PDA

View Full Version : Benchmarks for New 13-Inch MacBook Pro Beat MacBook Air, Previous MacBook Pro by 10-15%




MacRumors
Jun 18, 2012, 09:59 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/18/benchmarks-for-new-13-inch-macbook-pro-beat-macbook-air-previous-macbook-pro-by-10-15/)


Last week, Primate Labs summarized its Geekbench 2 database results (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/12/benchmarks-for-mid-2012-macbook-pro-and-macbook-air/) for Apple's new MacBook Air and 15-inch MacBook Pro models, but did not address the 13-inch MacBook Pro as not enough data had been collected at that time.

But over the past week more data has come in, and the firm now shares its results (http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2012/06/13-inch-macbook-pro-benchmarks/) which show the new 13-inch models are yielding approximately 10-15% higher Geekbench 2 scores than both the corresponding previous-generation 13-inch MacBook Pro models as well as the current 13-inch MacBook Air models against which they are directly competing.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/06/geekbench_mid_2012_13_macbook_pro.jpg

The latest MacBook Pros offer a nice increase in performance over the previous MacBook Pros. Both the Core i5 and the Core i7 Mid 2012 13-inch MacBook Pros are over 10% faster than the equivalent Late 2011 13-inch MacBook Pros. Some of the increase is from higher processor speeds, while some of the increase is from the improved Ivy Bridge processor architecture.

The latest MacBook Pros also offer a nice increase in performance over the latest MacBook Airs. The Core i5 13-inch MacBook Pro is 10% faster than the Core i5 13-inch MacBook Air, while the Core i7 13-inch MacBook Pro is 15% faster (and $100 cheaper) than the Core i7 13-inch MacBook Air.The popular Geekbench tool also provides a glimpse into the relative popularity of various models, and with the 13-inch MacBook Pro and MacBook Air coming in at the same base price points at both low and high ends, the frequency with which those machines appear provides an interesting perspective on how customers are deciding between the two lines.

At the low end, Primate Labs notes that the MacBook Air is showing up in the database twice as frequently as the MacBook Pro, suggesting that budget-conscious consumers are opting for the slimmer form factor of the MacBook Air as a primary factor in their decision-making. But the ratio is reversed at the high end, with the MacBook Pro appearing twice as frequently as the MacBook Air, as may be expected as the market shifts more toward professional users looking for high performance as their primary criterion.

Article Link: Benchmarks for New 13-Inch MacBook Pro Beat MacBook Air, Previous MacBook Pro by 10-15% (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/18/benchmarks-for-new-13-inch-macbook-pro-beat-macbook-air-previous-macbook-pro-by-10-15/)



Baklava
Jun 18, 2012, 10:02 AM
No surprise.

Digital Skunk
Jun 18, 2012, 10:03 AM
Glad to see that new technology is faster by the exact margin everyone predicted it would be long before Ivy Bridge Macbook Pros were released.

Can't wait to see the benchmarks for the "NEW" MacPro.

rafaltrus
Jun 18, 2012, 10:03 AM
This temptation... Although my Early-2011 MBP has a "low score," I am not selling it and getting the Mid-2012 version. I think(!) it's not worth it... :confused:

ppdix
Jun 18, 2012, 10:04 AM
hmmmmm... My Mac Pro does 21000 on GeekBench 2...
Apple doesn't realize a laptop will NEVER be able to keep up with a real Pro machine... This makes me even more disappointed that they don't seem to care about their fastest Mac...:mad:

charlieegan3
Jun 18, 2012, 10:07 AM
So

so the 13" was the most popular laptop in previous years, an update to this is important.

ppdix
Jun 18, 2012, 10:09 AM
Glad to see that new technology is faster by the exact margin everyone predicted it would be long before Ivy Bridge Macbook Pros were released.

Can't wait to see the benchmarks for the "NEW" MacPro.

The "NEW" Mac Pro is the same as my 2010 Mac Pro... It's unreal...
Still a 2 year old Machine with a 9-year old design, beats any of the latests iMacs and Mac Book Pro's...
I really can't wait for a new one. :rolleyes:

NextGenApple
Jun 18, 2012, 10:10 AM
A 10% increase over a 2011 is very minimal would be crazy to spend money just for a 10%-15% on a 2012 model. Great if your coming from something lesser than a 2011 MBP or picking this up for the first time

Lindberg
Jun 18, 2012, 10:12 AM
How big is the improvement of upgrading the 13 MBA to i7 CPU? The chart doesen't say anything about that.

TallManNY
Jun 18, 2012, 10:12 AM
I usually wish they would throw in a few other platforms when they publish this stuff. Like throw an iMac in there or a Mac Pro. I know I can figure that out, but it would be easier if the graphics showed a platform you might actually be using while considering an upgrade to a 2012 laptop.

They should also throw some older and popular models on the comparison. Seriously, I don't know anyone who upgrades their laptop every year or every two years. So except for some very hardcore folks, who owns a 2011 laptop and is considering buying a 2012? I'm considering replacing my 2007 macbook this year. But since it still runs Lion like a champ I certainly don't need to.

Digital Skunk
Jun 18, 2012, 10:13 AM
A 10% increase over a 2011 is very minimal would be crazy to spend money just for a 10%-15% on a 2012 model. Great if your coming from something lesser than a 2011 MBP or picking this up for the first time

That's where it really counts nonetheless. Making the jump from a Ver 2 to a Ver 3 is nonsense unless absolutely needed. Going from a Ver 1 to a Ver 3 or even Ver 4 gives you a much greater increase and bang for your buck.

omgitswes
Jun 18, 2012, 10:13 AM
This confirms that this upgrade isn't really worth it....for me at least
Hopefully I can find a 15" from late 2011 new at a nice discount

charlieegan3
Jun 18, 2012, 10:14 AM
...or picking this up for the first time

...or getting a retina display.

azentropy
Jun 18, 2012, 10:17 AM
How big is the improvement of upgrading the 13 MBA to i7 CPU? The chart doesen't say anything about that.

Both the new 13" MBA i5 (6108) and i7 (6785) are listed.

whiteonline
Jun 18, 2012, 10:17 AM
Intel Core mobile processor is faster than Intel ultra low voltage processor.
Shocking.....

Jibbajabba
Jun 18, 2012, 10:18 AM
Newer generation CPUs are quicker ?

Blimey .....

junkster
Jun 18, 2012, 10:21 AM
Here's the thing: performance benchmarks for laptops no longer matter. Or at least there's absolutely no reason to benchmark laptops that get super hot and loud when you take advantage of all the processing power that's available.

Remember, people were returning the high-end 2011 MacBook Pro because of heat and fan noise issues, exchanging it for the lower specced model (e.g., http://www.marco.org/2011/09/20/heat-and-fan-issues-with-2011-15-inch-macbook-pro).

Whenever benchmarks like these get posted, there should be a decibel level, ambient temperature, and battery life estimate that goes alongside them.

mukade
Jun 18, 2012, 10:22 AM
I dropped my cash for a new 13 inch Air with 8gb memory.

I love my 2010 Pro, but it is just too bulky to hump around, and I do the heavy work on my 27" iMac.

The new Retina looks great, but I don't work with video or photos, so the high-res screen is just a luxury.

The 2012 Air is still a good upgrade from the core 2 duo Pro.

AustinIllini
Jun 18, 2012, 10:23 AM
Seriously, I don't know anyone who upgrades their laptop every year or every two years. So except for some very hardcore folks, who owns a 2011 laptop and is considering buying a 2012? I'm considering replacing my 2007 macbook this year. But since it still runs Lion like a champ I certainly don't need to.

I can't think of anyone except Howard Stern. But I guess I should be honest. I bought a PC a little over a year before I switched to a Mac. It was a terrible computer, though!

AppleGuesser
Jun 18, 2012, 10:23 AM
What?? I really expected to see the new 13 inch MBA under perform....Give me break, this is a story? :rolleyes:

TheMacBookPro
Jun 18, 2012, 10:24 AM
This just in: new computer is better than old computer!

mrklaw
Jun 18, 2012, 10:25 AM
are these benchmarks CPU only? If so, the MBA will feel faster than the pro due to the SSD.

Also, the i7 13" MBP is $100 cheaper than the equivalent MBA? So - $100 is a small price for thinner, lighter, faster in day to day use and with a higher screen resolution

iSee
Jun 18, 2012, 10:26 AM
the frequency with which those machines appear provides an interesting perspective on how customers are deciding between the two lines.
Not really, because the sample only incudes people who post Geekbench results, which is wildly unrepresentative of the general Apple lappy customers.

Adidas Addict
Jun 18, 2012, 10:27 AM
Apple doesn't realize a laptop will NEVER be able to keep up with a real Pro machine...

Idiotic sentence of the day.

carmenodie
Jun 18, 2012, 10:27 AM
Zzzzzzzzzzz!
Those benchmarks aren't real world test. The testers use some kind of software to achieve a score but in the real world sh** ain't that easy.

usptact
Jun 18, 2012, 10:30 AM
This comparison seems to me at least a bit redundant. The same (?) CPUs are used in PCs, hence the comparative performances and rankings should be available already.

Are there Intel chips used only in MBPs? Is it OS dependent? I don't think so.

AppleGuesser
Jun 18, 2012, 10:31 AM
This just in: new computer is better than old computer!

I know, its mind blowing!!! :rolleyes: Gotta love slow news days at MacRumors :)

Daalseth
Jun 18, 2012, 10:37 AM
A 10% increase over a 2011 is very minimal would be crazy to spend money just for a 10%-15% on a 2012 model. Great if your coming from something lesser than a 2011 MBP or picking this up for the first time
Agreed. It was why I just bought a 2.3Ghz MBP rather than the 2.6. According to the GeekBench figures the 2.6 had a 9% higher speed for 20% more money.

gotluck
Jun 18, 2012, 10:38 AM
Idiotic sentence of the day.

heh, a laptop wont keep up with server grade processors - cmon now

cmChimera
Jun 18, 2012, 10:41 AM
I was under the impression that the MBA usually wins out here because of its SSD. Is this just CPU only?

state08
Jun 18, 2012, 10:43 AM
Why is there a huge disparity between the 2012 Macbook Air i5 and 2012 Macbook Air i7?

azentropy
Jun 18, 2012, 10:47 AM
Why is there a huge disparity between the 2012 Macbook Air i5 and 2012 Macbook Air i7?

It is actually MUCH smaller than the disparity between the 2012 13" MBP i5 and i7.

MrXiro
Jun 18, 2012, 10:48 AM
Shouldn't a base MBP beat the snot out of a MBA When coupled with an ssd?

Mr. Retrofire
Jun 18, 2012, 10:51 AM
10-15 percent are not much, but the performance per watt is much higher in the case of Ivy Bridge. So even if Ivy Bridge provides only 10-15 percent more computational power, Ivy Bridge processors run much cooler than their Sandy Bridge counterparts.

geoffrevB
Jun 18, 2012, 10:52 AM
Here's the thing: performance benchmarks for laptops no longer matter. Or at least there's absolutely no reason to benchmark laptops that get super hot and loud when you take advantage of all the processing power that's available.

Remember, people were returning the high-end 2011 MacBook Pro because of heat and fan noise issues, exchanging it for the lower specced model (e.g., http://www.marco.org/2011/09/20/heat-and-fan-issues-with-2011-15-inch-macbook-pro).

Whenever benchmarks like these get posted, there should be a decibel level, ambient temperature, and battery life estimate that goes alongside them.


Great idea.

Taipan
Jun 18, 2012, 10:52 AM
I'm a bit surprised that the Air so close to the Pro. Does drive performance have an impact on Geekbench scores?
I intended to buy a MBP 13", but now I think I'll go with the Air. Compared with the Air and Retina MBP the ordinary MBP seems so 2010...
Or maybe wait for a Retina 13".

faroZ06
Jun 18, 2012, 10:54 AM
Here's the thing: performance benchmarks for laptops no longer matter. Or at least there's absolutely no reason to benchmark laptops that get super hot and loud when you take advantage of all the processing power that's available.

Remember, people were returning the high-end 2011 MacBook Pro because of heat and fan noise issues, exchanging it for the lower specced model (e.g., http://www.marco.org/2011/09/20/heat-and-fan-issues-with-2011-15-inch-macbook-pro).

Whenever benchmarks like these get posted, there should be a decibel level, ambient temperature, and battery life estimate that goes alongside them.

Yes. My mom's 2007 17" MacBook Pro is powerful, but it's loud and gets very hot. The battery life on it is, of course, bad compared to newer ones. I'd take a new, slower, quieter MacBook over that thing. The 17" screen is also excessive.

JSpence
Jun 18, 2012, 10:55 AM
Is it worth picking up the 2.9Ghz i7 over the 2.5 Ghz i5 for the difference in performance? I know it has an extra 250GB and 1MB extra cache.. But I'm going to put in a SSD. That should keep me satisfied, right? I only consider it because I'm run tons of applications at once, hardly any editing stuff like that.

Hard to justify the extra $300

faroZ06
Jun 18, 2012, 10:56 AM
I know, its mind blowing!!! :rolleyes: Gotta love slow news days at MacRumors :)

Yep, only 1 article in the past few days before this. I think the next article is going to be: "Apple begins seeding 10.7.x to developers" then "Apple begins seeding 10.7.x golden master to developers".

okboy
Jun 18, 2012, 10:56 AM
The biggest improvements are going to be in graphics. So far I have only seen comparisons for WoW and Portal 2 on the new Airs. Someone do more!

Mr. Retrofire
Jun 18, 2012, 10:56 AM
...or getting a retina display.
The 13" has no retina display.

Kingofnima
Jun 18, 2012, 10:57 AM
Is it just me or is the difference in performance between the '12 air and '12 13" Pro pretty small.

Mr. Retrofire
Jun 18, 2012, 10:57 AM
The biggest improvements are going to be in graphics.
And USB 3.0.

faroZ06
Jun 18, 2012, 10:58 AM
hmmmmm... My Mac Pro does 21000 on GeekBench 2...
Apple doesn't realize a laptop will NEVER be able to keep up with a real Pro machine... This makes me even more disappointed that they don't seem to care about their fastest Mac...:mad:

I see what you mean. My 8-core Mac Pro will arrive at my house in 6-10 business days. It will destroy any of the new iMacs in speed tests, and it costs as much as the cheapest MacBook Air since it's used. I'm not even a big fan of new Macs anymore because Apple is removing all of the ports I need so that I'd have to use a high-priced Thunderbolt hub to get basic things like ethernet! And new Macs can't run (Snow) Leopard on them supposedly, which I need for some of my apps. Why did they trash Rosetta?!

Apple's Mac Pro update better be good.

KnightWRX
Jun 18, 2012, 10:59 AM
are these benchmarks CPU only?

Yes, which makes geekbench scores relatively useless except for people who need confirmation that the sky is blue.

Mr. Retrofire
Jun 18, 2012, 11:01 AM
Is it just me or is the difference in performance between the '12 air and '12 13" Pro pretty small.
Geekbench provides just a rough estimation. For a real benchmark use this test:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1111126

----------

Yes, which makes geekbench scores relatively useless except for people who need confirmation that the sky is blue.
Exactly. :-)

Kingofnima
Jun 18, 2012, 11:01 AM
Is it worth picking up the 2.9Ghz i7 over the 2.5 Ghz i5 for the difference in performance? I know it has an extra 250GB and 1MB extra cache.. But I'm going to put in a SSD. That should keep me satisfied, right? I only consider it because I'm run tons of applications at once, hardly any editing stuff like that.

Hard to justify the extra $300

No, it probably isn't. If you do a lot of virtualisation that 1MB of cache means a lot but if that isn't your biggest concern you'll be fine with the standard version. Make sure you get a decent SSD and maybe pump up the RAM to 8GB and you'll fly just fine.

Joe Walker
Jun 18, 2012, 11:02 AM
In other news, water is wet.

Eidorian
Jun 18, 2012, 11:02 AM
And USB 3.0.Yeah, I really want a new computer with USB 3.0. I will have to wait for these to hit the refurb store or that rumored 13" Retina MBP. I was tired of USB 2.0 5 years ago.

Mr. Retrofire
Jun 18, 2012, 11:04 AM
Idiotic sentence of the day.
I'm sure you write better sentences.

----------

In other news, water is wet.
No.

theluggage
Jun 18, 2012, 11:06 AM
I intended to buy a MBP 13", but now I think I'll go with the Air.

Apart from a small subset of people who need CPU speed over all else (but don't go for a 15" to get the discrete GPU), the only real selling points of the 13" MBP now seem to be the extra connectivity, the optical drive and the possibility of 500 or 750 GB of internal storage without a second mortgage.

No Ethernet and/or Firewire will be the deal-braker for some, especially if they also use an external monitor (only the one Thunderbolt port, which doubles as the external monitor port, and those Apple dongles don't look like they daisy-chain). That's not such an issue on the Retina Pro with two TB ports and HDMI as an alternative monitor out.

Of course, if you spring for an Apple Thunderbolt Display, that's your connectivity sorted out.

BobCollins
Jun 18, 2012, 11:10 AM
No, it probably isn't. If you do a lot of virtualisation that 1MB of cache means a lot but if that isn't your biggest concern you'll be fine with the standard version. Make sure you get a decent SSD and maybe pump up the RAM to 8GB and you'll fly just fine.

I'm with you on the 2.5 GHz choice. You should know that you can "pump up" the RAM to 16 GB. Crucial has it for $173.

bushido
Jun 18, 2012, 11:13 AM
hmmmmm... My Mac Pro does 21000 on GeekBench 2...
Apple doesn't realize a laptop will NEVER be able to keep up with a real Pro machine... This makes me even more disappointed that they don't seem to care about their fastest Mac...:mad:

that sentence makes no sense at all ... i dont think apple is trying to get the same performance out of a laptop :confused:

completely different target group

Zarkizon
Jun 18, 2012, 11:14 AM
I just purchased the new 13-inch MacBook Pro and I'm very pleased with its performance. I've been doing a lot of video editing and the render times are much shorter when compared to my last MBP (Core 2 Duo). Rendering an hour long 1080p video hardly kicks on the fans and only takes a fraction of the time, whereas my last one it was blasting them. I'm also doing some 3D animation and I've noticed much smoother performance when working with high detail models.

This is a great, powerful little computer.

gnasher729
Jun 18, 2012, 11:19 AM
This comparison seems to me at least a bit redundant. The same (?) CPUs are used in PCs, hence the comparative performances and rankings should be available already.

Are there Intel chips used only in MBPs? Is it OS dependent? I don't think so.

"New MBP should be 10% faster" vs. "New MBP is 10% faster". See the difference?


I'm not even a big fan of new Macs anymore because Apple is removing all of the ports I need so that I'd have to use a high-priced Thunderbolt hub to get basic things like ethernet!

Who says you need Thunderbolt to get an Ethernet adapter? If you want to get an Ethernet adapter for the Retina MacBook Pro, for example, I can get one on eBay for 1.29.

Moonjumper
Jun 18, 2012, 11:22 AM
I'm surprised the Air is so close to the MBP performance.

I have just sold my unibody MacBook. If I was looking to replace it at the moment (sticking with my iMac / iPad combination for now), I would definitely go for the Air as the advantages of that model are more important to me (size, weight, screen).

vikpt
Jun 18, 2012, 11:22 AM
just hoping here that the thinner, retina 13 in. MBP is real!

StealthGhost
Jun 18, 2012, 11:22 AM
How about "refreshed" instead of "new"

Keeping up with inflation should be a requirement and not praised.

The fact that they still use that outdated resolution while both having a better option in use in the Air and being all about "retina" displays is just plain stupid and illogical. Are they looking to kill the MBP 13 or do they just figure people are stupid enough to buy it?

gnasher729
Jun 18, 2012, 11:33 AM
I'm surprised the Air is so close to the MBP performance.

I have just sold my unibody MacBook. If I was looking to replace it at the moment (sticking with my iMac / iPad combination for now), I would definitely go for the Air as the advantages of that model are more important to me (size, weight, screen).

There's a reason for that: If you look at the description on the store, the MBA has "2.0GHz Intel Dual-Core Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.2GHz". So the maximum speed is 3.2 GHz, but if things get too hot, the speed is reduced to 2.0 GHz (an interesting difference between Apple and Dell is that Apple sells this as "2.0 GHz" and Dell sells it as "3.2 GHz"). The fastest MBP is "2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz". So when there is little heat, it is 12.5% faster (3.2 -> 3.6 = 12.5%), but when both get hot and have to reduce the processor speed, it will be 45% faster (2.0 -> 2.9 = 45%).

BobCollins
Jun 18, 2012, 11:34 AM
How about "refreshed" instead of "new"

Keeping up with inflation should be a requirement and not praised.

The fact that they still use that outdated resolution while both having a better option in use in the Air and being all about "retina" displays is just plain stupid and illogical. Are they looking to kill the MBP 13 or do they just figure people are stupid enough to buy it?

While I just bought a new 13" MBP and am very happy with it, a sore point is that they didn't even update it to match the screen resolution of the 13" MBA.

And yes, they are either trying to kill it or at least let it atrophy.

JSpence
Jun 18, 2012, 11:44 AM
No, it probably isn't. If you do a lot of virtualisation that 1MB of cache means a lot but if that isn't your biggest concern you'll be fine with the standard version. Make sure you get a decent SSD and maybe pump up the RAM to 8GB and you'll fly just fine.

Thank you very much.

whitesand
Jun 18, 2012, 11:46 AM
As others have mentioned this speaks volumes of the Macbook Air considering it scores so close to the pro...

The macbook air feels much much faster than the pro....Unless you're rendering video the air feels much snappier in doing just about everything.

Nunyabinez
Jun 18, 2012, 11:54 AM
I would like to defend this story. I put in an order with my university for a new 13" MBA a week before the announcement. I didn't have a choice, our budget cycle is not aligned with Apple's release schedule. I think I'll end up with the 2011 i5, although it has been several weeks since I ordered, so I'm hoping that I end up with the 2012. However, based on this chart, I'm not going to be disappointed over a 10% speed difference. Especially since this is replacing a 2008 MBP.

To answer those who are unfamiliar with GeekBench, it is ONLY CPU and Memory that are tested. No graphics, no drive access. So, it is a synthetic test for only those components. In real-world use, the SSD will make a huge difference in many operations. And depending on your usage scenario, the same might be true of the video. GeekBench is very useful but for only limited information. I use it when over clocking to see the end result, but I would never use it to make a decision between an MBA and and MBP as it only is hitting a small set of factors.

Lagmonster
Jun 18, 2012, 11:55 AM
The refurb and discounted Air sounds like a steal if you don't need USB3/etc.

BobCollins
Jun 18, 2012, 11:55 AM
As others have mentioned this speaks volumes of the Macbook Air considering it scores so close to the pro...

The macbook air feels much much faster than the pro....Unless you're rendering video the air feels much snappier in doing just about everything.

And that snappiness to likely due to the SSD. I just bought a MBP instead of a MBA because I was unwilling to live with the constrained storage of the Air.

There is a solution, though: because the MBP is modular and expandable, it will be easy to install a SSD along with the HDD, giving me the best of both worlds. All I give up is the optical drive, which I was expecting to lose on this go-round anyway.

cnymike
Jun 18, 2012, 11:57 AM
I wrestled with a buying decision and settled on the refreshed 2.9Ghz 13" MBP.

I wasn't interested in buying an early 2012 MBP since it lacked USB 3.

I also feel the graphics improvement is worth something, as is etherent (which is important to me but maybe not to everyone) and the clincher was I really need an optical drive. I rip a lot of CD's and will continue to do so for several years since I subscribe to a CD service for my mobile DJ business.

Retina display not as important for a laptop in my opinion and I wasn't willing to pay the premium anyway.

My only lingering doubt is whether I should have gotten the 2.5 GHz model instead and increased the amount of RAM. But in the end, I think I'll be very happy with my 2.9GHz MBP.

Dan--
Jun 18, 2012, 11:59 AM
Does anyone know why the Pro doesn't geekbench much faster than the Air based on clock speed alone?

Air 2.0 GHz i7, 2 Core/4 threads, Geekbench 6785
Pro 2.9 GH7 i7, 2 Core/4 threads, Geekbench 7841

A difference in scores of 16%, but a difference in clock speed of 45%.

Why isn't the i7 2.9 pulling scores close to 10,000? (6785/2*2.9=9838).

I know they're different chips, but i7s with 2 cores and hyperthreading, and the one in the Air is ULV, which should have less power than the Mobile version, no?

What gives?

ToomeyND
Jun 18, 2012, 12:16 PM
Does anyone know why the Pro doesn't geekbench much faster than the Air based on clock speed alone?

Air 2.0 GHz i7, 2 Core/4 threads, Geekbench 6785
Pro 2.9 GH7 i7, 2 Core/4 threads, Geekbench 7841

A difference in scores of 16%, but a difference in clock speed of 45%.

Why isn't the i7 2.9 pulling scores close to 10,000? (6785/2*2.9=9838).

I know they're different chips, but i7s with 2 cores and hyperthreading, and the one in the Air is ULV, which should have less power than the Mobile version, no?

What gives?

Post number 59 answered this excellently.

biohead
Jun 18, 2012, 12:16 PM
I'm not being funny, but why does my base MBP13 (and judging by other results, most people with one), get a Geekbench score of around 7300 (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/chart?q=model%3A%22MacBookPro9%2C2%22+platform%3A%22Mac+OS+X%22+architecture%3Ax86+bits%3A64+)? Yet in this article we're being told its not even 6700.

Checking the charts for the Air 13 (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/chart?q=model%3A%22MacBook+Air+%2813-inch+Mid+2012%29%22+platform%3A%22Mac+OS+X%22+architecture%3Ax86+bits%3A32+) and they don't suffer from this, neither do the Late 2011 MBPs (http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/chart?q=model%3A%22MacBook+Pro+%2813-inch+Late+2011%29%22+platform%3A%22Mac+OS+X%22+architecture%3Ax86+bits%3A32+).

It's as though they've artificially lowered the score of the MBP13 :confused:

JSpence
Jun 18, 2012, 12:22 PM
Refurb 2.8 Ghz i7 from October 2011 or a new 2.5Ghz i5?

http://store.apple.com/us_edu_53646/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/macbook_pro/13

Extra $50 difference. Thoughts?

riveting
Jun 18, 2012, 12:33 PM
I still can't understand why Apple didn't increase the resolution of 13 MBP to match MBA, there is really nothing "Pro" about the 13 MBP. Even the performance difference (CPU only, not to mention slower disk) over the MBA is minimal.

redkamel
Jun 18, 2012, 12:35 PM
just hoping here that the thinner, retina 13 in. MBP is real!

I'd like one of those as well, but I think they will be a long time coming...the Air has the least amount of room to add more battery to power the Retina display, and it also serves as a differentiator from the Pro line.

Daws001
Jun 18, 2012, 12:35 PM
Really hard to decide between the top model 13" Air and Pro. And with a student discount, the Pro is actually $50 cheaper than the Air. Performance over portability I guess.

I still can't understand why Apple didn't increase the resolution of 13 MBP to match MBA, there is really nothing "Pro" about the 13 MBP. Even the performance difference (CPU only, not to mention slower disk) over the MBA is minimal.

Oh, is the screen worse on the Pro? I'm definitely going to have to go to a store and see the two first hand to decide. I wonder if Airs are less prone to malfunctions since they don't have all those moving drives that the Pro has. Wouldn't get as hot too I'd imagine.

drewyboy
Jun 18, 2012, 12:38 PM
Refurb 2.8 Ghz i7 from October 2011 or a new 2.5Ghz i5?

http://store.apple.com/us_edu_53646/browse/home/specialdeals/mac/macbook_pro/13

Extra $50 difference. Thoughts?

Same boat. Either way, plan on getting samsung 830 256gb ssd and putting in 16gb ram. this baby has to last me 3-5 years... won't buy another computer until i debt free (btwn wife and i school loans 70k)... so yeah, it's got to last a little while

BornAgainMac
Jun 18, 2012, 12:40 PM
The Core 2 in the Macbook Air 2011 is almost as good as the i5? I was expecting a bigger difference in performance.

[Edit] My mistake. It thought it was the older cpu.

GodWhomIsMike
Jun 18, 2012, 12:41 PM
hmmmmm... My Mac Pro does 21000 on GeekBench 2...
Apple doesn't realize a laptop will NEVER be able to keep up with a real Pro machine... This makes me even more disappointed that they don't seem to care about their fastest Mac...:mad:

50 lb server grade professional workstation is faster than a 2 lb ultrabook. Who would have guessed? :rolleyes:

dukebound85
Jun 18, 2012, 12:47 PM
My machine's score with 16gig of ram as only upgrade

Mid 2012 i5 2.5 13 in
Run 1: 6918
Run 2: 6932

Dan--
Jun 18, 2012, 12:51 PM
Does anyone know why the Pro doesn't geekbench much faster than the Air based on clock speed alone?

Post number 59 answered this excellently.

the MBA has "2.0GHz Intel Dual-Core Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.2GHz". The fastest MBP is "2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i7 Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz". So when there is little heat, it is [only] 12.5% faster (3.2 -> 3.6 = 12.5%), but when both get hot and have to reduce the processor speed, it will be 45% faster (2.0 -> 2.9 = 45%).

Got it, thanks.

Ptdr
Jun 18, 2012, 01:08 PM
hmmmmm... My Mac Pro does 21000 on GeekBench 2...
Apple doesn't realize a laptop will NEVER be able to keep up with a real Pro machine... This makes me even more disappointed that they don't seem to care about their fastest Mac...:mad:

A macbook pro could also be a "real Pro machine", i've sold my 2010 15" macbook pro 2.4 core i5, not because it's too slow but mainly because it's too bulky.
The 2012 macbook air is even faster, nice to carry, i get 8gb of ram and all ssd (with a 512gb option), the battery is the same as the new macbook pro's (7 hours).
I do music production, recordings... TB is taking over firewire and high end TB audio interfaces are showing up.
USB3 is a bonus.
Of course the Air isn't a macpro, thing you can't put in your back pack but it's becoming serious...

Navdakilla
Jun 18, 2012, 01:09 PM
How surprising

koolmagicguy
Jun 18, 2012, 01:47 PM
Yep, only 1 article in the past few days before this. I think the next article is going to be: "Apple begins seeding 10.7.x to developers" then "Apple begins seeding 10.7.x golden master to developers".

MacRumors does not post on the weekend. I wish they did but they don't.

LeGacY X
Jun 18, 2012, 01:48 PM
This finding really isn't that surprising, given that the 13 macbook pro has a higher clocked processor.

Mojo1
Jun 18, 2012, 01:54 PM
Oh, is the screen worse on the Pro?

The MBP display is better than the MBA regarding color accuracy, gamut, etc.

Also: I developed severe eyestrain when using the 11" MBA; the 13" MBP doesn't have the same effect. Some people are adversely affected by the LED backlighting used in current portable Macs. There is a long Apple forum thread going back to August 2008 on the subject.

manu chao
Jun 18, 2012, 01:57 PM
I still can't understand why Apple didn't increase the resolution of 13 MBP to match MBA, there is really nothing "Pro" about the 13 MBP. Even the performance difference (CPU only, not to mention slower disk) over the MBA is minimal.
Because they want to keep the same 'nominal' resolution when they pixel-double it. And given the resolution of the 15" MBP retina, the most likely resolution for a 13" retina display is 2560 x 1600.

Ironduke
Jun 18, 2012, 02:31 PM
its a macbook air with 8GB ram and 256GB Hard drive for me:cool:

BobCollins
Jun 18, 2012, 02:57 PM
its a macbook air with 8GB ram and 256GB Hard drive for me:cool:

Good luck on that one!

Ironduke
Jun 18, 2012, 03:08 PM
Good luck on that one!


why good luck?

BobCollins
Jun 18, 2012, 03:36 PM
why good luck?

I was just being pedantic. The Air doesn't have a hard disk and no ability to add one, which is why I didn't buy one.

JHankwitz
Jun 18, 2012, 03:52 PM
Here's the thing: performance benchmarks for laptops no longer matter.

Whenever benchmarks like these get posted, there should be a decibel level, ambient temperature, and battery life estimate that goes alongside them.

These "testers" are always very narrow minded. Only one thing has meaning in their life, as if everyone is running their computers at full speed 100% of the time and are in dire need 4% more speed. If you monitor your processor, you'll see that it very seldom runs at max.

They're obviously deaf and have no feeling since the fan and heat aren't noticed. These testers must have come from Consumer Reports where they choose only one or two things upon which they rate products, and never rate on noise (e.g., shop vacs, lawn mowers, chain saws, etc.).

Bensalama21
Jun 18, 2012, 03:55 PM
Glad to see that new technology is faster by the exact margin everyone predicted it would be long before Ivy Bridge Macbook Pros were released.

Can't wait to see the benchmarks for the "NEW" MacPro.
The benchmarks for the new Macbook Pro were posted a few days ago on this forum...

TallManNY
Jun 18, 2012, 04:10 PM
Really hard to decide between the top model 13" Air and Pro. And with a student discount, the Pro is actually $50 cheaper than the Air. Performance over portability I guess.



Oh, is the screen worse on the Pro? I'm definitely going to have to go to a store and see the two first hand to decide. I wonder if Airs are less prone to malfunctions since they don't have all those moving drives that the Pro has. Wouldn't get as hot too I'd imagine.

I was just at the store checking them out. Really, Apple only sells two laptops that make sense now: the 13-inch Air and the 15-inch Retina Pro. I suspect those two will make up more than 70% of their laptop sales going forward. The 11-inch air is too small. Giving up too much screen size just to save another half pound. The old Pros are too heavy and the processing power is useless for most users and certainly dwarfed in importance compared to the value of the SSD in the 13-inch air. Sure you can put an SSD in your pro, but once you drop that cash, you only have to spend a bit more and you've got the basic Retina Pro. But you are missing the light form factor of the Air or the Retina Pro.

dukebound85
Jun 18, 2012, 04:15 PM
Really hard to decide between the top model 13" Air and Pro. And with a student discount, the Pro is actually $50 cheaper than the Air. Performance over portability I guess.



Oh, is the screen worse on the Pro? I'm definitely going to have to go to a store and see the two first hand to decide. I wonder if Airs are less prone to malfunctions since they don't have all those moving drives that the Pro has. Wouldn't get as hot too I'd imagine.

I have read that the mbp screen, while less in resolution is actually of higher caliber

I opted for the base 13in mbp. Saving 300 over the i7 for probably no real perceived performance increase was my reasoing

SoGood
Jun 18, 2012, 06:41 PM
Just ran Geekbench on my new 13" MBP 2.9GHz in 64-bit mode, it came back with a score of 8617. That's almost 800 above the data presented. Tasting a grain of salt there...

G5isAlive
Jun 18, 2012, 06:52 PM
50 lb server grade professional workstation is faster than a 2 lb ultrabook. Who would have guessed? :rolleyes:

I think those of you ridiculing the guy who made the comment regarding his Mac Pro blowing away ANY lap top by a factor of 3 miss the point.

The point is if you read the forums on the disappointment in the latest Mac Pro 'upgrade' you will find a lot of people saying there is no need for the Mac Pro that a lap top can do it all. That there is no reason for a workstation grade mac.

We beg to differ.

Bauer24
Jun 18, 2012, 06:53 PM
I usually wish they would throw in a few other platforms when they publish this stuff. Like throw an iMac in there or a Mac Pro. I know I can figure that out, but it would be easier if the graphics showed a platform you might actually be using while considering an upgrade to a 2012 laptop.

They should also throw some older and popular models on the comparison. Seriously, I don't know anyone who upgrades their laptop every year or every two years. So except for some very hardcore folks, who owns a 2011 laptop and is considering buying a 2012? I'm considering replacing my 2007 macbook this year. But since it still runs Lion like a champ I certainly don't need to.

A thousand times agreed.

chrisrosemusic1
Jun 18, 2012, 07:12 PM
My Geekbench score for my Late 2011 MBP is higher than they give here by a few hundred, comes in at 7245 in 32 bit mode.

I'm gonna sell this and get a 2012 Air though with the 256SSD. Time to lose the bulk and gain the extra GPU bump. Dropping processor grunt but at turbo boost they aren't all that different anyway!

----------

A macbook pro could also be a "real Pro machine", i've sold my 2010 15" macbook pro 2.4 core i5, not because it's too slow but mainly because it's too bulky.
The 2012 macbook air is even faster, nice to carry, i get 8gb of ram and all ssd (with a 512gb option), the battery is the same as the new macbook pro's (7 hours).
I do music production, recordings... TB is taking over firewire and high end TB audio interfaces are showing up.
USB3 is a bonus.
Of course the Air isn't a macpro, thing you can't put in your back pack but it's becoming serious...

:snap: What music do you produce?:D

Eidorian
Jun 18, 2012, 08:23 PM
I usually wish they would throw in a few other platforms when they publish this stuff. Like throw an iMac in there or a Mac Pro. I know I can figure that out, but it would be easier if the graphics showed a platform you might actually be using while considering an upgrade to a 2012 laptop.

They should also throw some older and popular models on the comparison. Seriously, I don't know anyone who upgrades their laptop every year or every two years. So except for some very hardcore folks, who owns a 2011 laptop and is considering buying a 2012? I'm considering replacing my 2007 macbook this year. But since it still runs Lion like a champ I certainly don't need to.What web browser do you use? Chrome destroys my processor and lap.

MyRomeo
Jun 18, 2012, 09:16 PM
I just picked up a late 2011 mbp 13" from best buy for $999, coming from a 2004, yes, 2004! HP laptop (2ghz amd turion x2, 4gb ram and a 80gb hdd) the 2011 mbp is an epic jump up for me. Considered the i7 version or the 2012 base model but given my needs the base late 2011 is awesome. Sure wasnt worth another 200 for the 2012.

Retina mbp looked amazing in store but it's just too expensive for me right now.

TallManNY
Jun 18, 2012, 09:53 PM
What web browser do you use? Chrome destroys my processor and lap.

Safari and Chrome. Frankly, GF has taken over use of the laptop for the most part. But I hear no complaints. And when I'm called over to view the latest YouTube cat video, it seems to be working fine. And I believe she regulars runs with 8 to 10 tabs open at once, so I think she is pushing the browsers hard.

I did upgrade the ram at some point. I can't remember to what. I'm guessing 4GB maxes out the hardware and that is probably what is in it.

----------

A thousand times agreed.

Yeah. If I own a 2011 laptop, then there is probably one thing I'm pretty sure about in life . . . I'm not ever buying a 2012 laptop.

They should pick at leat one laptop from every year going back four or five years and show comparisons against that. It would just be interesting from a technological growth perspective as well even if you aren't in arent in the market for a new computer.

Eidorian
Jun 18, 2012, 09:53 PM
Safari and Chrome. Frankly, GF has taken over use of the laptop for the most part. But I hear no complaints. And when I'm called over to view the latest YouTube cat video, it seems to be working fine. And I believe she regulars runs with 8 to 10 tabs open at once, so I think she is pushing the browsers hard.

I did upgrade the ram at some point. I can't remember to what. I'm guessing 4GB maxes out the hardware and that is probably what is in it.I wonder what I am doing wrong. Safari is more manageable but now Click2Flash is choking the browser. It might involve something with Flash and the QTKit. When I open a lot of tabs in Chrome, it is a direct trip to 6200 RPM and a burnt lap. I know it is summer when I am just shy of a first degree burn from my laptop!

Which shows another lapse in judgement...

EwanMcTeagle
Jun 19, 2012, 12:09 AM
Although it would be nice to own the newest and latest 13 inch I'm very happy with my late 2011 2,8 i7 - it was a refurbished so it was a steal and it does everything I need it to do well and doesn't complain. And when I upgrade its RAM it's going to be a rocket (in my world:).
So no new MBP for me. Maybe in 2 years I will give my 13 to my girlfriend and upgrade to what is out there at the time. Hopefully a 13 retina MBP:)

MrNomNoms
Jun 19, 2012, 01:08 AM
This temptation... Although my Early-2011 MBP has a "low score," I am not selling it and getting the Mid-2012 version. I think(!) it's not worth it... :confused:

I've got a 2011 MacBook Pro (see signature) and will be waiting till we see DDR4 which is slated for at least 2015 at its most realistic release date according to the wikipedia article ( link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR4_SDRAM) ) which will coincide with the launch of the Intel 'Skylake' CPU which will bring mainstream DDR4 support to the take. IMHO you're better off waiting for a leap in technology rather than relatively small incremental movements forward when it comes to upgrading ones hardware as to make the amount spent worth it based on the percentage of improvement over your existing computer.

usptact
Jun 19, 2012, 02:43 AM
"New MBP should be 10% faster" vs. "New MBP is 10% faster". See the difference?

Sure, I see the difference. But my point is that all new Intel chips are generally faster than the older ones. These processor tests are already done (and to much more different application patterns) in PC world. There is no or little need to do those tests again on Mac.

tdream
Jun 19, 2012, 06:39 AM
Still not compelled to upgrade for cpu and integrated graphics. 2009 Macbook pro 2.26 Core 2 Duo still going strong.

colour
Jun 19, 2012, 08:05 AM
hmmmmm... My Mac Pro does 21000 on GeekBench 2...
Apple doesn't realize a laptop will NEVER be able to keep up with a real Pro machine... This makes me even more disappointed that they don't seem to care about their fastest Mac...:mad:

From your sig, you have a $8000 + machine. The mac pro market is small these days because computing power has really exploded in capacity but shrunk in size. I owned a 2008 MacPro, a short time later I bought a ridiculous amount of ram for a good but ridiculous price to only realize after about 9 months of owning the machine that it was equally as powerful as some iMacs and Macbook Pro's. The excessive power didn't actually make a noticeable or satisfactory difference in my day tasks in graphic design and developing, it actually felt slow and disappointing at times for what I required a computer for. Not to mention the lack of energy efficiency in MacPros and they are loud and bulky as opposed to something like a iMac or macbook.

In short I sold the whole setup for $5000 via ebay which I somehow made money on and have been buying 13" laptops since. It works better for me as these laptops are now quite good for performing the tasks I want, they have leading technology which is more efficient than say 3 year old mac pros which are priced the same. Sure professionals will still want the best workstation grade setup's such as yourself, but obviously there are a lot more people such as myself who will just buy a laptop or iMac for $1000-2000 and that will be enough for 2 years or more. They don't care so much for the professional market as they made uncomprehending amounts of money from the consumer markets. Apples transition over the past few years is not about "moving to portable" or to iOS its strictly about making money.

Workstation vendors are always out there for those who want to spend tens of thousands on set ups for professional environments, unfortunately apple has made that market its lowest priority. Apple knows very well that people will still buy their professional computers, people such as yourself, and there are a many, who are waiting to spend high end for high performance. Apple is working harder, to convert your everyday user to mac and creating toys to expand revenue as they already have your money the day a new mac pro or matte screen is released.

Unfortunately, what we are seeing is that it is getting worse and this is best seen through the neglect of the macpro, redesigned mbpr and discontinuation of the 17" mbp. The 13" is a good entry level machine as it is affordable and offers many features that aren't seen in 95% of laptops such as digital/anolog sound output, firewire and thunderbolt in addition to what other competitors may have. And today the 13" MBP which is the cheapest it's ever been will run 95% of programs well enough besides high end virtualization, modeling and rendering apps but disregard windows only application because they weren't designed around OSX to begin with. Find me a laptop in the price range that has the features and performance of the new MBP.

GodWhomIsMike
Jun 19, 2012, 03:47 PM
Strongly considering the base 2012 MBP. Best Buy for $1099 + $150 BB giftcard.

Thinking of using the $150 BB giftcard towards a 240GB SSD. Or save the money, and recycle the 500GB 7200 rpm hard drive I have from my old mid-2010 Macbook, and use the $150 GC for AppleTV for when I upgrade in July to 10.8.

- Mike

akatsuki
Jun 19, 2012, 08:58 PM
Not a significant gain over the Air (a consumer machine) - pretty disappointing actually.

biohead
Jun 20, 2012, 09:03 AM
Not a significant gain over the Air (a consumer machine) - pretty disappointing actually.

Check out my post early (#69) - they've got something wrong with their results as most results on the geekbench browser have the base 13 coming in at 7400, and the upgraded 13 even higher.