Comments on: Mac Performance (January 2009)

By: macpress

macpress — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 08:29:29 +0000

I think apple show worry about the heat of macbook and macbook pro instead of making it thin.

By: Mattshewster

Mattshewster — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 22:42:27 +0000

I agree with Bob. But I will assume that these are 64-bit scores because they are better than the ones I got with my iMac running the 32-bit test.

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 16:22:27 +0000

Would be nice if these results showed whether they were 32-bit or 64-bit benchmark values.

-Bob

By: JasonBee

JasonBee — Wed, 27 May 2009 16:11:45 +0000

What jack said, but I would add: use both!

By: gabriel acevedo

gabriel acevedo — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 19:13:00 +0000

hi, it´s great to see this performance charts, thanks and congratulations! when is going to be ready the next performance charts update? i would like to se the numbers that goes for the new 2009 macs. greetings

By: Jack

Jack — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 00:53:28 +0000

How about using the Apple Model Identifier, (MacBookPro3,1). This would make it easier for most folks to look up what model Mac they have and make easy comparisons. Your use of proprietary chip identifiers is fine for those of us who live on the Geek side but others will find it much easier to check “About This Mac” and “More Info” (System Profiler) that try to determine the chip type as well as Apple’s vague “Early 2007″ allusions.

By: Kristyanna Virgona

Kristyanna Virgona — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 14:45:04 +0000

You Guys Apple did not make a MacBook Pro higher then 2.66 Ghz or with a 2.93 Ghz this pass week it was a 2.8 up until then, also Apple just release that CPU for the 17″. You may have thoughtit was the Mac Pro the CPU in a large Tower. Krisy