Apple's 15-inch Core i5 MacBook Pro: The One to Get?
by Anand Lal Shimpi on April 14, 2010 10:38 PM EST- Posted in
- Mac
- MacBook Pro
- Arrandale
- Core i5
- Laptops
The GeForce GT 330M
The discrete GPU Apple settled on in the 15 and 17-inch MacBook Pro isn't bad for a notebook. The GT 330M is a 40nm chip with 48 SPs, cores, CUDA funhouses or whatever you want to call them. This is up from 16 in the GeForce 9400M that shipped on last year's MBPs, and 32 in the optional GeForce 9600M. Those GPUs were also built on TSMC's 65nm process, but power consumption may not be lower on the 330M given what we've seen with NVIDIA's desktop 40nm.
In addition to having more shader power, the GT 330M runs at a higher clock speed than last year's offerings. The end result is much better GPU performance, something that will start to matter now that OS X is getting Steam.
I didn't have access to any MacBook Pros with a 9600M, so my only performance comparison is to the 9400M. The 9600M should fall somewhere in between the 9400M and the GT 330M in performance.
I ran all of my gaming tests under Bootcamp in Windows 7:
| GPU Gaming Performance Comparison - Windows 7 | ||||
| Left 4 Dead (1440 x 900 - High Quality) | World of Warcraft (800 x 600 - High Quality) | |||
| 15-inch MacBook Pro (Late 2009) - GeForce 9400M | 16.9 fps | 19.1 fps | ||
| 15-inch MacBook Pro (Mid 2010) - GeForce GT 330M | 44.9 fps | 52.3 fps | ||
Compared to the 9400M the GT 330M is amazing. Compared to the rest of the world though, we're still not looking at desktop GPU speeds. Less than 60 fps under World of Warcraft at 800 x 600, and not even 50 fps at the panel's native resolution in Left 4 Dead. We can at least run these games at high quality settings, which isn't something that was possible with previous graphics solutions on the MacBook Pro.
If you can deal with running a game at medium quality settings and a lower-than-native resolution, you'll get ok performance out of the 330M.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
114 Comments
View All Comments
ReaM - Friday, April 16, 2010 - link
I think the update is not worth paying the extra for.330GT is not much better than 9600GT and the Core2Duo in overall is not that much faster. It feels I will pay more for just a slight improvement.
For 1700buck you can build a i7 980X Six core computer and be happy with 30,000 cinebench scores.
I am having my 10nth mac right now, but they seem to get more expensive for what they can do. If you add the 1050 display, that's gonna cost you even more.
I hoped for more.
ReaM - Friday, April 16, 2010 - link
The new MagSafe connector seems to be crappy. If pulled on cord, because if it is now vertical direction, will pull the whole macbook with it.overzealot - Friday, April 16, 2010 - link
I want some on my 5770overzealot - Friday, April 16, 2010 - link
Far more fun than stream processorsDanaGoyette - Friday, April 16, 2010 - link
No USB 3.0? And no ExpressCard slot, so you can't add it later? FAIL. Oh, here's an SD Card slot for you, instead. Good luck trying to connect an external hard drive to that.Frankly, Apple's MacBook "Pro" line is thoroughly outclassed by HP's "EliteBook" series. Rather than making myself sound like a rabid fanboy by describing why, I'll just link to this:
http://hpfansite.com/category/hp-elitebook/
kuwan - Friday, April 16, 2010 - link
Just a comment on the Aperture 2 RAW Import...Importing RAW images is actually more disk bound than it is CPU bound - at least it is in Bibble 5. It usually involves decoding to a low-resolution image and saving a preview which can often be done faster than the disk can read the files. If you're looking for a CPU benchmark then exporting the images to JPEG after you've imported them will likely give you a much better metric on how the CPUs perform.
Also, why not use Bibble 5 as a RAW image benchmark? ;-) I've seen it included in a number of CPU reviews and it runs just as well on Mac OS X as it does under Windows or Linux. Aperture doesn't actually scale very well with multiple CPUs/threads so it isn't a particularly good CPU benchmark now that 2-4 cores is pretty much standard. Also, the nice thing about Bibble as a benchmark is that we actually report the times it takes to run a batch - so you won't have to use a stop watch. ;-)
Anyway, thanks as always for a great review.
Note that I'm the lead Mac engineer for Bibble Labs.
Cheers
I am as mad as hell - Friday, April 16, 2010 - link
No (Cr)apple product reviews on Anandtech please! Make this site Apple free. There are tons of other sites devoted to the "other" OS. Thanks you.TEAMSWITCHER - Friday, April 16, 2010 - link
Don't you think that you should be a bit more open minded? There are a lot of AnandTech readers and many of us look forward to reading the Apple coverage. No one is forcing to read the Apple related material.webdev511 - Sunday, April 18, 2010 - link
Apple computers do a great job at running Windows. I enjoy reading reviews of Apple hardware. If AnandTech hadn't reviewed this crop of MacBook Pros, I would never have know that they fall short of what I expected.I'd actually like to see a Spring 2010 Laptop shoot out that includes the MBP running the same OS as the rest. It would be a great way to see how Apple hardware stacks up to the rest of what's out there.
Tempsis - Monday, April 19, 2010 - link
My only issue is that, these days, it seems like the only notebook systems that get deemed worthy of Anand's review time are Apple's system. All of the other notebook reviews get dealt out to other writers, but when it comes to Apple-based information/product reviews, only Anand seems to do it/etc. Seems to indicate a favoritism towards Apple on Anand's part.