Benchmarks

I really want some benchmarks comparing the "low end" mbp to the "mid range" one.

specifically in windows- gaming performance and 3dmark. it matters a lot to me because 500 bucks seems like a lot of money for just 128megs of vram on a chip.

so im thinking like a few simple tests- counter strike: source or hl2, rainbow six:vegas, maybe toss 3dmark06 in there.


also, could you check the clocks on the 8600m gt while you are in windows?

they SHOULD be 475 / 950.

thank you a bunch- i understand if it takes a while to answer.

 

I'm in the same boat as you. I'd really like to see the difference between them because I don't think I can afford the extra AU$700

 

I remember an earlier thread that had benchmarks for both MBPs. The mid range one was minimally better than the low end one.

 

I got the 2.2Ghz version with 128MB. I got 3GB of ram but I downgraded to 2gb for test so it is standard. I also get the 160GB 7200rpm disk but I dont think that will make much difference.

I have Bootcamp and WinXP. The default clocks are:
core 470mhz (max over clock i got working 630mhz)
Shaders 950mhz (max 1200mhz)
memory 630mhz (max 700mhz)

3dMark I already benched this is without OC and 2GB DDR2 not 3GB.

3dMark06 @ 1280x1024 -- 3338
3dMark06 @ 1280x800 -- 3866

If someone with a 2.4ghz MBP wants to team up and benchmark with me then i would be happy to benchmark with CS:S, Fear and Supreme Commander

 

3dmark06, no overclock
=============
1440__________3675
1280__________4060
1024__________4606
1024 4xAA AF___3562
1024 8xAA AF___2900

 

15" MBP/2.4GHz C2D/8600mGT 256/2GB RAM/160GB HD

I'll toss in the generic Counter Strike:Source stress test.

Settings (default recommended):
res: 1440x900
model detail: high
texture detail: high
shader detail: high
water detail: reflect world
shadow detail: high
color correction: on
antialiasing mode: none
filtering mode: trilinear
wait for vertical sync: disabled
high dynamic range: full

results: 138.02 fps



Settings (personal settings):
res: 1440x900
model detail: high
texture detail: high
shader detail: high
water detail: reflect world
shadow detail: high
color correction: on
antialiasing mode: 8x
filtering mode: 16x
wait for vertical sync: disabled
high dynamic range: none

results: 92.54 fps


That's all I've got. I did the basic math on the refresh rate of the LCDs, and figured the screens themselves couldn't show much more than 60 frames per second. Source runs like a dream on my MBP.

 

Wave...how do you benchmark at 1280x1024 on a 1440x900 res. screen?

 

maybe with an external screen. Anyway, I will only check 1280x800 & 1024x768 for now, overclocking at the moment. Don't really know how far I'd like the temperature to go...

 

it looks like the lower end on scored about 200 points lower on the 1280 test, pretty minimal for the 500 bucks IMO.


also: wave with your 3gb ram and max overclocks, what has been your best 3d 06 scores?

 

Ok, installed Windows again and did a quick overclock. This is what I got so far:

3dmark06 under XP with stock Bootcamp 1.3 drivers:

normal clock (470/635):
==============
1024x768_____________4695
1024x768 4xAA 1xAF____3686
1024x768 4xAA 8xAF____3510
1280x800_____________4224
1280x800 4xAA AF______3206


overclocked to 560/635:
================
1024x768____________5212________tmax(core)=83°C


I'll do more tests on that tomorrow. Also I'll install Supreme Commander and HL2 again..

 

Yeah I used an external monitor to benchmark at 1280x1024.

With 3GB no OC the scores are:

3dMark06 @ 1280x1024 -- 3682
3dMark06 @ 1280x800 -- 4160
3dMark06 @ 1440x900 -- 3540

With 3GB OC to core:600mhz memory:710mhz the scores are:

3dMark06 @ 1280x1024 -- 4180
3dMark06 @ 1280x800 -- 4661
3dMark06 @ 1440x900 -- 4070

I dont understand why the 1440x900 score is lower then 1280x1024. 1440x900 has less pixels...strange.

I will benchmakr CS:S with settings like mongoloido later. I dont have time right now sorry.

 

Any heat problems at 600:710mhz Wave? And how did you have your fans set?

 

I didnt stress test it. I ran a 3dMark06 at 600/700 and then increased it to 600/710 and ran 3dMark06 again but then I set it back to default. It was stable and the max temp RVTune showed was 94°C. We are haveing a heatwave in Germany and the room temp. was 28° so I didnt want to risk anything. The Fans where set to 4500 RPM for both sides.

 

I'm curious. I've read that heat can shorten the life of a battery. When you're cranking this thing up for heavy load, are you doing it with the battery in, or do you remove it?

 

I left the battery in. I think its ok since I didnt run it for long. When I game for a few hours I often take the battery out. I too read that heat is the main cause for battery damage. No idea if its true or not.

 

thanks for the benchies wave. the 128mb mbp really packs a punch for the cheaper price. I called yesterday to order mine, finalizing it today!! I cant wait!

 

my advice is to always remove the battery when you are in windows. especially if you are gaming.

its going to get hot. most of the components can take it. the battery is not one of those components.

windows runs pretty hot as is, just because there is some sort of speed step/driver issues

 

Damn Wave, are those scores with a 128mb 8600gt? Would those scores go up with a 256mb 8600gt?

 

yes a bit. they were posted in a different thread, but I think most people came to the consensus that the minimal increase is not worth the 500 bucks :/


and i am so glad

 

I think the 128MB version will take a bigger hit with new games with large textures. Crysis and such. Turbocache will help here. But Then you need a lot of ram. Crysis says the minimum to play fluent is 2GB. But if you want to use 300-400Mb for Turbecache to get up to 500 or more MB of video ram it only leaves 1.5-1.6GB free for gameing so 3GB Ram would be a lot better.

 

wave,
what do you use to speed up the fans under XP. Was looking for a tool but couldn't find any....

 

I set the fans with smc fancontrol under OSX and then it carries the settings over to Windows after reboot. I found 4500 on the left and 4000 on the right to be a good setting. The left gets a bit hotter because of the hard disk i think. 4500rpm is not too noisey for me too.

 

Doesn't taking out the battery cause a decrease in processor performance? Even one plugged in? Or was that just a rumor?

 

Not that I have noticed. The CPU shows 2.2ghz and the GPU clock is the same too.

 

Where do you find that information?

 

Wave... just curious how are you scoring 1000 points higher than others with a 128 meg video card in 3dmark06?

 

are you looking at his OC numbers or his stock clock numbers

 

According to his first post... it seems like non-oc numbers.

 

post up some other peoples numbers, i guess these are the only ones i have seen.. ?

 

My stock score is 3300 @ 1280x1024...(3dmark06 default) what do other people get? 2300? I get about 3000 with the crappy boot camp drivers. I am also using WinXP and Vista scores tend to be a bit weaker. The Compal IFL90 and Dell 1520 both get about 3100 with crappy 400mhz memory card so I dont see how my score is special.

I have not seen overclock numbers for other 128MB Macbook Pros.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=130879

the people with a 128 meg card is seen with scores of about 2800 ~ and many of them ran the benchmark at 1280x800.

 

That list is a bit strange. 1280x800 and 1280x1024 get almost the same score. Someone gets about 2945 at 1280x1024 with windows Vista. If he used the bootcamp drivers then that is about the same score as I get.

Maybe some other people with a 128MB macbook pro can do some bechmarks to see? I did tweak WinXP a bit by turning off services and removing everything I dont need but this should make hardly a differance for 3d performance.

My 3GB scores and OC scores are not comparable to that table I guess.

 

can you put up the link to the driver you are using.

thanks

 

158.51 for Windows XP

Works for me.

 

Hey Wave, you use RivaTuner, right? (I think you mentioned using RVTune, I think that is the same thing). I wanted to try OCing my GPU when my MBP gets here. I've used RivaTuner before, but I've never understood how to get an overclock to stick after restart. Also, if you wouldn't mind, would you post a really quick overview of how you overclocked your MBP?

In other words, what methodology did you use? Just pumping up the core till it wouldn't take and the same for memory or what? What do you use to check for stability?

Sorry for all the questions, my attempts at overclocking have been half-hearted at best, I want to try it right this time.

 

Yes I used RivaTuner. I tried ATITool also and both worked. I dont know how to make it stick after reboot. I dont think it is a good idea too since you should only overclock when needed. Before I start the game/benchmark, I apply the overclock and reset to default when it ends.

Before you do any of this get SMC Fan Control for OSX and set the minimum fan do 4500 for both sides. Atleast I did this. This makes the fans run constantly at 4500rpm or higher (even in windwos). I am not sure if it is needed because the fans should spin up anyway however I found that the fans are sometimes slow to react and the temp. was at 70° already and the fans still going slow.

Also make sure that your macbook pro is on a good setting. A Metal table would be better then a wooden one and a cool room helps. Also it is helpfull to elevate the back of the macbook a little bit. I did this with a 2cm thick book.

I used the Asus G1s benchmark thread in the Asus forum to help me pick clock rates. The Asus G1s's memory runs at 700mhz and I assumed that the Macbook pro should be able to handle it. So I first set it to 700mhz. When That worked I set it to 710mhz and did not try more after that. The Core is very overclockable. The default is 470mhz (carefull here because RVTune shows the wrong value) and it can easly be clocked at 600mhz. I have seen the Asus G1s clocked as high as 700mhz if I remember right, so there is still room for higher clocks. RVTune also shows the GPU temp. try to stay below 95°. My max was 93° so it felt ok.

 

wow... anything above 90°C is just ridiculous in my eyes. Do you have anything that shows that this is still within specs? I mean, the Chipset and the CPU are 2cm away connected by a heatpipe, don't you think you'll fry them with this?

just asking, in my overclocking time these temperatures were just nuts!

 

That was the maximum. It was around 85-90° most of the time. It seems to be ok. 95° is the average temp some Asus G1s users are reporting when gameing. when idle it hardly ever reaches 60° for me mostly in mid 50s. When gaming without overclocking it is mid 80s as a maximum.

 

Thank you very much wave, I appreciate your help.

Its been my experience that most computer components (save power supplies and hard drivers) are rated for very high temperatures (100 degrees Celsius and above). Really though, it depend on your individual components, while they say they can handle 100+ Celsius, in reality maybe they will start incurring permanent damage at 95 Celsius. In some cases though, I've had components go to 105 Celsius and continue to run stably. I wouldn't purposely run my computer above 90 Celsius unless I was tweaking components temporarily.

I'll not take my MBP above 95 Celsius for sure, anything above that would most certainly start me into the possible damage range.

Anyway, thanks again!

 

I will only overclock during gaming if I get a significant advantage from it.
e.g. I want to play Crysis and can't use some nice looking settings with stock speed but when overclocked it works fine....

HL2 for instance runs perfectly at 1280x900 max settings, 16xAA at stock speed! Awesome!