macbook pro 15'' 2011

[redfish]

15-inch: 2.0 GHz

 

2.0GHz quad-core

Intel Core i7

4GB 1333MHz

500GB 5400-rpm1

Intel HD Graphics 3000

AMD Radeon HD 6490M with 256MB GDDR5

 

15-inch: 2.2 GHz

 

2.2GHz quad-core

Intel Core i7

4GB 1333MHz

750GB 5400-rpm1

Intel HD Graphics 3000

AMD Radeon HD 6750M with 1GB GDDR5

 

 

 

 

 

 

ποιον απο τους 2 καινουργιους?

 

τον χρειαζομαι πιο πολυ για traktor, internet, adobe lightroom, acid pro, ταινιες.

υπαρχει καμια μεγαλη διαφορα στον επεξεργαστη και στην καρτα γραφικων?

η διαφορα ειναι 300ευρω. αξιζει να παρεις το μεγαλυτερο μοντελο?

επισης μου προτεινετε να το αγορασω απο το http://www.ebw.gr ???

ευχαριστω.

[kebinB]

οχι δεν αξίζει με την διαφορά βάλε SSD/μνήμες, ΕΚΕΙ θα δεις διαφορά.

[redfish]

η καρτα γραφικων ειναι που με απασχολει περισσοτερο.

για ssd δεν προλαβαινω γιατι τον χρειαζομε την επομενη βδομαδα επειδη φευγω σε νησι για δουλεια.

[tr3quart1sta]

CPU:

 

 

 

 

Performance

For our performance comparison I actually dusted off some of our 2008 8-core Mac Pro data just to show you exactly how close to a high end desktop the new quad-core MacBook Pro has come. Note that we only have comparative data for a few benchmarks so you may see the Mac Pro disappear from a few charts.

 

Keep in mind that the Mac Pro numbers are taken with a 3.5" hard drive (vs. the 2.5" HDD in the MBP). The big difference however is microprocessor architecture. In 2008 the Mac Pro was still running Core 2 based CPUs, while Sandy Bridge is two tocks away. What the new MBPs lack in TDP headroom and core count, they can make up for in clock speed. The result is that for the first time since I've been reviewing Apple hardware we have portable Macs that can truly hang with their desktop brethren (with some caveats of course). In order to truly bridge the mobile/desktop gap you definitely need an SSD; a 2.5" hard drive just isn't going to cut it. The Mac Pro still has a pure core count advantage. The reason I feel like the mobile/desktop gap has narrowed is because while I feel that there is a general performance benefit when going from 2 to 4 cores, it's far more difficult to find applications or usage models that take advantage of 8 or more cores.

 

The gap will grow once more as the iMac and Mac Pro get updated with Sandy Bridge hardware later this year, but I suspect that for even desktop users a 15-inch MacBook Pro paired with an external display may be near perfect. I believe this is a big reason for pushing Thunderbolt in this generation. While the standard may not really take off until next year, the new 15-inch MBP is definitely built for desktop replacement usage models and for that to work without sacrifice you need high speed external storage.

 

Adobe Photoshop CS4 Performance

 

The Retouch Artists Speed Test we use for our CPU testing under Windows also works under OS X. We're running the exact same benchmark here, basically performing a bunch of image manipulations and filters and timing the entire process.

 

Photoshop performance is just amazing on the new systems. The high end 15-inch MacBook Pro is actually faster than last year's 8-core Mac Pro. Of course this is because Photoshop doesn't scale perfectly with core count but it just shows you just how powerful these new quad-core CPUs are.

 

Owners of last year's 13-inch MBP will notice that the new high end 13-inch can run through our CS4 test in roughly half the time. The performance improvement is of course exaggerated because Apple kept the 13 on Core 2 for longer than it should have, but what's important is that the new 13 is really fast.

 

If you do a lot of Photoshop work, the Sandy Bridge upgrade will be worth it.

 

Aperture 2 RAW Import

 

For my Aperture test I simply timed how long it took to import 203 12MP RAW images into the library.

 

Aperture performance is similarly class leading. Here the 2010 Mac Pro actually outperforms the high end 15 by around 6% but the fact that we can even mention the two in the same sentence is huge.

 

The new 13 is still really quick, itself faster than a Mac Pro from as recently as 2008 in this test.

 

Cinebench R10 & 11.5

 

I’m a fan of the Cinebench tests because they lets me show off both single and multithreaded performance in the same workload. First, the single threaded performance:

 

Single threaded performance is really where these systems shine and it's what makes them feel so fast in normal usage. Even the base 15-inch MacBook Pro has better single threaded performance than last year's high end model.

 

You'll notice that the 13-inch 2.7GHz MBP has a bit of an edge compared to the 15-inch 2.3GHz system here. Although both chips can technically turbo up to 3.4GHz with only one core active, Apple seems to limit the 13-inch dual-core less. As a result it will sometimes have higher single threaded performance than the 15. I noticed this in actual usage as well. The advantage is very subtle and really only visible if you do a side to side comparison however.

 

Multithreaded performance is obviously a huge boon on the 15-inch MacBook Pro. With four cores and eight threads the new 15-inch MBP behaves a lot more like a desktop than a notebook. Multithreaded performance is also one area where the high end Mac Pros do a lot better as they have twice the cores of even the 15-inch MBP.

 

Quicktime H.264 Video Encoding

 

Our final benchmark is more consumer focused. Here I'm taking an XviD and converting it to an iPhone-supported H.264 format.

 

Despite missing Quick Sync support, the 2011 MacBook Pros do very well in our video transcoding tests. If Apple does get around to enabling Quick Sync you can expect the performance advantage to grow even more.

 

 

 

 

GPU:

 

 

 

 

The GPU Comparison

If you had asked me last year I would've told you that Apple clearly values GPU performance more than CPU performance—and I wouldn't be far off the mark. Apple went to great lengths to use the best of the entry level GPUs and paid no mind to the fact that the 13-inch MacBook Pro, Mac mini and MacBook Air all used much older Core 2 Duo CPUs while the competition was busy shipping Core i3/5/7s.

 

This year is the year of the CPU however. The entire MacBook Pro lineup gets Sandy Bridge CPUs and as a result they all get Intel's new HD Graphics 3000. Here's a die shot of Sandy Bridge:

 

Note that the GPU core is integrated on-die. There are actually two versions of Intel's HD Graphics available on Sandy Bridge, but all current mobile versions of SNB come with the 3000 model. What does the 3000 offer you? Twelve scalar execution units (EUs) running at a base clock speed of 650MHz. The GPU can also turbo up depending on available TDP. The max frequency is somewhere between 1.2—1.3GHz depending on the processor SKU.

 

Being basically desktop replacements, the 15-inch and 17-inch MacBook Pros also include a discrete GPU. This round they both use AMD hardware and the options are below:

 

Discrete GPU Options AMD Radeon HD 6490MAMD Radeon HD 6750MManufacturing Process40nm40nmSPs160480Texture Units824ROPs48Core Clock800MHz600MHzMemory Bus Width64-bit128-bitMemory Clock800MHz900MHzFrame Buffer256MB GDDR51024MB GDDR5The entry level 15 uses a Radeon HD 6490M while the upgraded 15 and the 17 both use a Radeon HD 6750M. The difference between the two GPUs amounts to compute horsepower, memory bandwidth and available frame buffer. With only a 256MB frame buffer the 6490M is insufficient for high performance at larger resolutions (courtesy of an external display). The 6750M is paired with 1GB of GDDR5 and thus has no problems smoothly driving a 27-inch 2560 x 1440 panel. The new GPUs now only use a x8 connection to the SNB CPU compared to the x16 from last year's models. Remember Sandy Bridge has a x16 PCIe controller on-die. The controller can be split into two x8s or 1 x8 and 2 x4. In this case one of the x4 ports is used for Thunderbolt, leaving 4 unused lanes and a x8 for the GPU. I don't expect this move will have a noticeable impact on GPU performance.

 

The 13-inch MacBook Pro has absolutely no GPU options, all you get is the on-die Intel HD Graphics 3000. Based on what we saw in our original mobile Sandy Bridge review this should mean that GPU performance between the two stays the same. Intel's HD Graphics 3000 is about the performance of a GeForce 320M, the latter is what was used in last year's 13-inch MBP.

 

For Starcraft II performance we brought over our two benchmarks from our PC CPU and GPU reviews. We don't have FRAPS availalble under OS X so we resort to measuring lowest instantaneous frame rate at a couple of points.

 

The two tests focus on different aspects of SC2 gameplay. The GPU test looks at general unit management performance, which tends to be less CPU bound and more GPU bound. The CPU test looks at performance during a very large battle which, as you might guess, is largely influenced by CPU performance.

 

Under OS X, the new HD Graphics 3000 GPU is actually about the same performance or even faster than the 2010 13-inch's GeForce 320M. Remember that Apple does a lot of its own driver writing under OS X and the SNB GPU received some TLC from Apple in the form of very well optimized drivers.

 

Under Windows running WoW the situation is quite different and I'm not entirely sure why. Either Apple is very aggressive with driver optimizations under OS X or there's some other funniness happening under Windows (more on this later).

 

I did notice some bouts of instability with the 13-inch MacBook Pro as well as minor graphical corruption on the screen. Early on whenever I'd boot the system up I'd get a copy of the mouse cursor in the upper left of the screen.

 

 

15-inch MacBook Pro GPU Performance

Next up is the 15-inch MBP gaming performance comparison.

 

For 15-inch users the Radeon HD 6490M is pretty much the same speed as last year's GeForce GT 330M (if not marginally faster). The Radeon HD 6750M however is a lot faster. In fact, the performance improvement and increase in frame buffer you get with the 6750M is well worth the upgrade. If you're buying a 15-inch MacBook Pro and plan on gaming or using a high-res external display, get the 6750M.

 

πηγή

cpu και gpu δεν μπορεις να αλλαξεις αργοτερα ενω ssd και ram μπρεις

[haHa]

Στη θεση θα χτυπαγα τον ακριβοτερο, γιατι τα 300€ παραπανω που ζηταει τα αξιζει λογω καλυτερου επεξεργαστη και πολυ καλυτερης καρτας γραφικων.

 

Δες εδω διαφορα σε επιδοσεις μεταξυ καρτας γραφικων:

http://www.barefeats.com/mbps04.html

 

 

 

Σε ενδιαφερει το πρωτο και το τριτο στο γραφημα για να καταλαβεις την διαφορα επιδοσεων:

MBP 2.30 '11 = 'early 2011' MacBook Pro Quad-Core i7 2.30GHz with Radeon HD 6750M graphics

 

MBP 2.0 '11 = 'early 2011' MacBook Pro Quad-Core i7 2.20GHz with Radeon HD 6490M graphics

 

 

 

Εννοειται βεβαια προς με την πρωτη ευκαιρια βαζεις και εναν ssd.

[redfish]

ευχαριστω για τις απαντησεις αλλα στα 2.2ghz ειναι το επομενο μοντελο.

 

στο ebw.gr το εχει στα 1999ευρω και μπορω να το'χω σε 2-3 μερες, ενω αν παρω το 2.3ghz θα πρεπει να το παραγγειλω απο αλλο καταστημα και θ'αργησει να'ρθει. επισης θα ειναι πολυ ακριβοτερο.

 

οποτε να παρω τον 2.2ghz?

[haHa]

To 2.2ghz με το 2.3ghz εχουν μηδαμινη διαφορα σε επιδοσεις. Απλα το site ειχε κανει μετρησεις με αυτο και οχι με το 2.2, οποτε στο εβαλα για να δεις τη διαφορα να περιμενεις μεταξυ 2.0ghz και 2.2ghz μοντελου.

 

Αντιθετα, το 2.0ghz με το 2.2ghz εχουν ουσιαστικη διαφορα στις επιδοσεις και λογω καρτας γραφικων , αλλα και δυνατοτερου επεξεργαστη. (ο 2.2ghz επεξεργαστης δεν εχει απλα υψηλοτερη συχνοτητα σε σχεση με τον 2.0GHz, εχει και αλλα πλεονεκτηματα που τον κανουν πιο γρηγορο )

 

Κοινως, παρε το 2.2ghz.

[redfish]

ευχαριστω. μαλλον για τον 2.2ghz θα παω.

[tr3quart1sta]

[Heatspreader]

To 2.2ghz με το 2.3ghz εχουν μηδαμινη διαφορα σε επιδοσεις. Απλα το site ειχε κανει μετρησεις με αυτο και οχι με το 2.2, οποτε στο εβαλα για να δεις τη διαφορα να περιμενεις μεταξυ 2.0ghz και 2.2ghz μοντελου.

 

Αντιθετα, το 2.0ghz με το 2.2ghz εχουν ουσιαστικη διαφορα στις επιδοσεις και λογω καρτας γραφικων , αλλα και δυνατοτερου επεξεργαστη. (ο 2.2ghz επεξεργαστης δεν εχει απλα υψηλοτερη συχνοτητα σε σχεση με τον 2.0GHz, εχει και αλλα πλεονεκτηματα που τον κανουν πιο γρηγορο )

 

Κοινως, παρε το 2.2ghz.

Όπως τι άλλα? Μεγαλύτερη cache?

[tr3quart1sta]

[Heatspreader]

Δεν με έπειθε ότι αυτή η διαφορά στη συχνότητα είναι διαφορά που φαίνεται και στη χρήση. Για την Cache όμως το καταλαβαίνω.

Ευχαριστώ για την πληροφορία φίλε.

[tr3quart1sta]

καλα εχω παψει να ασχολουμαι με συχνοτητες απο εποχες pentium

[Heatspreader]

Από εποχές Pentium όπου η AMD με πολύ χαμηλότερες συχνότητες γάζωνε.

[haHa]

Όπως τι άλλα? Μεγαλύτερη cache?

http://www.anandtech.com/show/4205/the-macbook-pro-review-13-and-15-inch-2011-brings-sandy-bridge/2

 

Apple offers three CPU options in the 15-inch MacBook Pro: a 2.0GHz, 2.2GHz or 2.3GHz quad-core Core i7. These actually correspond to the Core i7-2635QM, 2720QM and 2820QM. The main differences are in the table below:he most annoying part of all of this is that the base 2635 doesn't support Intel's AES-NI. Apple still doesn't use AES-NI anywhere in its OS it seems so until Lion rolls around I guess this won't be an issue. Shame on Apple for not supporting AES-NI and shame on Intel for using it as a differentiating feature between parts. The AES instructions, introduced in Westmere, are particularly useful in accelerating full disk encryption as we've seen under Windows 7.

 

 

Με απλα λογια, οι 2 επεξεργαστες εχουν 200MHz διαφορα (2.0Ghz εναντι 2.2Ghz) οταν δουλευουν και οι 4 πυρηνες.

Σε προγραμματα που δεν εκμεταλλευονται και τους 4 πυρηνες, τοτε ο 2.2GHz ανεβαζει αυτοματα την συχνοτητα μεχρι 3.3GHz εναντι 2.9GHz που την ανεβαζει ο 2.0GHz, δηλαδη σε αρκετες περιπτωσεις εχουν διαφορα 400MHz.

 

Επισης , ο 2.2GHz εχει καποια χαρακτηριστικα που δεν εχει ο 2.0GHz.

 

 

Εδω αναλυτικα τα χαρακτηριστικα τους:

Intel Core i7 2.0GHz:

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=53463

 

Intel Core i7 2.2GHz:

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=50067