PDA

View Full Version : 13-Inch Retina MacBook Pro Benchmarks Confirm Late June Result Posting




MacRumors
Oct 25, 2012, 10:55 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/25/13-inch-retina-macbook-pro-benchmarks-confirm-late-june-result-posting/)


In a new blog post (http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2012/10/13-inch-retina-macbook-pro-benchmarks/) today, Primate Labs summarizes the Geekbench 2 results for the new 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro hitting the company's database, unsurprisingly finding that the machines' performance is on par with that of the non-Retina models released in June. Benchmark scores for both stock models of the new 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro register within 0.5% of the scores seen for the corresponding non-Retina models.

http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/10/macbook_pro_13_2012_benchmarks.jpg
It is interesting to note that these new benchmarks also appear to confirm an early Geekbench result (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/10/13-inch-retina-macbook-pro-shows-up-in-benchmarks/) that appeared in the database in late June. Aside from that machine having an older BIOS identifier and carrying only 4 GB of RAM while the released models all carry 8 GB of RAM, other details such as the processor, motherboard identifier, and the benchmark results themselves all line up with the production model.

As always, it's important to note that Geekbench testing focuses on processor and memory performance, providing comparisons of raw power between machines but only telling part of the story. Notably, as with the non-Retina 13-inch MacBook Pro, the new Retina models do not offer a discrete graphics chip, instead relying on the integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics packaged with Ivy Bridge even with the increased demands from the Retina display. Real-world performance is of course also affected by drive speeds, with the Retina models' all-flash storage topping the traditional hard drive options found in the non-Retina models, although the non-Retina models also have flash storage options available.

Article Link: 13-Inch Retina MacBook Pro Benchmarks Confirm Late June Result Posting (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/25/13-inch-retina-macbook-pro-benchmarks-confirm-late-june-result-posting/)



VB7
Oct 25, 2012, 11:11 AM
I'll admit it was looking a little dicey there for a while, but I can now honestly say I have absolutely ZERO regrets buying the 15" rMBP.

Codyak
Oct 25, 2012, 11:12 AM
I'll admit it was looking a little dicey there for a while, but I can now honestly say I have absolutely ZERO regrets buying the 15" rMBP.

I feel EXACTLY the same way.

GenesisJLS
Oct 25, 2012, 11:13 AM
Well, it is the exact same machine (tech spec wise) besides the display.

Rudy69
Oct 25, 2012, 11:14 AM
Well, it is the exact same machine (tech spec wise) besides the display.

And the discrete video card?

caligomez
Oct 25, 2012, 11:21 AM
So how does this compare to the i7 13" MBA?

Zarkizon
Oct 25, 2012, 11:24 AM
I was worried that the retina MBP would replace the mid-2012 ones, but seeing as the performance is similarly spec'd, I'm really glad I got the updated model in June. Sure, I don't have a retina display or a thinner model, but I have twice as much memory that the 13-inch retina does and I got it for about $100, and I also put in a third party SSD with twice as much storage for about $100 less expensive than what Apple charges. I think this is a much better option.

Btrthnezr3
Oct 25, 2012, 11:31 AM
So how does this compare to the i7 13" MBA?

I believe the i7 was at around 7000. I'll double check.

Here you go... http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/12/benchmarks-for-mid-2012-macbook-pro-and-macbook-air/

7007 for i7.

coder12
Oct 25, 2012, 11:31 AM
I'll admit it was looking a little dicey there for a while, but I can now honestly say I have absolutely ZERO regrets buying the 15" rMBP.

I feel EXACTLY the same way.

Same here. Except I haven't bought mine yet ;)

VB7
Oct 25, 2012, 11:34 AM
Same here. Except I haven't bought mine yet ;)

Do it soon, we're prob only a few months away from a refresh and then everything will change!

sza
Oct 25, 2012, 12:07 PM
I care more about the Performance/Price ratio...13 inch rmbp is the lowest in terms of this aspect in the mac product line. :rolleyes:

unplugme71
Oct 25, 2012, 12:11 PM
The lineup apple has now is pretty good. You have USB 3.0, Thunderbolt, thinner MBP's, more RAM, and SSD as options.

The only thing I see on refreshes are CPU spec bumps, but nothing else that'll make you regret buying unless Apple somehow manages to squeeze another 4-6 hours of battery life.

As for the iPad mini, I'm considering waiting until the next gen model comes out with the A6 proc. Otherwise, I may just get the 4th gen iPad.

thedarkhorse
Oct 25, 2012, 12:14 PM
And the discrete video card?

I think he's talking about the non retina 13" and the retina 13" being guts-wise the same machine. Not the 15" with dedicated gpu

jrswizzle
Oct 25, 2012, 12:42 PM
When I worked at Best Buy (Oct. 2011 - April 2012) I always told people the 13" pro was the way to go and that the Airs just weren't quite there - though they'd eventually be the go-to computer choice for most consumers.

After their last update (mid 2012) they've done it. I'd chose a 13" MBA over any of Apple's other offerings any day of the week. Somehow, a retina display is much more appealing in a device you touch to interact with content and less so in a traditional laptop (even though I think the displays are amazing).

That said, iPad is all I need for my mobile computing. Have a Dell laptop (work provided) and a 21.5 iMac at home. Looking forward to my 4th gen iPad and iPad mini!

----------

The lineup apple has now is pretty good. You have USB 3.0, Thunderbolt, thinner MBP's, more RAM, and SSD as options.

The only thing I see on refreshes are CPU spec bumps, but nothing else that'll make you regret buying unless Apple somehow manages to squeeze another 4-6 hours of battery life.

As for the iPad mini, I'm considering waiting until the next gen model comes out with the A6 proc. Otherwise, I may just get the 4th gen iPad.

I agree - I see the iPad w/ retina on a 2-year upgrade cycle given that all they can really do now is make it lighter and faster (the screen is about as good as it can/needs to be).

The mini on the other hand, given its cheaper price point may be the one device I upgrade yearly. My phone is on a carrier cycle of every two years anyway, and being that I rarely use our iMac at home, I'll wait till the thing dies (maybe 8 years? lol).

blue22
Oct 25, 2012, 01:06 PM
I'm sorry, but this 13" MPB/rMBP spec-bumb is completely underwhelming. Unless you "really need" an optical disk drive and/or a retina display you might as well just get the high-end 13" MBA and call it a day.

CGagnon
Oct 25, 2012, 02:17 PM
I'm sorry, but this 13" MPB/rMBP spec-bumb is completely underwhelming. Unless you "really need" an optical disk drive and/or a retina display you might as well just get the high-end 13" MBA and call it a day.

You're paying a premium for a design that will not be obsolete next year. They are clearly phasing out bulky, non-retina laptops. By this time next year I guarantee the entire lineup is the thinner body with retina display. People who opted to not get one will be kicking themselves.

Val-kyrie
Oct 25, 2012, 02:22 PM
Waiting to see how this sells, but I expect the 13" rMBP will not do well at its current price point. That said, I won't ever buy another Mac without a discrete graphics chip. Despite the impressive scores for CPU and memory, a larger MBP with a slower CPU but also with a discrete graphics chip will still outperform the new 13" models in real world tasks and feel because the larger Mac does not need to access the RAM for GPU functions. This has been true in my experience, at least.

blue22
Oct 25, 2012, 02:27 PM
You're paying a premium for a design that will not be obsolete next year. They are clearly phasing out bulky, non-retina laptops. By this time next year I guarantee the entire lineup is the thinner body with retina display. People who opted to not get one will be kicking themselves.

I think you're right in terms of the direction Apple is heading, and it's not surprising at all. I'm just sick of them calling the 13" MacBook a "pro" when in fact it really isn't at this point.

(and let's just hope the 2013 & 2014 15" MBP's still come with discrete graphics.)

SteveyAppleSeed
Oct 25, 2012, 02:50 PM
I won't buy a rMBP (15") until at least Haswell. If the 13" will only ever have IGP, I would recommend waiting for the Broadwell version.

I love the 15" but it doesn't feel as smooth as the regular MBP. Anandtech even pointed out a slow down in framerate. It is definitely a nice machine I just wish the keys were like the normal MBP not the Air; key travel is much shorter and it feels mushy.

CGagnon
Oct 25, 2012, 03:28 PM
I think you're right in terms of the direction Apple is heading, and it's not surprising at all. I'm just sick of them calling the 13" MacBook a "pro" when in fact it really isn't at this point.

(and let's just hope the 2013 & 2014 15" MBP's still come with discrete graphics.)

It is a "Pro" laptop relative to the "Air". I'll agree, the distinction was more clear a couple of years ago when there was only the MB and MBP. And MBPs were only in 15" and 17" and MBs were 13"

ezatech
Oct 25, 2012, 04:24 PM
Pretty clear what apple are doing here. MBA (word doc, business folks need lightest etc) 13inch MBP with retina (semi-pro). Average folk who want to do some stuff but not anything fully intensive. 15inch MBP with retina (pro)... people who need dedicated GPU etc..

I'd say the original Macbook Pro design will be completely gone from the store next year.

Moshe1010
Oct 25, 2012, 06:44 PM
LOL, I get 7400 with my i7/8/256GB Macbook Air.

derbothaus
Oct 25, 2012, 07:05 PM
bulky

Ha ha. Funny thing about perception...

----------

LOL, I get 7400 with my i7/8/256GB Macbook Air.

If thats the case then others with a 13" would get much higher when repeatedly performing and nulling the "bad" ones.
In 32-bit mind you. 64-bit will net higher.
Mactracker database has i7 13" at 6800/ 7400
Macbook Pro 2.9GHz i7 7841/ 8200
But still super weak. A quad 2.0GHz would have been better at the top of the line. Oh and a freakin' dGPU!

calvol
Oct 26, 2012, 01:39 AM
I won't buy a rMBP (15") until at least Haswell. If the 13" will only ever have IGP, I would recommend waiting for the Broadwell version.

Same here, waiting to buy 15" rMBP until Haswell, and at least 2GB memory on the dGPU.

Brian Mage
Oct 26, 2012, 03:52 AM
That's too close to the MBA i7.

CausticPuppy
Oct 26, 2012, 02:49 PM
I won't buy a rMBP (15") until at least Haswell. If the 13" will only ever have IGP, I would recommend waiting for the Broadwell version.

Yeah, the 2014 models will be SWEEEEET!

I'm holding out for the 2017 models though. They will make the Broadwell chips seem absolutely pokey by comparison.

Delegator
Oct 26, 2012, 10:19 PM
I can't see a justification for buying a 13" Retina MBP. The non-Retina edition with an after-market SSD and an upgrade to 16GB RAM will cost you $500 less than the 8GB RAM Retina version. Oh, and if you really want to lose the superdrive, you can double the SSD storage with third-party upgrades. The lack of upgradability of the Retina MBPs is pretty limiting.

And then you have integrated graphics driving 4 times as many pixels in the Retina version...sounds like a recipe for slower gaming and video performance to me.

With such a high price point, I just don't see where the 13" Retina MBP fits.

jsl20
Oct 27, 2012, 11:16 AM
With such a high price point, I just don't see where the 13" Retina MBP fits.

if you want to a 13 rMBP with a 256GB SSD its only 100 less than the base 15" rMBP. So for 100 you get a quad core CPU, dGPU and you can run at 1920x1080, if you want. Its just too closely priced to the 15" with a much worse spec.

the 15" version looks like a bargain now!

jjhoekstra
Oct 28, 2012, 06:07 AM
Yeah, the 2014 models will be SWEEEEET!

I'm holding out for the 2017 models though. They will make the Broadwell chips seem absolutely pokey by comparison.

SWEEEET!!!

(and I am pretty sure I will be happy with my 15" retina till than...)

Steve.P.JobsFan
Oct 28, 2012, 01:33 PM
Yeah, the 2014 models will be SWEEEEET!

I'm holding out for the 2017 models though. They will make the Broadwell chips seem absolutely pokey by comparison.

Yeah. When we have Skylake chips in 2017, and Skymont in 2018, it's going to be amazing. I just bought my Sandy Bridge iMac in February. I'm going to use it until I graduate high school in 2017. Then, I'm going to buy a Skylake-based Mac in 2017, and compare my 2017 Skylake iMac with my Mid-2011 Sandy Bridge iMac. :D

CausticPuppy
Oct 28, 2012, 06:22 PM
Yeah. When we have Skylake chips in 2017, and Skymont in 2018, it's going to be amazing. I just bought my Sandy Bridge iMac in February. I'm going to use it until I graduate high school in 2017. Then, I'm going to buy a Skylake-based Mac in 2017, and compare my 2017 Skylake iMac with my Mid-2011 Sandy Bridge iMac. :D

Just wait until 2020 when the Cabbage chips are released. (in 2019, Intel will switch to a leafy-green-vegetable naming scheme)

cbizzle102
Oct 28, 2012, 09:05 PM
The specs in comparison to the 15inch are kind of weak in terms of discrete gpu and quad core. That being said, I was in the apple store today and IMHO the overall look of the 13 inch is much more sleek. Most people will not notice the speed differences with the apps they are running. Everybody in this forum seems to think only professional graphic and video editors purchase macs. Go take an intro to business course and you will understand the economics behind the price points. The 13 inch will without a doubt outsell the 15inch rMBP from November and on.
The macbook air does have amazing apple value, but the screen clarity difference between the two computers is quite astonishing. You dont need to be a graphics designer to appreciate the difference....just open up a pdf document online side by side and try reading both ;)
And for all of those saying wait for the next model - when you go to buy that one, there will be a new breed of people telling you to wait for the next model after that.
If you need or want the computer, dont be a pus and pull the trigger...technology is always changing welcome to 2012

Simmias
Oct 28, 2012, 10:02 PM
To be honest I always considered it a waste of money to upgrade the hard drive. Why pay 200 more for 128gb of flash it makes no sense. Buy an external hard drive. If you have anything important on your computer you should be backing it up anyways.

I just don't understand this argument. If you want to store data such as your music or photo libraries on an external drive, then you really need TWO external drives - a primary copy and a backup copy. So now you need something like a Thunderbolt RAID drive, which start around $500-$600. And then you have to connect to an external drive to access your data and manage multiple libraries. It seems easier and not a whole lot more expensive to just upgrade the internal drive, or am I missing something?

intz2nu
Oct 28, 2012, 10:15 PM
Has anyone here noticed that the new 13" RMBP's are just a few percent thicker than the 15" models? seen it mentioned in the specs. Made me feel a little better about my full-spec 13" 2012 MBA purchase. Though I would love a RMBA if it was available.

maccompatible
Oct 28, 2012, 10:33 PM
Has anyone here noticed that the new 13" RMBP's are just a few percent thicker than the 15" models? seen it mentioned in the specs. Made me feel a little better about my full-spec 13" 2012 MBA purchase. Though I would love a RMBA if it was available.

0.04" thicker, but a pound lighter, so who cares?

cbizzle102
Oct 28, 2012, 10:34 PM
I just don't understand this argument. If you want to store data such as your music or photo libraries on an external drive, then you really need TWO external drives - a primary copy and a backup copy. So now you need something like a Thunderbolt RAID drive, which start around $500-$600. And then you have to connect to an external drive to access your data and manage multiple libraries. It seems easier and not a whole lot more expensive to just upgrade the internal drive, or am I missing something?

Yeah you are right im just a n00b at externals

Simmias
Oct 29, 2012, 12:24 AM
Yeah you are right im just a n00b at externals

Not my point at all. You may be right that upgrading internal storage beyond 128GB or so is a waste of money for most people. Given that my music and photo libraries take up almost 128GB by themselves, I'm trying to understand how externals can easily replace internal storage.

It seems like the alternative to upgrading internal storage is to manage two or more external drives. This seems complicated to me. If there's a simple way to do this that eliminates the need for a bigger internal drive, I'd love to know and avoid having to pay a lot for a bigger internal SSD.

kokako
Oct 29, 2012, 06:03 PM
Good on you if you bought one of these because I'm sure it'll be a great mac!
But I was really hoping for similar specs to a 15" rMBP, dual instead of quad core is a bummer and that 8gb ram limitation is a bit of a let down, so the new 2012 MAC Mini is more of a powerhorse than this pro, for less than half the price too - then again it doesn't come with a screen :).

I just dont see the Retina MACBOOK PROS as portable anymore too much weight. I'm fit, push weights and this is too much weight to be bothered to carry around all day.

People go on and on about how great their 13" MBA is and I'd believe it but if you haven't tried the 11" MBA for portability then you aint lived, thats the future because when you're not at home and on the move you want small and discrete which is why this 7" iPad Mini will be a bigger hit that the original 10".

11 and 13 MBA are where the MBP form factor needs to go,hopefully moving more toward the 11" MBA size but specwise it'll be awhile before they can get more power in that form factor.

Moshu
Oct 30, 2012, 12:47 PM
Good on you if you bought one of these because I'm sure it'll be a great mac!
But I was really hoping for similar specs to a 15" rMBP, dual instead of quad core is a bummer and that 8gb ram limitation is a bit of a let down, so the new 2012 MAC Mini is more of a powerhorse than this pro, for less than half the price too - then again it doesn't come with a screen :).

I just dont see the Retina MACBOOK PROS as portable anymore too much weight. I'm fit, push weights and this is too much weight to be bothered to carry around all day.

People go on and on about how great their 13" MBA is and I'd believe it but if you haven't tried the 11" MBA for portability then you aint lived, thats the future because when you're not at home and on the move you want small and discrete which is why this 7" iPad Mini will be a bigger hit that the original 10".

11 and 13 MBA are where the MBP form factor needs to go,hopefully moving more toward the 11" MBA size but specwise it'll be awhile before they can get more power in that form factor.

Too hard to work on a 13" for long periods... the 15" shall stay for a while.

To be honest I was looking at the 15" Retina MacBook Pro but then I realized it's the 1st iteration, there were not enough apps in July to take advantage of the Retina so i just went 13" air, as the standard Pro was too big and bulky.

But I have to say, my next laptop will be a 15" Retina MacBook (not sooner than 2014 though :( )

dblissmn
Oct 30, 2012, 06:50 PM
I don't think there's going to be that much difference going forward on the 15-inch models, other than that Apple will surely drop the arbitrary firmware preventing you from running external displays with integrated graphics. Maybe with each new update they'll run cooler and therefore put less wear and tear on your lap, your hands, the battery, etc.

The next two chip updates are going to be a big deal for those looking for computers with integrated graphics only, because that's where most of the performance gains are going to be concentrated. By Broadwell, you'll have something not far off today's discrete chip performance, but with integrated's battery life, low heat output and light weight.

surf4peace
Oct 30, 2012, 07:19 PM
how about discrete graphics AND a quad-core... in a 13 in footprint?

Delegator
Oct 31, 2012, 09:05 AM
It's really about expectations. I think that many of us had expected/hoped that the 13" Retina MBP would have specs that were a notch above those of the base 13" MBP -- either discrete graphics, or a larger available RAM, or a better CPU.

But, looking at it objectively I don't know why I or anybody else would have thought that. It's still the same small footprint, made thinner by removing the optical drive. There just may not be room for anything else.

I guess that maybe the reason I had hope for better specs was that the 15" Retina has a higher RAM configuration available than does the non-Retina. That's probably to compensate for the inability to upgrade the RAM in those systems. One could make the argument that the 13" Retina, with no discrete graphics and just 2 CPU cores, is not likely to be useful for anything that requires more than 8GB RAM. It might make more sense to ask why the non-Retina MBP can't be configured with 16GB RAM like the Retina can.

yusukeaoki
Oct 31, 2012, 09:33 AM
Only HD4000 pushing the retina display, this is what you get.

CGagnon
Oct 31, 2012, 02:52 PM
Ha ha. Funny thing about perception...

Compared to the rMBP I think I chose the perfect word to describe the previous MB design. I have both laptops and my MB feels like a ton of bricks compared to my rMBP (and looking at the screen is like watching sports in standard definition instead of HD)

jowie
Nov 1, 2012, 05:15 AM
And the discrete video card?
And the maximum 8 GB RAM, which limits the life of the 13-inch machine. I'm another one who is relieved to have made the correct choice with the 15-inch!

----------

I think he's talking about the non retina 13" and the retina 13" being guts-wise the same machine. Not the 15" with dedicated gpu
There are still a few differences:

HDMI port
extra Thunderbolt port
anti-glare display
quieter fans
better speakers


----------

Not my point at all. You may be right that upgrading internal storage beyond 128GB or so is a waste of money for most people. Given that my music and photo libraries take up almost 128GB by themselves, I'm trying to understand how externals can easily replace internal storage.
iTunes Match does a great deal to sort out this problem. It is a bit expensive using up internal flash storage on an iTunes collection on a portable device that is mostly connected to the Internet. I would love iCloud to provide a similar service for iPhoto. Then the only files I need to keep on my laptop are ones I am constantly using (work files etc).

gabrielscindian
Nov 1, 2012, 01:38 PM
Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/25/13-inch-retina-macbook-pro-benchmarks-confirm-late-june-result-posting/)


In a new blog post (http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2012/10/13-inch-retina-macbook-pro-benchmarks/) today, Primate Labs summarizes the Geekbench 2 results for the new 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro hitting the company's database, unsurprisingly finding that the machines' performance is on par with that of the non-Retina models released in June. Benchmark scores for both stock models of the new 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro register within 0.5% of the scores seen for the corresponding non-Retina models.

Image (http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/10/macbook_pro_13_2012_benchmarks.jpg)
It is interesting to note that these new benchmarks also appear to confirm an early Geekbench result (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/07/10/13-inch-retina-macbook-pro-shows-up-in-benchmarks/) that appeared in the database in late June. Aside from that machine having an older BIOS identifier and carrying only 4 GB of RAM while the released models all carry 8 GB of RAM, other details such as the processor, motherboard identifier, and the benchmark results themselves all line up with the production model.

As always, it's important to note that Geekbench testing focuses on processor and memory performance, providing comparisons of raw power between machines but only telling part of the story. Notably, as with the non-Retina 13-inch MacBook Pro, the new Retina models do not offer a discrete graphics chip, instead relying on the integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics packaged with Ivy Bridge even with the increased demands from the Retina display. Real-world performance is of course also affected by drive speeds, with the Retina models' all-flash storage topping the traditional hard drive options found in the non-Retina models, although the non-Retina models also have flash storage options available.

Article Link: 13-Inch Retina MacBook Pro Benchmarks Confirm Late June Result Posting (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/10/25/13-inch-retina-macbook-pro-benchmarks-confirm-late-june-result-posting/)

My 2012 Mac Mini Server does 11655 on Geekbench thanks to my OWC upgrades. Runs RED 4k footage on an Apple 30 inch monitor @ 1/8 and 1/4 res realtime and 1/2 res after buffering. I'm still waiting on my MAGMA ExpressBox 3T for 8x pcie 2.0 goodness.