« Review: MacBook Core 2 Duo (C2D) - Part 1 | Main | MacBook Core 2 Duo (C2D) Review Update (Part 3) »

Review: MacBook Core 2 Duo (C2D) - Part 2 - Performance Benchmarks

The most notable new thing about the latest MacBook is the Intel Core 2 Duo processor.  It's a dual core processor, and, even more notably, it's a 64-bit processor (in terms of its instruction set, but not its address bus).  Let's see how the MacBook performs on super_pi and CineBench....

My hardware being tested is a 2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo MacBook with 1GB RAM, 120GB Hard drive.  All tests were run with the computer plugged in (not on battery or power saving mode).
 

super_pi
The first benchmark I ran was super_pi, which calculates digits of pi.  It's not a great benchmark in that first of all, the version I ran was a PowerPC binary, not an intel binary, so, the MacBook uses the Rosetta translator to run it.  Second, super_pi seems to only utilize one CPU core, so it's not using the Core 2 Duo to its best advantage.  Nevertheless, because it's so prevalent, here are the results (best of 3 runs is shown below):

 ./super_pi 21
 Version 2.0 of the super_pi for Mac OS/X
 Fortran source program was translated into C program with version 19981204 of
 f2c, then generated C source program was optimized manually.
 gcc-3.2.2 with compile option of "-O3 -ffast-math -finline-limit=1000" was used
 for the compilation.
 ------ Started super_pi run : Sun Nov 12 21:20:32 PST 2006
 Start of PI calculation up to 2097152 decimal digits
 End of initialization. Time=       1.239 Sec.
 I= 1 L=       0        Time=       3.409 Sec.
 I= 2 L=       0        Time=       3.823 Sec.
 I= 3 L=       1        Time=       3.832 Sec.
 I= 4 L=       2        Time=       3.814 Sec.
 I= 5 L=       5        Time=       3.837 Sec.
 I= 6 L=      10        Time=       3.825 Sec.
 I= 7 L=      21        Time=       3.817 Sec.
 I= 8 L=      43        Time=       3.821 Sec.
 I= 9 L=      87        Time=       3.811 Sec.
 I=10 L=     174        Time=       3.802 Sec.
 I=11 L=     349        Time=       3.810 Sec.
 I=12 L=     698        Time=       3.815 Sec.
 I=13 L=    1396        Time=       3.813 Sec.
 I=14 L=    2794        Time=       3.821 Sec.
 I=15 L=    5588        Time=       3.798 Sec.
 I=16 L=   11176        Time=       3.787 Sec.
 I=17 L=   22353        Time=       3.771 Sec.
 I=18 L=   44707        Time=       3.711 Sec.
 I=19 L=   89415        Time=       3.610 Sec.
 I=20 L=  178831        Time=       3.389 Sec.
 End of main loop
 End of calculation.    Time=      79.218 Sec.
 End of data output.    Time=       0.550 Sec.
 Total calculation(I/O) time=      79.768(      15.581) Sec.
 ------ Ended super_pi run : Sun Nov 12 21:21:57 PST 2006

 Comparison:

MacBook Core 2 Duo 2.0Ghz:  79.768s

MacBook Pro Core 2 Duo 2.33Ghz:  68.727s 

Click for More Results Here

 

CineBench Results (Universal Binary)

Rendering (1 CPU): 331 CB-CPU

Rendering (x CPU): 592 CB-CPU

Multiprocessor Speedup: 1.79

C4D Shading: 403 CB-GFX

OpenGL SW-L: 1418 CB-GFX

OpenGL HW-L: 1493 CB-GFX

OpenGL Speedup: 3.70

 

My resuls were about 10% faster than ArsTechnica's results for the MacBook with 2.0Ghz Core Duo.  So, even given an equivalent speed CPU, the Core 2 Duo showed some advantages over the previous version.

Click here for full comparisons from ArsTechnica

I'm happy with the performance of the 2.0Ghz Core 2 Duo.  I think it's a real ground-breaking processor, with its 64-bit instruction set, its support for virtualization, and its great performance.  It is now possible to actually run two operating systems, such as OS X and Windows XP simultaneously on a portable notebook computer and have good performance in both OSes.

See Also:

 MacBook Core 2 Duo (C2D) Review Part 3, 2nd week update (TopicPoint.com)

MacBooks see a modest Core 2 Duo Boost (MacWorld)

 


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://topicpoint.com/blog-mt1/mt-tb.fcgi/65

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)