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
No AES-NI Support in OS X?
One of the features of Arrandale (and all other Westmere derived architectures) is support for AES-NI. The six instructions that fall under the AES-NI umbrella can accelerate encryption and decryption operations.
Microsoft's full disk encryption feature in Windows 7, BitLocker, is AES-NI accelerated. Simply upgrading to a supported Core i5 or i7 processor gives you better disk performance with BitLocker turned on.
While I'm still waiting for Apple to get back to me on a number of questions, I decided to see if FileVault, OS X's encryption system was AES-NI accelerated as well.
I ran XBench's disk tests on an encrypted home directory and then again on a completely unencrypted portion of the drive. If Apple takes advantage of the Core i5's AES-NI I should see a smaller drop in performance on the new MacBook Pro compared to the old one:
| FileVault Disk Performance Comparison | ||||||
| Sequential Read (256KB) | Sequential Write (256KB) | Random Read (4KB) | Random Write (4KB) | |||
| Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro - FV Off | 172.5 MB/s | 127.1 MB/s | 10.9 MB/s | 134.1 MB/s | ||
| Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro - FV On | 79.5 MB/s | 61.9 MB/s | 6.8 MB/s | 67.8 MB/s | ||
| Core i5 MacBook Pro - FV Off | 175.1 MB/s | 160.0 MB/s | 21.5 MB/s | 112.7 MB/s | ||
| Core i5 MacBook Pro - FV On | 80.5 MB/s | 66.6 MB/s | 13.2 MB/s | 61.0 MB/s | ||
And it looks like we have no AES-NI support in FileVault at least. It's not terribly surprising. Apple usually takes a while to implement new features enabled by hardware changes. Remember how long it took Apple to get GPU accelerated video decoding?
These numbers do tell us something else entirely though: the new MacBook Pro appears to offer better SATA performance.
Not too long ago I published a quick look at 6Gbps SATA controller performance and concluded, among other things, that Intel's SATA controllers are quite good. The numbers above support that theory as disk performance has gone up considerably compared to last year's NVIDIA based MacBook Pro. While random write speed dropped a bit, random read and sequential write performance jumped up significantly.
This is quite noticeable with a SSD but less of a problem with a hard drive. Needless to say Apple's return to Intel is a good thing, especially because we didn't have to give up NVIDIA's graphics.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
114 Comments
View All Comments
anactoraaron - Thursday, April 15, 2010 - link
Arrandale CULV 13-14" 1440x900 res with discrete ATI 5770mobile + GPU switching.... Imagine having up to 10+ hrs battery life for light internet, word processing work related tasks, being able to watch 2-3 dvd's on battery and then plugging in to game on very high for almost every game! CPU would be 1.3-1.5ghz on battery and "prefer" to run everything single threaded and would run upwards of 2.0ghz "preferring" to be multi-threaded plugged in. That's what I'm waiting for.... the next gen of CULV + Centrino. Can't wait.By the way, it's pretty sad that even you Anand are making comments on Apple's prices (since you love Apple the way you do). Guess all relationships that are good eventually become more "Love-Hate"
l0ts - Thursday, April 15, 2010 - link
I Wonder what difference can You find between GT330M and GT240M.I checked my GT240M in GPU-Z and looks like i got "GT330M "with higher clocks. In six months i'll probably have GT420M. :)
Thanx NVIDIA!
Jamahl - Thursday, April 15, 2010 - link
Who buys this overpriced garbage?TEAMSWITCHER - Thursday, April 15, 2010 - link
Myself, and a lot of people. I have a late 2006 MacBook Pro that was the first with a Core 2 Duo chip. I have been waiting for the first MacBook pro with a Core i5/i7 processor. This new machine looks exactly like the replacement I have been waiting for. Thank you Anand for the great (and very timely) review.ppayne - Sunday, April 25, 2010 - link
I buy Macs and am happy to. I run a business and the improved reliability of the Mac means they pay for themselves very quickly. I use my laptop about 8 hours a day (that's on top of my normal work, which I use a Mac Pro for) and any improvement in my workflow is worth a paltry $2000 to my company. If we had PCs at my company I'm sure we'd have a tech guy on payroll who kept things running by now (15 employees). Since I can literally take a hour a month to go around and make sure all updates are run on our Macs instead, there's a pretty clear savings over options we could choose (Windows, "free" Linux etc). Time, convenience, and reliability are actually worth *some* money you know?Not everyone is a college student/hobbyist/penny pinching type, although clearly you (and other commenters here) are hating for the sake of hating. For the record, I do PC software development and database work on the Mac and love the irony of not having to keep crap PCs around work to get work done.
rumimonkey - Thursday, April 15, 2010 - link
I'm curious for Anand's (or others') thoughts regarding the glossy screens... I'm looking to get my first MBP, and would prefer the 13" (in spite of the C2D). However, I was hoping for a matte option on the smaller model. Is this litmus test really good enough: indoor = glossy, outdoor = matte? I want the 13" because I'd like to be truly mobile, and thus will be beholden to variable lighting conditions. And so if I'm in a public (indoor) place trying to write or read online, what will my experience be? Or if I'm working on the couch at home with the blinds open (hey, I like sunshine), would the gloss drive me bonkers and cause eye strain? Thanks in advance to all who (hopefully) respond with comments and recommendations.kmmatney - Thursday, April 15, 2010 - link
I have a Dell with the upgraded, glossy screen, and its great in all situations indoors. As long as you can avoid any direct reflections from light sources, a glossy screen is much better indoors, IMO. I've been able to use mine outdoors as well - just need to find some shade.T2k - Thursday, April 15, 2010 - link
... and you can answer your question, which one to get. :)http://bit.ly/acer750
quiksilvr - Thursday, April 15, 2010 - link
Actually, if you get the base 15" model, its $150 extra, because they don't offer 320GB HDD at 7200rpm.That is a complete insult. Not only are these things ridiculously overpriced (and their performance isn't even that great for the price either), their upgrades are an insult. Its not like these are magical iPod HDDs. These are the SAME HDDs available on HP and Dell computers. At HP, you can upgrade from a 160GB 5400RPM HDD to a 250 7200RPM HDD for only $30.
And don't even get me started on their lack of ports. No SD slot on the 17" model? No eSATA? No Blu Ray? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these laptops intended for the PROfessional field?
ReaM - Friday, April 16, 2010 - link
I agree with you.I have had 10 macs in my life, currently macbook pro and imac.
This update is ridiculous. The extra cost for the - what now is standard display - is hilarious.
The only update worth considering is the base 13 inch. But still no i5 nor i3 in it and no display bump up.
As I wrote, for 1700 buck you can build i7 980X system (hackintosh, if you will) - just as a comparison.
The current macs are not worth the money.
Last worthy update was the when unibodies were introduced. But since then, two years went by and nothing changed, except of higher price