MBP 1,1 Running faster than MBP 2,2?

We have two older MacBook Pros that the kids use.
One is a first generation MacBook Pro 1,1 (January 2006)
- Core Duo 2GHz
- 667 bus
- 2G RAM
- ATY Radeon X1600
- 2MB L2 Cache
The other is a MacBook Pro 2,2 (late Oct 2006)
- Core 2 Duo 2.33GHz
- 667 bus
- 2G RAM
- ATY Radeon X1600
- 4MB L2 Cache
Both are currently running Snow Leopard 10.6.8
The MBP 2,2 had been upgraded to Lion but it was so sluggish is has been wiped and set back to Snow Leopard.
The kids use these two computers often to play Minecraft. The issue is that the 2,2 model, which should easily out perform the 1,1 model at this game, lags badly when playing Minecraft. This makes no sense. It has better processor, twice the L2 Cache. Everything else is essentially the same.
I have run every diagnostic, DiskWarrior, etc to try and determine what is going on but the 2,2 continues to under perform the lesser model.
What can I do to make the world right here? Why would the superior system and twice the L2 lag on graphics?

squidz wrote:
Yep. I killed the partitions. I did not set it to 35 passes, just erased. If I restart and hold "alt" it no longer shows the Recovery partition or any other than Mac HD. Is there a way to test the HD spin rate or other diagnostic to see why is might be under performing its specs.
You erased the Macintosh HD or you Erased the Top Level Drive makers Name. Just erasing the Macintosh HD partition does not remove the Recovery HD.
Ok. None that I know of for Mac.

Similar Messages

MBP 13" not really faster than MB 13"

Hi
I want to upgrade my 4 year old MB 13". I really like the size... I waited a long time for the new processors to come. Now I discovered that the 13" model does not feature the i5 and i7 processors and I heard that the 13" MBP cannot be compared to the 15" model in terms of performance.
I will do more photo editing (photoshop) and video editing (final cut express) and my old MB is getting really slow...
Any advice on choice of Macbook - Pro or normal...
Thanks!

Hi niefl,
First of all (and I know this isn't quite what your are asking) although the new MBP isn't as fast as the new 15" model, it is a LOT quicker than a four year old MB. We have an early 2 GHz black CD MacBook (about the same generation as yours), a later , Core 2 Duo, MB, a SantaRosa 15" MBP from 2007, and a June 2009 13" MBP . Even the June 2009 13" model is much, much faster in any situation that requires processor power for things like photo editing or video editing than the early 2 GHz MB .
As far as comparison with the late 2009 polycarbonate MB goes, the benchmarks published by MacWorld (see http://www.macworld.com/article/147071/2010/04/13inchmacbookprobenchmarks.html) indicate that the new MBP 13 is a bit faster than the MB but not by a huge margin - maybe about 10% on most tasks.
But there are other very good reason to get the MBP if you can afford the extra couple of hundred dollars. For video work the huge difference is firewire. USB is better on recent Macs than it was in the days when your old MB was released, but it is still slower than FW400 and much, much slower than the Firewire 800 available on the MBP but not the MB.
Secondly the "standard" base configuration of the MBP comes with 4 gig of RAM, while the MB comes with just 2Gig. To do what you want to do efficiently you will need at least 4 gig of RAM. You will really notice the benefit of this with both photo editing and video work. Simply upgrading the RAM on the MB to 4 gig will cost you around half the difference in price between the two machines anyway!
Thirdly, the MBP comes with an illuminated keyboard. I never realised how useful this would be until I obtained my first MBP. Once you have been using one for a while it is hard to go back to the non-iluminated one.
Fourthly the MBP is a little lighter and slimmer than the MB.
Fifthly, our own experience has been that the aluminium MBPs are substantially tougher than the polycarbonate ones. Not only are they much more scratch resistant, but they are also less prone to case fractures through minor knocks.
Sixth, they have batteries / power management systems that give you longer battery charge life.
Seventh, they provide full sound output through the minidisplay port if you wish to hook up to an HDMI TV (unlike the MB)
Finally, they look better!
If you assume that you will have to upgrade the MB to 4 Gig of RAM anyway, then you get all the rest for just $100!
Pretty hard to beat when it comes to value IMHO!
Having said all of that, there is no doubt that the base model i5 MBP 15" is a very sweet computer, and ideal for the purposes you speak of, but if your budget, or demands for portability, means that you are choosing between the 13" MBP and the MB, I think the current model of the MBP13 wins hands down when it comes to overall value, and is a bit faster too.
Cheers
Rod

Can anyone confirm Safari-4 runs "faster" than S4BETA?

Just like to know if my holding-out (want the blue progress bar) is costing me speed and features? That is-- is the Safari4 better/faster than Safari4-Beta?
Thanks!

Hi again Steve
I have the beta running on my MacBook Pro and the final on my iMac. I don't see a difference, and I do like the blue progress bar.
I left the Beta on the MBP due to adverse Network issues specific to the Unibody machine when 10.5.7 was released.

Can this class run fast than Hotspot ?

My case in Sun hotspot is almost 2 times fast than jRockit. It's very strange.
package com.telegram;
public class byteutils {
     public final static byte[] bytea = { 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57,
               58, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 };
     public byteutils() {
          super();
     * convert length = 2L letters Hexadecimal String to length = L bytes
     * Examples: [01][23][45][67][89][AB][CD][EF]
     public static byte[] convertBytes(String hexStr) {
          byte[] a = null;
          try {
               a = hexStr.getBytes("ASCII");
          } catch (java.io.UnsupportedEncodingException e) {
               e.printStackTrace();
          final int len = a.length / 2;
          byte[] b = new byte[len];
          int idx = 0;
          int h = 0;
          int l = 0;
          for (int i = 0; i < len; i++) {
               h = a[idx++];
               l = a[idx++];
               h = (h < 65) ? (h - 48) : (h - 55);
               l = (l < 65) ? (l - 48) : (l - 55);
               // if ((h < 0) || (l < 0)) return null;
               b[i] = (byte) ((h << 4) | l);
          a = null;
          return b;
     public static String convertHex(byte[] arr_b) {
          if (arr_b == null)
               return null;
          final int len = arr_b.length;
          byte[] byteArray = new byte[len * 2];
          int idx = 0;
          int h = 0;
          int l = 0;
          int v = 0;
          for (int i = 0; i < len; i++) {
               v = arr_b[i] & 0xff;
               l = v & 0xf;
               h = v >> 4;
               byteArray[idx++] = bytea[h];
               byteArray[idx++] = bytea[l];
          String r = null;
          try {
               r = new String(byteArray, "ASCII");
          } catch (java.io.UnsupportedEncodingException e) {
               e.printStackTrace();
          } finally {
               byteArray = null;
          return r;
     public static void main(String[] argv) {
          byte[] a = new byte[0x10000];
          for (int c = 0; c < 0x10000; c++) {
               a[c] = (byte) (c % 256);
          String s = "";
          int LOOP = 10000;
          long l = System.currentTimeMillis();
          for (int i = 0; i < LOOP; i++) {
               s = convertHex(a);
               a = convertBytes(s);
          l = System.currentTimeMillis() - l;
          double d = l / (double) LOOP;
          System.out.println("" + d + "ms.");
}

Thanks! Your code is essentially a microbenchmark testing the performance of sun.nio.cs.US_ASCII.Decoder.decodeLoop() and encodeLoop(), with ~35% and ~30% spent in those two methods respectively. I have verified the behavior (i.e. Sun is faster than JRockit). Due to the microbenchmark nature, it may not affect a larger running program, but it may merit a closer look regardless. I have forwarded to the JRockit perf team for analysis.
-- Henrik

Does the .rep report run faster than the same program in .rdf format

Hello,
We have some reports timing out because they take too
long to bring back results. If we used the .rep file instead of
the .rdf file, will the reports run faster? Does it take very
long to compile or is it most likely the SQL needs to be tuned
for better performance?
Thanks in Advance..
Pmoore31

No, the report will not run faster. It is most likely that you
need to fine tune the SQL.

Why does audio run faster than video after burning my iMovie project in iDVD?

I created a project in iMovie HD and shared it to iDVD 6. When I played the finished disc, I noticed that the audio ran much faster than the video. I rechecked my movie and audio clips in iMovie to make sure they were matched correctly, and I saw no problem there. I burned the disc again through iDVD and got the same problem when I played it in a DVD player.
I have never had this problem before and I've been working on dvd projects all week. I think the only difference with this movie project is that I had movie clip audio and background audio playing at the same time at some parts of the movie, but I don't know if that's the issue.
Any suggestions?

Hi
And just to add to OT-s brilliant suggestions - really - Do a Save as a DiskImage ! IMPORTANT !
• When free space goes down on the Start-Up hard disk to 5Gb or less - strange things occurs - Yes even audio out of sync - to not working DVD at all.
I secure a minimum of 25Gb free space when using SD-video to iDVD - if HD material I would guess 4-5 times more as it has to be re-calculated into SD and this needs space.
DVD - is as standard SD-Video (as old time CRT-TVs) - even if You use DVD-Studio Pro or iDVD or Roxio Toast™ - That's what it is and using HD material doesn't improve a bit (may be even give a lesser result)
Yours Bengt W

Is LabWindows/CVI running faster than LabView?

A colleague told me that LabWindows/CVI is much faster than LabView. And I make a mistake if I would go on using LabView. So he tried to convince me of LabWindows/CVI. What are your experiences? Which program is faster: LabWindows/CVI or LabView?
mara

It all depends on what you're doing. I've used both (LabWindows since v1 and LabVIEW since v3), and in my instrument control and daq applications, I don't see any. I think LabVIEW is faster to develop in and that's the main advantage for me. NI has a benchmark here if that helps at all. Either LabVIEW or LabWindows is a good choice. If you're an experienced C programmer, you might be better off sticking with the more familar CVI but if you're not, LabVIEW should work just fine.

How can I make Final Cut X run faster on MBP 13?

Hi all,
I have a Macbook Pro 13inch Early 2011, 320 HD, OSX 10.8.3 2.3 GHz with 4 GB of memory. I use Final Cut X about once a week for editing, but it's literally frying my laptop. When I open it, I can't have any programs running. FC and my laptop become slow and unresponsive about once every ten minutes. I save all of my projects on my external HD and I have the background rendering turned off. Is there any solution for FC being this slow? I'm doing the editing to save up for a 15 inch MBP, but for now I have to use my 13inch. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

At a minimum, increase your RAM to 8 GB.
Put your events and projects on an external Thunderbolt or Firewire 7200 RPM drive.
Maintain at least 25% free space on your boot drive.
Use proxy clips.
Russ

What can I do if script runs faster than network?

I've written an inter-application script that moves from InDesign, where it starts in AppleScript, to Photoshop, where the AppleScript runs a JavaScript to perform various tasks.
It runs beautifully on my laptop at home where I do my development. Yesterday, using myself as guinea pig, I tried it in the office.
On about the third run, I was horrified to see the ExtendScript Toolkit pop up with an error message (about as welcome as seeing an AppleScript inviting the user to open the Script Editor and fix a script).
The error message was that app.bringToFront(); was not a valid function.
This was true in InDesign, which has a different activation function, and I realised that even though my AppleScript had called for Photoshop to activate I was still in InDesign.
The JavaScript app.bringToFront had been called as well because I had enclosed my code in the Tranberry template.
So I pressed the stop button on ExtendScript, went back to InDesign and ran the script again. This time it worked as usual.
Occasionally on our network we spend some time beachball-watching as some communication goes on in the background. So I imagine that the time the error was thrown was on one of those network slowdowns.
The switch from InDesign to Photoshop did not happen fast enough, but the script ran on and issued a Photoshop JavaScript command while I was still in InDesign.
In AppleScript such unfortunate communication with users can be avoided using "try... on error" blocks.
Would there be any error-handling equivalent in JavaScript which would enable me to avoid them being thrown into ExtendScript Toolbox and would give them a friendly message apologising, explaining what had happened and inviting them to try again?

Also AppleScript has a default timeout of 60 seconds before it wants to execute its next command. If in you case the opening and processing of the image in JavaScript takes any longer than this wrap your call out to Photoshop in a timeout block thus extending the alloted time to whatever you think may be suitable? Like so:
tell application "Adobe InDesign CS2"
activate
tell active document
set This_Image to image 1 of item 1 of rectangle 1
set Image_Path to file path of item link of (item 1 of This_Image) as alias
my Call_Photoshop(Image_Path)
delay 1 -- same as sleep(1000);
update item link of (item 1 of This_Image)
end tell
end tell
on Call_Photoshop(Image_Path)
with timeout of 180 seconds
tell application "Adobe Photoshop CS2"
activate
set display dialogs to never
open Image_Path
set ID_Image to the current document
tell ID_Image
-- do my stuff
close with saving
end tell
end tell
end timeout
end Call_Photoshop

LabWindows/CVI timer runs faster than system time in multithreaded application on Win 2000

The same application runs well on Win NT

This is a rarely seen and unconfirmed problem that you are seeing with the Timer function. I have posted some information as well as another Developer Exchange user posting a workaround at the following link that you should take a look at:
http://exchange.ni.com/servlet/ProcessRequest?RHIVEID=101&RPAGEID=135&HExpertOnly=&HFORCEKWTID=11348:5&HOID=506500000008000000AE1F0000

SCTL running faster than 40MHz for FPGA

There is possibility of executing SCTL on FPGA with derived clock rates like 80Mhz. But I found no detail information about the limitations and precision of FPGA in such resolutions, does anybody have an experience on this?

What do you mean by timing resolution?
If you create a derived clock at 80 MHz, and do all your design in that clock domain, you either WILL or WON'T successfully compile the design when it goes through the xilinx toolchain. The limiting factor on this is how much work is being done on each iteration of the SCTL. If you put a wildly complex algorithm in an SCTL and expect it to run at 80MHz, it won't do that (see previous post about pipelining a complex design within an SCTL). However, if a design compiles at 80MHz, it will ALWAYS run at 80MHz, and will always provide you sampling at 80MHz, as long as your inputs are in that 80MHz domain. One of the primary draws of FPGA design is that it is deterministic. If 80MHz is sufficient resolution for your application, you design an FPGA that compiles at 80MHz, then you should have high confidence that your application will work.
Please clarify if I'm not answering the right question.

Why is JVM faster than CLR?

hi
i wrote a N-body algorithm in both Java and C# (shown below). i executed it using .NET CLR and JDK1.4.1. in JDK it is twice as fast as .NET (on win2000). now i am trying to find out why is it so??
the interesting thing is that i ran some other algorithms like FFT and graph alogrithms, and they are faster in .NET. so i want to find is there some operation in the below algorithm that is making it run faster in JDK.
in general, what can the possible reasons be for JVM to run faster than CLR?
thanks
double G = 6.6726E-11;
double difference = 0.0;
for(int i=0; i<numBodies; i++)
     accelarations[i] = 0.0;
     for(int j=0; j<numBodies; j++)
          if(i != j)
          difference = radii[i] - radii[j];
          if(difference != 0)
          accelarations[i] += masses/(Math.pow(difference, 2));
     accelarations[i] *= G;

Interesting N-Body problem that treats accelerations as scalars.
Anyway, if there is no optimisation for small integer powers in the Math.pow() method, then I'd expect almost all the time is used there or in its equivalent in .NET. Hardly a meaningful test of relative performance.
Try using (difference * difference) instead.
Sylvia.

I read on the website that the update 4.0 was supposed to work faster than the last but I that since I updated (2 days ago) my work in firefox has become quite sluggish. Any suggestions?

Hi there. I upgraded to firefox 4 on Monday (two days ago) since I saw that the new version was supposed to run faster than firefox 3 that I was using. However, since I've started using it, I wait longer for a page to download than I had to before and the whole browser just is sluggish to respond. Any suggestions?

Sounds like it either believes that there are headphones plugged in, or the switch is broken.
Why in the world would you take it to Best Buy for service? Take it to an Apple Store. They can replace it on the spot if it's defective.

The time on my pre is faster than normal

when i used the pre in my hometown the time worked fine. i am now at college and still in the same time zone so it is the same exact time as my hometown, but for some reason it runs faster than normal. so ill set it to my computer time then later on in the day it will be like an hour ahead. i dont know what to do, help please.
Post relates to: Pre p100eww (Sprint)

I've been having a similar problem. Here's my story:
My wife and I got Pres on the day they went on sale. About a week later I noticed that the time was fast on both of them.
Over the next few weeks I tried experimenting with everything I could think of. I tried every combination of setting the network time and zone sliders to on and off, but they still gained about 3 minutes a day.
At one point I called Sprint. They quickly elevated me to the senior tech person, who was stumped. The best they could offer was to do a reset. Doing so did result in the phone grabbing the correct time, but it proved to be a non-fix... it started running fast again.
In June we spent five days in Las Vegas. During that period, my phone kept absolutely perfect time; my wife's, however, continued to run fast. When we returned home to Seattle, my phone also resumed running fast.
Last Friday we took the phones into a Sprint store with an on-site repair shop. They took mine in the back, told me they did some updates (not sure what this was since all my updates were current) and told me it was fine. No such luck. By the next day I noticed it was still running fast. My wife's phone also had some minor screen cracks so they swapped hers for a referb unit. Believe it or not, this one started running fast as well.
At some point I noticed that the phone grabs the correct time if I connect it via USB for a media sync.
So, that's where I'm at -- we've handled three phones and all of them run fast regardless of how the network/zone sliders are set. I really don't know what else to try but would eagerly welcome any suggestions.

Mac faster than PC's?

Hi everybody.
I already have a iMac 21,5" but i'm considering to buy the next Macbook Apple publish.
I hope they make a Macbook Pro inside a Air body, but thats not what this threat is about.
I often her that people say that if a Mac and a PC had the same specs, the Mac would still be faster?
That is also my experience, but why is that? I thougt that a PC that had better specs would run faster than a Mac?
Is specifications all that matters when you buy a computer?
Of course it's individually what you like best when it comes to software, but do the software make you computer run faster?
I think my Mac run a lot faster than my PC, and they have someway the same specs.
That was a lot of questions

Mac's can be faster than PC's and PC's can be faster than Mac's.
It all depends upon the processors, graphics capability and other factors, age of each machine, data on the drive, etc.
If you put Windows and OS X on the very same type hardware, freshly installed on each hard drive, everything matches. Likely OS X would be a hair slower than Windows.
It's because OS X renders the UI with a finer degree of detail.
However when it comes to hardware, PC's outstrip Mac's in that department not mainly in the processors, which they both share the same Intel ones (Mac's sometimes gets theirs before PC users) but rather the video card upgrade choices and tweaking ability Windows towers users enjoy and Mac owners do not.
http://www.cbscores.com/index.php?sort=ogl&order=desc
So if your considering a 3D gaming machine, your choices are simply a Win 7 tower.
Generic PC's also have another advantage, one can replace Windows with the lighter Linux, I've done that with HP XP netbooks that were going for a song, slapped Linux on them and they make great portable use machines for the basics. I even use a UI that looks like OS X so I feel at home.

MBP 1,1 Running faster than MBP 2,2?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for