Currently Being ModeratedMay 26, 2011 8:04 AM (in response to Meisinotti)
I'm not exactly clear where Apple indicated the 2011 machines were two to three times faster than previous models. I would need to see that as well as the conditions behind their testing.
The benchmark you are using is a very narrow one and can't really be used to accurately determine the performance differences between the two products. I wasn't able to determine if the converter you referenced is multi-threaded or not. Video converting also pushes quite a bit of data to the drive. As you did this in-store, I would imagine you brought your video sample in on some sort of flash media. Did you export your file to the Mac's internal drive or did you both read and convert to the flash drive?
There are lots of variables that come into play. Without know exactly how you did the test, it's difficult to come up with a clear answer. The new machines are significantly more powerful... especially the 15" and 17" models. If any of your data was flying through the USB port, that would be a good reason for similar performance on both systems as USB is relatively slow when it comes to transferring data and could easily be the bottleneck in this type of conversion (meaning regardless of how fast the machine is, the data can only be written at a relatively low speed). Give us your exact set up and include what type of device you had your video file on... where you read your original file from (your external drive or did you copy it to the internal drive before converting)... where you exported the video to (again... your external drive or the Mac's internal drive).
Currently Being ModeratedMay 26, 2011 8:28 AM (in response to Meisinotti)
Yes, your expectations are wrong. A test as heavily dependent on hard drive speed as yours is bound to reflect the fact that hard drives are essentially no faster today than they were in 2008. In a test that compared only processing speed and excluded disk read/write speed, the newer machines would have come out much farther ahead. And as Joey suggests, there were probably other factors (the transfer speed capability of your storage device and the manner of its connection to the computers) that also came into play.
Benchmarking is complicated, misunderstood by almost everyone, and can be made to tell any story one wants it to tell. Benchmarking is statistics, and statistics are only useful to those who really understand them.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 26, 2011 8:44 AM (in response to eww)
and thank you for your answers. Just to keep things clear. I copied all nesseccary stuff to the harddisk of each Pro befort I start my tests. So no flash drive concern. The Pro's I tested came in stadard configuration (factory settings).
Conerning benchmarks - thats exactly the reason why I performed this these test - I do not trust them. I wanted to know how do those devices perform when they got a task I used to run. And this was not convincing, yet.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 26, 2011 8:58 AM (in response to Meisinotti)
I took a FULL HD video (filmed with my camera, about 10 minutes, 30 FPS) and converted it into the Blu-Ray standard. I used the tool "MPEG Streamclip" from Squared 5. and I run this all in 32bit mode on Snow Leopard.
- My old fashioned 2008 modell took 6:15 minutes to fulfill this task.
- The newest genration (2011) 13" Mac Book Pro (standard) took 4:15 minutes for exactly the same task
- The newest genration (2011) 15" Mac Book Pro (2,2 GHz standard) took also exactly 4:15 minutes for the same thing
To be honest this wasn't what I was expecting. My "stomach" told me that these newest generation devices should make it in less then half of the time. But it took just 2 minutes less. And that the 13" and 15" Mac Book Pro needed exactly the same time - was also a little bit surprising. The only difference betwee both new machines was the noise. You could here the fan of the 13" - the 15" was quite.
So I need some advice. Are my expectations wrong? Did I make a mistake? Is Apple embellishing the performance? Who can explain these results?
Ok, you used 32bit mode for one, second the software wasn't likely optimized for quad cores, third the 13" is all integrated graphics, the 15" 2.2Ghz has a dedicated graphics and integrated graphics switching between the two, can be turned on dedicated all the time in energy savings.
I'm assuming your machine and the one's you tested in the Apple Store is all 5,400 RPM's, like Apple usually sells retail.
A more accurate evaluation is to use GeekBench and/or Cinebench to fully test the CPU and the Graphics.
You can also compare Mac's over at
The higher end 15" and 17" i7 Quads are real monsters, don't know how or what Apple uses to determine their findings, but the 13" is a joke and doesn't deserve the "MacBook Pro" name in my opinion.
You can also compare processor performance specs yourself with your current processor spec, the 15" and 17" 2.3Ghz are
Intel i7 Quad 2820QM 2.3 GHz 8MB L3 45W $568 Sandy Bridge
Radeon HD 6750M
Currently Being ModeratedMay 26, 2011 8:53 AM (in response to Meisinotti)
But you devised your own benchmark without understanding what you were measuring — which was, in large part, how fast data was read from and written to the internal hard drives. That factor was virtually the same in the machines tested, so the difference in processing speed between the machines was obscured. You didn't understand your own benchmark or what it was telling you.
The performance measurement that really matters is how fast you can get the full range of your regular work done, under normal circumstances, using your own equipment in your own workspace. No benchmark test measures that.
Currently Being ModeratedMay 26, 2011 8:58 AM (in response to ds store)
So what you say is that 32bit mode combined with non-quad optimized software mode is not representative. Ok, I see. Anyway should't the 13" be slower than the 15" - no matter what mode and software you use?
Currently Being ModeratedMay 26, 2011 9:04 AM (in response to eww)
Regarding my own bechmark. May be I did not understand this correctly - can be. One thing still bothers me. I do not believe that the harddisk speed is so important for my test because not the complete file was readen at once. The converting was performed from picture frame to the next - and this converting needs more time than reading from a hard disk. So I am still in doubt.