The 15-inch unibody is faster than the 17-inch unibody flagship?

Macworld benchmarks has the 15 edging out the 17.
And that is Before yesterday's speedbump for the 15.
http://www.macworld.com/article/139139/2009/03/unibody17_inch_macbookpro.html
When they remeasure, will the 15 be substantially faster than the 17-inch flagship?

Historically, the 17-inch has been faster and better in many ways.
I'm sorry, but this is simply incorrect. I will present for you the following specifications from every MBP revision. All specifications represent the high-end 15" and stock 17" of the time which are the two models we are comparing here.
MacBook Pro (Early 2006, Original Revision)
15.4"/2.16 Ghz (CTO)/1 GB RAM/100GB/256 MB VRAM/$2499
17"/2.16 Ghz/1 GB RAM/120 GB HD/256 MB VRAM/$2799
Macbook Pro (Late 2006)
15.4"/2.33 GHz/2 GB RAM/120 GB HD/256 MB VRAM/$2499
17"/2.33 GHz/2 GB RAM/160 GB HD/256 MB VRAM/$2799
Macbook Pro (Mid 2007)
15.4"/2.4 GHz/2 GB RAM/160 GB HD/256 MB VRAM/$2499
17"/2.4 GHz/2 GB RAM/160 GB HD/256 MB VRAM/$2799
Macbook Pro (Early 2008)
15.4"/2.5 GHz/6 MB L2/2 GB RAM/250 GB HD/512 MB VRAM/$2499
17"/2.5 GHz/6 MB L2/2 GB RAM/250 GB HD/512 MB VRAM/$2799
I think it is pretty evident that in terms of clockspeed, RAM, and VRAM the 15" and 17" have never been too far apart. I don't think 20-40GB of HD space is all that big a deal. Yes, the 17" has had an extra USB/FW port. I don't know if these things qualify as "faster and better in many ways" though. Really, the most significant way that the 17" was "better" was the screen size and resolution as has already been mentioned. Things are no different now than they've been for the last three years. I don't know what they were like in the PPC days because I don't have time to look back that far, but I don't think it matters.
In fact it's slower, and will seem even slower with the 15's speed bump.
It's not slow at all. In fact, it's one of the fastest notebooks that you can buy at all right now. We have already pointed out that you shouldn't take the benchmarks seriously because they have absolutely no statistical significance.
These things are not going to change. If you need the notebook now, you should buy it. If you don't need it, then wait. If you don't want it, then buy something else.
--Travis

Similar Messages

I want to add more capacity on hard drive of time capsule. Can i add a normal usb driver? I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network? It will work as fast than time capsule? Thanks

I want to add more capacity on hard drive of time capsule. Can i add a normal usb driver? I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network? It will work as fast than time capsule? Thanks

Can i add a normal usb driver?
Yes, but be sure that the drive is formatted correctly for Mac in Mac OS Extended (Journaled)
I will see it as an external drive in the time capsule network?
The drive will appear as a shared network drive, like the Time Capsule.
It will work as fast than time capsule?
No, the drive will operate at about half or 50% of the speed of the Time Capsule.

Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2?

Hi,
Is the iPad 3 faster than the iPad 2? Also, how much better resolution is the iPad 3 from the iPad 2? I was just wondering because I heard that the new iPad isn't worth it's price.

The New iPad is not remarkably faster, but does have a faster chip, which is required to handle the amazing Retina display. The new display on New iPad is without question significatly better than iPad 2 and offers nearly 4 times the resolution of iPad 2. Whether it's important to you, only you can know. To see the difference, go to an Apple store where they still sell iPad 2 and New iPad. For me, the difference was night and day, which is why I sold my iPad 2 and upgraded to New iPad.

Can the WD Raptor make my 2.0 Dual faster than my new 2.3 Dualcore?

A few weeks ago I had asked what would make my machine at work - 2.3 Dualcore w/2GB of RAM - slower than my home machine; 2.0 DP w/2.5GB of RAM.
The new Dualcore was unreasonably slow and I followed the few suggestions to wipe the drive, which brought it up to snuff... but I still find it slower than my 2.0 at home. At simple tasks (contextual menu pop-ups, software loading, etc...) as well as more complex Photoshop and 3D tasks.
It's not the very last generation 2.0, but the one prior, e.g. 8GB of RAM capable, PCI-Express, and liquid cooling, etc...
I doubt the .5 of RAM can make that much difference, is the WD Raptor the difference and am I just spoiled by it?
Thanks for any suggestions.
-Vincent

So you have a Raptor as boot in your home based Dual Processor and it seems faster than the faster Dual Core you have at work.
That's understandable, especially since the Dual Core most likely has a 7,200 RPM 250 GB slow drive (and more filled being at work, using more fonts?), plus the Dual Core shares a fronside bus, unlike the Dual Processor which has one for each. Photoshop pre-CS2 swaps memory to disk, so a faster boot drive will help. (Tiger overrides CS2's RAM limit, so more RAM will give better performance)
At home you have the Raptor as boot and most of your user files on the second drive I'm assuming, allowing you to access two drives at once using two busses.
Of course CPU intensive tasks the Dual Core 2.3 should beat the Dual 2, but since Mac OS X is heavy boot drive speed dependant (caches, swaps etc) the "User Interface feel" should be more responsive on your Dual 2, giving you the impression it's faster.
Big fat filled slow boot drives really cripple Mac OS X performance (NAND RAM coming?)
I've written a better explaination here
click for text doc

The error console, I clear it and 4 minutes later it has 100's of yellow, pink & blue message lines in it, without me making 100's of clicks or commands ?? .... Other than the error console filling up faster than a superman, it seems to be working fine.

The error console, I clear it and 4 minutes later it has 100's of yellow, pink & blue message lines in it, without me making 100's of clicks or commands ?? .... Other than error console filling up faster than a superman, it seems to be working fine. why does it register so many yellow, pink & blue warnings, errors, etc. ???
This happens no matter where I am browsing, yahoo, google, mail or news. Clearing the console seems to help with the speed of FF after an hour or so of browsing, it slows down terribly and if not cleared and or shut down and relaunching FF, both actually, it is painfully slow, like dial-up.

Hi Mac Attack,
My computer will not disconnect from the internet. It seems to find a clone router and continues even when I shut down and unplug my my own home iy
Your main question was 'chopped' in the title. Please reply in the body of a reply box with the full question and anything you have tried. And no, the long report was not helpful .
If the same website is opening each time you launch a browser (Safari?) hold down the shift key as you launch to prevent previous pages from opening.
Have a look at your settings in Safari > Preferences. Especially General and Privacy.
Reset Safari to remove cookies and other stored data.
System Preferences > General
Have a look at your settings in System Preferences > Security & Privacy.
Call back with more questions.
Regards,
Ian

Will my duel 800 G4 work with Leopard? Its fast than the 867 G4?

My duel 800 G4 was the top of the line when I purchased it, much faster than the 867 G4, which seems to be the limit on the new Leopard operating system. Will I still be able to upgrade? I have seen on other Apple forums many people asking the same question? I would appreciate any help.

Well, the minimum system requirements that Apple tells us really aren't always totally truthful. For example, they say OS 10.4 needs a minimum 256 MB Ram, and a DVD drive. That isn't true. I have tested this on a few different machines and found that the true minimum requirements are 192 MB for installation, 128 MB for running. On an ibook G3 500 mhz with 128 MB RAM, 10.4 ran surprisingly well. It was a little laggy of course, but it was stable and reliable. Also, you do not need a DVD drive, as you can use target disk mode to install the system from another computer (yes, the other computer needs a dvd drive...but I am speaking in specifics). What they say in their requirements is for the general public, but most of the time they aren't entirely dogmatic on those requirements.
If it were my guess, I would say 10.5 will probably run on your system. If they entirely cutoff installation based on clockspeed, I'm guessing some mac-hacker will figure it out.
Also, as far as your computer being top of the line "when you bought it"-that's the issue. Basically everyone's mac was top of line or near top of the line at it's release. But we all know the computer industry is not a slow moving market. Your computer can be outdated in a few months or a year. I helped a guy buy his first mac a few months ago (imac). 2 days later Apple released the new imac. That's the nature of computers. And you really can't expect Apple to keep supporting machines approaching 7 years old (my ol' Gigabit). They want to be at the head of the market, and pushing the old out is some times the only way to do it.
You always have the option to upgrade your system. Go and look at some cpu upgrade cards. They aren't all that expensive. For $400 I turned my dual 450 to a dual 1.4 Ghz (and don't forget the level 3 cache). Third party upgrades are what keep us old timers goin.

Are the brushes in Photoshop CC faster than CS6 - still need to use CS5 for large files

Hey,
Are the brushes in Photoshop CC any faster than Photoshop CS6.
Here's my standard large file, which makes the CS6 brushes crawl:
iPad 3 size - 2048 x 1536
About 20-100 layers
A combination of vector and bitmap layers
Many of the layers use layer styles
On a file like this there is a hesitation to every brush stroke in CS6. Even a basic round brush has the same hesitation, it doesn't have to be a brush as elaborate as a mixer brush.
This hesitation happens on both the mac and pc, on systems with 16 gb of ram. Many of my coworkers have the same issue.
So, for a complicated file, such as a map with many parts, I ask my coworkers to please work in CS5. If they work in CS6 I ask them to not use any CS6 only features, such as group layer styles. The only reason why one of them might want to use CS6 is because they're working on only a small portion of the map, such as a building. The rest of the layers are flattened in their file.
Just wondering if there has ever been a resolution to this problem...or this is just the way it is.
Thanks for your help!

BOILERPLATE TEXT:
Note that this is boilerplate text.
If you give complete and detailed information about your setup and the issue at hand,
such as your platform (Mac or Win),
exact versions of your OS, of Photoshop (not just "CS6", but something like CS6v.13.0.6) and of Bridge,
your settings in Photoshop > Preference > Performance
the type of file you were working on,
machine specs, such as total installed RAM, scratch file HDs, total available HD space, video card specs, including total VRAM installed,
what troubleshooting steps you have taken so far,
what error message(s) you receive,
if having issues opening raw files also the exact camera make and model that generated them,
if you're having printing issues, indicate the exact make and model of your printer, paper size, image dimensions in pixels (so many pixels wide by so many pixels high). if going through a RIP, specify that too.
etc.,
someone may be able to help you (not necessarily this poster, who is not a Windows user).
a screen shot of your settings or of the image could be very helpful too.
Please read this FAQ for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/419981?tstart=0
Thanks!

Video in my flash presentation playing faster than the animation

I have a flash presentaion that contains flvs, devided to chapters,everytime a video ends (chapter ends) a flash animation runs (like title changing,and thunmbnails changing).
the prob i m having is that on a core2quad, animation is faster than videos,and on p4 video is slower than animation.
the best played presentation is on core2duo.
how can we solve this prob?
thanx

Try calling Apple - (1-800-MY-APPLE)
and/or you can try the online service assistant-
http://www.apple.com/support/serviceassistant/overview.html
Message was edited by: belovedjs

Is the Core i7 processor comparable, much slower, or faster than the 2.8 Ghz core 2 duo from 2009?

I am looking to get a new MacBook Air, but when looking at the prices I am seeing the MacBook Pro 13" for the same price and a lot more guts (RAM and Processor). I am ok with spending the amount of money on the air if it means I get a computer that is like my iPad, which i love (flash based, snappy), but don't want it to be super slow.
I am coming off of a 17" 2.8Ghz MacBook Pro from 2009. I was happy with the speed and power of that machine. The most taxing thing I did was make a complilation of family movies in iMovie and burned them with iDVD once in the 2 years of ownership.
I mostly browse the internet and compose written documents, and keynote presentations.
I know my questions may seem stupid, but I don't know how significant the changes between i7 and Core 2 Duo are, so I ask the question:
I am wondering if the processing power in the core i7 will be somewhat comparable, much slower, or faster than the 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Duo I had in my 2009 computer?
Thanks for any help!!

Hi brosephb,
Like you I went through a similar comparison process. I bought the MacBook air 13" and up specced the processor and memory. I don't do anything taxing enough or frequently enough to NEED the extra power of the MacBook pro.
I am overjoyed at my air. It's gorgeous, the way it wakes instantly, it's speed and it's portableness is so endearing that I just don't use my iPad anymore. I read numerous reviews on it and the overwhelming opinion was it's addictive ease of use because of it's slim, light and rapid waking. At work I can hold the air with one hand, open it rapidly at will. It's just great but it's made my iPad redundant (for me anyway).
I see the new airs are even faster and I'm tempted to consider selling my 6 month old air and getting the new one, but, it runs a dream so I am happy to just be envious of the new one.
In short, unless you need the power (for your work) go for the air. I'm looking at a new iMac to use as a home work station. For the price of a new air I can get an iMac that will swallow any task for a good few years to come. And my air will suffice as my mobile companion. However, that's just me spoiling myself as, at the moment, I have no teal need for another mac. I may get the cinema display for any long winded tasks, as the screen size will help with multiple tasking.
A bit of a ramble, hope this is useful.

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.

Is the Gig version really faster than the 100m version !?

I just upgraded my 100 meg AEBS to the new Gig version, and ran a quick n easy benchmark, an rsync -e ssh on a 150 meg file. The server is an iMac connected via gig-e, and the Macbook c2d is connected via 802.11n (reporting a consistant 300 mbps in network utility - about 20 feet from the router, going through 2-4 sheets of drywall). The tests were conducted in my Chicago apartment, with at least 10 detectable 2.4gHz networks, and no 5.8gHz networks that I know of.
The 802.11n 5.8gHz no backwards compatibility was by far the fastest. The fastest test I ran was 11 MBps on the copy, with 802.11a compatibility I believe was around 8, and 2.4ghz + 802.11g compatibility was around 6. I repeated all tests a few times, the results were pretty consistant.
These results suprised me, as I was really hoping for a bit faster. I could get 40 MBps on my Linux file server over gig-e to the iMac in previous tests. Unfortunately that machine is down until I get some replacement parts, so I couldn't use it to test the new AEBS. But I seem to remember getting 11 or 12 MBps with the Linux file server over the old AEBS with 100m and 5.8gHz no backwards compatiblity.
So how much of the performance non-difference is due to the iMac vs Linux file server, or the Gig-E version being no faster than the 100 meg version remains to be seen. I'm curious if anyone else has done tests.
If the router, or this 802.11n implementation is the bottleneck - folks may not want to waste their money upgrading, unless they really want that 4 port (in bridge mode) gig-e switch on the back.
Rob

That is somewhat counterintuitive, as the 802.11n connection speed is reportedly 300 mbps. I understand the implications of protocol overhead, but 70% overhead seems a bit excessive. I guess I'm curious if the bottleneck is:
- in the router backplane
- in the 802.11n protocol
- in apples implementation of 802.11(draft)n
Also - anyone else have actual benchmark data to share?
regards
Rob

I installed the ios 5.0.1 and now suddenly close apps and battery dies faster than the ios5!

I installed the ios 5.0.1 and now suddenly close apps and battery dies faster than the ios5!
we need the 5.0.2 or 5.1 ios quickly!
thks

A few people that post here have said they are having trouble with there battery life. As for the apps crashing, have you reset you iPad , it may help.

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.

Sun Studio 12 is still much faster than the newest express 11/08

I gave the newest Express 11/08 a try on my laptop. I found that Studio 12 is still
much faster than the express version at least on my laptop. See the old messge below.
http://forums.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5321607&tstart=15
I think poor performance is a bug for a compiler. Sun should fix it.

I think poor performance is a bug for a compiler. Sun should fix it.Thanks for noting :)
This has already been filed as a bug - http://bugs.sun.com/view_bug.do?bug_id=6735472.
And as you can see it is even already fixed.
Unluckily it missed Express 11/08 integration time slot (by a mere week or so).
It is reasonable to expect it to be available at the next Express/whatever release happens next.
regards,
__Fedor.

Is iPhone 4G 32GB faster than the 16GB?

Is the iPhone 4G 32GB faster than the 16GB? Are there any other advantages to getting the 32GB (other than memory size)? Thank you.

Daniel Wasinger wrote:
Thanks very much. A friend who bought the 32GB said it has more ram and is therefore faster. But I was skeptical
As Track607 stated, you guys have no idea the difference in terms.
Memory is RAM, and is NOT the same as STORAGE. And no, it's not "the same difference", it's completely different.
Also, to add, the iPhone does not have the capability to use virtual memory, thus, the iPhone could have 64 gigs of storage, and it wouldn't run faster. Your friend does not know about computers. Don't ever let him help you pick out a computer.

The 15-inch unibody is faster than the 17-inch unibody flagship?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for