Macworld, naturally, spends a lot of time focused intently on Apple hardware while I get distracted by beatboxing parrots and modular synthesizers built out of yarn and rubber bands. They have an excellent write-up of the significance of the MacBook Pro Santa Rosa upgrades, with comments on their benchmarks of the equivalent refreshed MacBooks:

MacBook Pro knows the way to Santa Rosa

One thing I was a little unclear on in my previous story is what matters in Santa Rosa, Intel’s latest architecture platform. (They didn’t call it Core 3 Duo, but then, consistent branding and Intel don’t generally go together.) As with Core 2 Duo over Core Duo, we’re getting incremental performance enhancements relative to the previous generation. Each step is relatively small, but they start to add up — hence, Apple quotes 50% gains over the original Core Duo. (And that’s why they dumped PowerPC, which in the mobile space was starting to practically paddle backwards.)

The key differences as far as raw performance: faster front-side bus (800MHz instead of 667), which for audio is a big deal, faster clock speeds on the models themselves at the same price, and fast RAM, plus a faster GPU for GPU-related tasks. (And, um, any day now we’ll start to see audio on the GPU — it’s tough to program, and GPUs are only now becoming the norm, and CPU cycles are getting cheaper, but it will happen.)

Also, none of this was meant to say “eBay your MacBook Pro.” PowerBook G4, maybe, but the first-gen MacBook Pro is still a terrific audio machine, with a GPU that’s no slouch. My main laptop right now is a first-gen MacBook (no Pro), and it blazes through everything I throw at it.

Apple has unveiled its revised MacBook Pros today, with some subtle but significant improvements. I spoke to Apple a few minutes ago to get some of the details on what’s new.

The new MacBook Pro includes new, faster CPUs and the Santa Rosa Intel architecture refresh to the Core 2 Duo, delivering 2.2GHz and 2.4GHz brains and 4MB L2 cache. That should translate to a marginal but very measurable performance improvement, without having to spend a penny today over what you did yesterday. Santa Rosa also allows memory expansion to 4GB, huge news for anyone working extensively with sample libraries. There are also improved displays with LED backlighting and the addition of the NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT GPU, basically a generation ahead the ATI X1600 in the original MBP (itself a very respectable card). We’ve got more on the visual side of the equation on Create Digital Motion, basically because I’m rapidly developing GPU lust.

What does this mean for music? Not the earth-shaking shift from G4 to Core Duo, but still some very good news. Think faster performance in audio apps, more memory for samples, and better displays and graphics. I know plenty of people on the fence on the MacBook Pro. Apple has the latest and greatest from Intel at roughly the same time as their PC-only competitors, so this should mean you can make an educated purchase decision today. And yeah, this might be my first choice even when I have to run Windows. (Come on, sometimes you need to make some beats in FL Studio or do your accounting.)

As widely expected, Apple has given its MacBook Core 2 Duo CPUs, as with its existing MacBook Pro. The MacBook ships with either a 1.83Ghz Core 2 Duo chip with a 2MB L2 cache or a 2 GHz CPU with a 4GB L2 cache. To me, the added MHz along with the added cache and better specs make the higher-end white MacBook the sweet spot as far as value. (There’s still a “color tax” on the black MacBook, which remains at $1499.)

Does this MacBook now become the perfect music laptop? How should you configure it? Does Core 2 Duo matter? What’s the best music laptop choice at this point? Impressions and discussion, after the jump:

If you’re wondering how your audio interface is performing on Windows with ASIO drivers, CEntrance has released a free utility that measures latency. Latency is the delay in transit as an audio signal performs a trip through your interface. Looks handy, and you know what this means: time to post some Windows driver/interface benchmarks! Measure away, and let us know how it goes! Keep in mind, you can take advantage of everyone’s favorite Windows driver, ASIO4ALL, to provide higher performance for even audio devices (like an internal laptop card) that don’t have ASIO drivers.

I’d love to measure WDM/DirectX Windows driver latency, which is where problems usually occur, though I’m not sure I’d like the results. For those of you not in the know, ASIO is generally the way to go.

Let us know how much latency you get; reply here.

CEntrance Latency Test Utility, via Sonic State

Propellerhead has just unveiled three updates, Reason 3.05 for Mac, and ReWire 1.7 and an updated REX library for Mac and Windows. The big story is native compatibility of Intel-native Macs for Reason, but that’s not the only story. Just about everyone will benefit from the new versions, on PowerPC and Intel Macs, and Windows PCs, possibly even if you don’t run Reason itself. This general trend could be enough to make 2006 the Year of Music Software That Finally Runs Faster.

As reported here last week, Apple’s 7.2.1 update to Logic Pro and Express adds ReWire support to Intel Macs. Logic 7.2 also revamped the way ReWire works on all machines, so it’ll benefit all Logic users, not just Intel Mac owners. But the addition of ReWire means you can now fire up a Core Solo or Core Duo Mac and ReWire the Intel-native Live into Logic.

And what a sweet combination it is.

It’s the moment of truth: we finally get to see how Intel Macs compare to G5 and G4 Macs when running serious audio software.

I got my first opportunity to work with James Galbraith and Macworld Labs to put Apple’s Intel-based Macs through their paces running the new Intel-native Logic Pro 7.2. The results were impressive: a dual-2.0GHz MacBook Pro holds its own when compared to a Power Mac G5 desktop. You may recall that the early reception for the Intel Macs was somewhat lukewarm, when testing the new Intel iMac, MacBook Pro, and mini on consumer-level software like iLife. Serious computer audio lovers, though, must have immediately imagined throwing a bunch of Logic’s Sculpture instruments or Space Designer reverbs at the new machines, and that’s exactly what we got to do.

This wins the comment of the week: velocipede (via AdamJay) points us to a thread benchmarking Ableton Live 5, in which the first Intel Mac benchmarks are coming in:

Live 5 Performance Test [Info, downloadable benchmark at Ableton forums]

Core Duo iMacs (scroll down and look for the words “Intel” and “Mac OS X” in the same post)

So, what can we make from these results, for Mac — or PC, for that matter?

Apple continues to replace their products’ CPUs with new Intel processors, today unveiling Mac minis powered by the Intel Core Solo and Core Duo. (See product page, full specs from Apple.)

Especially given the price, these look like they’ll be great machines for music production, at least once the software catches up. You won’t want to make the switch until software and plug-ins have been recompiled as Universal binaries for Intel, particularly if this is going to be your primary machine. But when that does happen — many have been announced for release by summer — this should be a blazing machine. As we saw earlier today, benchmarks look promising even for music software that hasn’t been optimized for the dual cores. With software that is optimized for those chips, the dual machine should be even better (and worth the extra money). I’m especially interested in Apple’s own Logic Pro and upcoming releases of Ableton Live and Max/MSP/Jitter. And you can rack-mount Mac minis, as pictured.

Updated: Via the Quartz Composer dev list: in fact the Intel i950 graphics chip on the new Mac minis will support Core Image and Quartz Express, and should perform better than the previous mini’s bare-bones ATI 9200 chip. I would still opt for a more expensive system, though, if you’re serious about live 3D graphics — the iMacs, MacBook Pros, and Power Macs all have more sophisticated graphics capabilities. -PK

Okay, benchmarking geeks, here’s a word problem for you: Apple’s iMac with a 2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo is twice as fast as the old iMac with a 2.1 GHz G5. How does it compare to a Power Mac? Hard to say, especially since only some apps are native on the new chip, but here’s a sobering stat: in terms of Macworld.com’s Speedmark test, the Quad-Core 2.5GHz Power Mac G5 only bests a 2.1 GHz G5 iMac by 257 to 190. That means, running native code (soon to include Logic Pro), the iMac could perform as well or significantly better than a more expensive Power Mac. Don’t rush out and buy the iMac just yet, but can anyone explain?

Intel in Macs [Apple.com]

Okay, we’ve already got one reader who seems to think that true quad optimization will boost performance of the Power Mac. But that’s part of the point: a lot of Mac apps aren’t optimized for Velocity Engine or multi-processor, whereas compiling a universal binary — as is happening with the Apple apps — will be significantly easier. I think that will give the iMacs an edge on those applications, but I’m honestly not sure: way too many variables here. There’s a reason this story is posed as a question. Other folks want to chime in? -PK