In a thorough review of the new speed-bumped white MacBook, Macworld notes an intriguing fact: the 2.13GHz model of the $999 entry-level laptop actually outperforms the base unibody model. The magazine's benchmarks show a 4 percent advantage for the new white MacBook over the $1299 2GHz aluminum laptop; the white model even outlasts the next-generation machine on battery life by more than 30 minutes.

Unless you absolutely have to have the new industrial design on your laptop and you're willing to pay an extra $300 for the privilege, it does seem that the new white model is the better buy... for now. A performance gap like this is a strong hint that the unibody models are due for a processor bump sometime soon, if only to restore the proper order of things: faster should equal more expensive. Right?

Using PC_efi technology (a means to run OS X on a PC without kernel modification), an anonymous source for netkas.org has managed to run and benchmark Leopard on an Atom chip, which is rumored (and denied) to be headed for Mac.

The Atom Processor would certainly make a good candidate for a mini-tablet. It's small enough to fit any form factor, and low power enough to run for long periods in small devices. According to netkas, you can even run one of these on solar power. Here are the results of an Xbench test, courtesy of netkas:

More details are available at netkas.org.

The results? The Open Computer fares pretty well against all of its Mac cousins. It scored nearly 147 with Xbench 1.3.

It beats the Mac mini, its closest price competitor, by nearly 50 percent. The Open Computer outperforms even a MacBook Pro (with a 2.4GHz Penryn processor) by 10 points. Not too shabby at all, if you can stand the sound of a jet airplane on your desk (Just kidding. Apparently the noise isn't too bad).

ZDNet promises results using GeekBench soon. UPDATE: the GeekBench results are here, and the Open Computer still leads most of the Macs, but by a narrower margin. The MacBook Pro, though, edged out the Psystar 3327 to 3244.

• Macworld pits a 2.66 Quad Core Ghz Mac Pro against 2.5 Quad and Dual 2.7 G5 Power Macs - G5s run crying to mama in everything but Adobe Photoshop tests (hint: that will be a benchmark theme across the board)
• MacInTouch posts some initial impressions as well as a wide variety of benchmarks, including some real low-level geek stuff like "multi-threaded scalar." Until now, I thought a 'scalar' was just a monster in Unreal
• Bare Feats posts their own set of tests, including the only After Effects test I've found so far (AE still isn't a UB either; I guess Adobe misunderstood the phrase 'fashionably late to the party')
• Geek Patrol, as you might glean from the name, also posts some extensive low-level tests in categories such as memory performance, floating point, integer and more
• Apple's product page also seem to think pretty highly of their own new Mac Pros

• MacBook Pro CD/2.0 -- Apple Intel MacBook Pro with 2.0GHz Core Duo and 2GB of memory
• PowerMac G5/2.0 -- Apple Dual Single-Core G5/2.0GHz Power Mac with 2GB of memory
• PowerBook G4/1.67 -- Apple PowerBook G4/1.67GHz with 2GB of memory