Multimedia
Blogs
Forum
Affordable HD
Whitepapers
Newsletters
Events
Advertisers
DCP Directory
MillimeterTest Drive: MacBook Pro vs. Mac Pro, Part 1
Sep 10, 2007 12:00 PM, By Jan Ozer
Core 2 Duo
The Historical Perspective
To understand how laptops and desktops compare, let’s break the computer into its most relevant components, which are CPU, hard disk, graphics, and display. Only two or three years ago, most notebook computers trailed desktops significantly in most—if not all—components. Today, there’s much greater parity between the two, which obviously levels the performance playing field.
Let’s start with the CPU. Prior to 2005 or so, most notebooks used underpowered CPUs to meet power and heat requirements unique to portable devices. However, these CPUs not only lacked the performance for serious editing, they were also single threaded, which meant they could only handle one task at a time. Try to check email while rendering that MPEG-2 file, and you’d be in for a long wait.
The tide turned significantly with the introduction of Intel’s Core 2 Duo processor line, a completely new “dual-core” platform that ran cool with low power consumption. For the first time, notebooks and desktops could use the processor, which meant very similar, if not equivalent performance, an unprecedented dynamic.
Xeon
Soon after the Core 2 Duo announcement, however, Intel launched a new generation of Xeon processors such as those that drive the Mac Pro. At a high level, the Xeon is based on the same processor technology as the Core 2 Duo with a couple of key differences. Xeons have faster input/output, a larger internal cache and run at a faster clock speed. Probably most significantly, Xeons can be configured in multiple processor systems, while the Core 2 Duo can’t. This makes the Xeon a natural for workstations like the Mac Pro.
In most instances, a 3GHz Xeon will outperform a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo by 20 percent or more—you can take that to the bank. Interestingly, however, adding another processor to the mix seldom doubles your performance. That’s because applications need to be written (or most often rewritten) to take advantage of multiple processors. In fact, the first multiple processor workstations that appeared years ago usually allowed you to disable one of the processors because most CAD programs that hadn’t been optimized for multiple processors actually ran faster with a single-processor computer.
Actually, when testing workstations in 2006 (see the Test Drive series), I discovered that Adobe Premiere Pro 2 (then PC-only) handled multiple processors awkwardly, and performed some operations faster on a single Core 2 Duo processor than on a dual-processor, dual-core Xeon. So, with Premiere Pro CS3 available (and especially because it's now compatible with Apple systems), I was interested to see if multi-processor performance had improved, and also how efficient Final Cut Pro is in a multiple-processor environment.
