disappointing, particularly OpenCL support.
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 776



WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 10, 2011, 10:39:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Story about integrated graphics in MBP 13s. Disappointing, particularly OpenCL support.

I did some production work today on the 13. Process, multi layer and retouch 16 bit 1DsmkIII files.  Ran it into my NEC 2690, with open GL on.  While it was not speed demon (and I switched to my w7 workstation as I had a deadline) it was workable and the screen redraws were fine.  I'll process some production files form tomorrows shoot on the i& quad 15" this weekend and see how it fares.
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #12 on: March 11, 2011, 12:20:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for your continued input, Craig—it is much appreciated!

I will set up a test this weekend to run on the MBP13 and the iMac, and will run it again when I get around to installing the 8GB in the MBP.
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
kaelaria
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2228



WWW
« Reply #13 on: March 11, 2011, 12:36:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Is this a standard benchmark test from somewhere?
Logged

mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #14 on: March 11, 2011, 10:14:41 AM »
ReplyReply

This is the sort of test I’ve been waiting for; pity about the emphasis on gaming when one uses computers for work! The link is to the graphic performance page, but it’s easy enough to go backwards and forwards to other pages.

And Anandtech does do a good job, except for the annoying possessive *it's* deployed all over the place. And as a rant against “nice” Americanese, can we consider using the absolutely appropriate word *problem* rather than the anodyne and sanitised *issues*? So entrenched.  Angry

Feel much better!
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #15 on: March 11, 2011, 10:23:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Bloody TN panels!
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1476



WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 11, 2011, 12:37:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I ran my own C1 tests yesterday.

The 15.4 2.2 macbook pro compared to my windows 7 desktop I7Quad 3.2 with 24 gigs of ram.  The desktop runs an ssd so I worked off of and saved to a 1tb hard drive on the windows machine.

Process 100 1DsmkIII raws to 16 bit tiffs.

Desktop 374 seconds


This was interesting.  Usually I can't get anywhere near the times people get on these types of tests, I'm usually significantly on one side or the other.  My system is very close to yours though, so I decided to try it:

Win7 x64 Ultimate, i7-950 3.2, 12gigs of 2333, SSD for my system, 2tb WD B where the files were located, another 2tb WD black where the output files were deposited.  I didn't reboot, was watching my slingbox, browser up with 8 tabs, Outlook, and LR open.. I brought up C1pro 6.1.0, selected 100 1ds3 raw files, and set output to 300dpi tiffs with ProPhoto..  

370 seconds exactly.   I used my Android stop watch function.. Smiley

So.. pretty close.

Edited to add:  I ran this test on my x201s Lenovo, i7, 8g's RAM, SSD, 12.1" with Intel HD graphics.  This time I did reboot, the first time I tried it I forgot it had installed the Microsoft updates and I didn't reboot it yet.. and it was taking forever.  Much better after rebooting.  

920 seconds.    Not bad for a 2.4 pound machine.

The only variation was I used 100 5d2 raws to 16 bit tiffs.. because I already had them on the machine.

It looks like Sandy Bridge brings some significant performance increases.  Based on your Sandy Bridge i5 performance I'd guess and your Sandy Bridge i7 performance.. I'd guess a Sandy Bridge in the same machine otherwise would (considering the weak Intel HD graphics) would fall somewhere between the two.. for about a 40% performance increase just for Sandy Bridge.

« Last Edit: March 11, 2011, 01:53:36 PM by Steve Weldon » Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 776



WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 11, 2011, 06:20:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Is this a standard benchmark test from somewhere?

Na, I just saw someone else had used something similar and it sounded like a good idea.  Just wanted to see what was what.
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
mediumcool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #18 on: March 11, 2011, 07:43:50 PM »
ReplyReply

The big downer for me at the moment is still the anaemic 3000 Intel integrated graphics on the 13.
Ivy Bridge looks worth waiting for, particularly for OpenCL and DirectX support.
Logged

FaceBook facebook.com/ian.goss.39   www.mlkshk.com/user/mediumcool
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 776



WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 11, 2011, 09:03:48 PM »
ReplyReply

The big downer for me at the moment is still the anaemic 3000 Intel integrated graphics on the 13.
Ivy Bridge looks worth waiting for, particularly for OpenCL and DirectX support.


There will always be something bigger, better, faster...sooner or later you gotta jump in.  If you play the waiting game you may wait forever.

I guess if you really need those attributes then the wait might be justified.

I don't game, or do video (not that I would even consider the 13 for a video edit station) so killer graphics are not such a big deal for me and the 13 MBP.  YMMV

It worked great on location today as a tether station, faster then the 2009 Toshiba that is the usual location workhorse.  That said since many of my locations are dirty factories the Toshiba and the HP I use for backup will continue to be the workhorses.

The 13 mbp will be my 'recreational' computer, the 15 mbp is technically my wife's for garage band usage.  I suspect as time goes along they will both creep into the location workflow, once he newness wears off.

At least for me a big part of doing the mac thing was simply doing something different.  Quite frankly I'm not seeing a big difference between platforms right now. Subtle OS differences mostly.  Time will tell for sure, but I'm using OSX daily now, for better or worse.

Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad