Unreleased 2012 MacBook Pro and iMac Models Showing Up in Benchmarks

[MacRumors]

As noted in our forums, two new benchmark results appearing in Geekbench's database within the past few days are sparking discussion about imminent upgrades to Apple's MacBook Pro and iMac lines.



The first item of interest is a MacBookPro9,1 entry, which would correspond to an unreleased MacBook Pro model of unknown size coming as a successor to the current MacBookPro8,x line. While such results can be faked, the result in question is consistent with what is known or assumed about the forthcoming models.

This new MacBook Pro is listed as carrying an Intel Ivy Bridge Core i7-3820QM quad-core processor running at 2.7 GHz. That processor has long been viewed as the natural successor to Apple's current offerings in high-end 15-inch and 17-inch MacBook Pro models. With the i7-3820QM being a 45-watt chip, it is extremely unlikely that Apple would be using it in a new 13-inch MacBook Pro model.




The unreleased system carries a benchmark of 12,262, compared to scores in the range of 10,500 for the corresponding current MacBook Pro processor, the Core i7-2860QM.

The motherboard identifier included with the new entry corresponds to one of several unreleased Mac configurations identified in the first OS X Mountain Lion developer preview back in February. In addition, the Geekbench result lists the test machine as running OS X Mountain Lion build 12A211, which would be newer than the 12A193i build seeded to developers on May 2.



On the iMac side is a new iMac13,2 entry, which would appear to correspond to a new 27-inch iMac model. The machine is listed as running an Intel Ivy Bridge Core i7-3770 quad-core processor running at 3.4 GHz, which would correspond to a relatively high-end option in a new model. The system carries a benchmark of 12,183, only slightly higher than typical scores in the range of 11,500 for current iMac models using the top-of-the-line Core i7-2600 processor.




Like the MacBookPro9,1, this iMac13,2 carries a motherboard identifier first seen in the initial OS X Mountain Lion developer preview back in February. The machine used for benchmarking is listed as running build 10A2040 of OS X Mountain Lion, and while a four-digit suffix on the build number is somewhat unusual for OS X, such patterns have been observed in special builds in the past.

Such pre-mature benchmarks have shown up in Geekbench's database prior to new hardware launches from Apple in the past. Consequently, it is feasible that these results do represent genuine machines due for launch in the near future.

Article Link: Unreleased 2012 MacBook Pro and iMac Models Showing Up in Benchmarks

[-LikesMac-]

Whoah.

[Icaras]

Originally Posted by -LikesMac-

Whoah.

Sounds like this benchmark just freed your mind

[aloshka]

Oh ya...

[laxman101]

Now that is some great investigating! Hopefully 8gb standard on the MBP. instead of 4gb.

[KylePowers]

... had to do it

[dagamer34]

I don't see new Macs launching without Mountain Lion much like how Lion held back the release of the MacBook Air last year.

[Icaras]

Originally Posted by dagamer34

I don't see new Macs launching without Mountain Lion much like how Lion held back the release of the MacBook Air last year.

The iMac released in May last year. They didn't wait for Lion.

[Hitchophilia]

Disappointing that the iMac scores slightly lower than the equivalent laptop.

[CmdrLaForge]

Faster, but not that much over the 2011 models. Will be interesting to see what else is new. Retina display would be very nice.

[BlazednSleepy]

Wait so the macbook pro has more processing power?

I'm confused.

[clibinarius]

Originally Posted by BlazednSleepy

Wait so the macbook pro has more processing power?

I'm confused.

If this is true, my bet is that the new MBP is SSD-only...

[Icaras]

Originally Posted by CmdrLaForge

Faster, but not that much over the 2011 models. Will be interesting to see what else is new. Retina display would be very nice.

A redesign of the iMac (which is due, based on history) could take eyes off the marginal power increases.

[ts1973]

At last some Mac news instead of iToys !

The "relatively poor" result for the iMac seems to be memory related (cpu scores are higher than MBP), so maybe a result from only 4Gb on board ?

[BlazednSleepy]

I wish there were benchmarks on the GPU!

I'm curious what they are using this year. Hopefully AMD 7970m.

[KylePowers]

Originally Posted by BlazednSleepy

Wait so the macbook pro has more processing power?

I'm confused.

The MBP was benchmarked with 8GB of RAM, the iMac only 4GB. Perhaps this is the cause.

EDIT- Apparently this is not the case. I have no idea then =\

[theSeb]

The desktop CPU is faster ( processor integer performance 10772 vs 10203) , processor floating point performance 19507 vs 18508), but for some odd reason the desktop's memory performance is a lot worse, even though both are running 1600 MHz RAM. Odd.

[marcusj0015]

Too bad it didn't give other specs like resolution! and GPU. OMG

[theSeb]

Originally Posted by KylePowers

The MBP was benchmarked with 8GB of RAM, the iMac only 4GB. Perhaps this is the cause.

The amount of RAM does not make Geekbench faster.

[marcusj0015]

Originally Posted by BlazednSleepy

I wish there were benchmarks on the GPU!

I'm curious what they are using this year. Hopefully AMD 7970m.

I like AMD, I have an AMD 6770 rn, but I hope they use NVIDIA for Cuda, and their drivers aren't absolute ****. I really wish AMD would step up though.

[commander.data]

Originally Posted by theSeb

The desktop CPU is faster ( processor integer performance 10772 vs 10203) , processor floating point performance 19507 vs 18508), but for some odd reason the desktop's memory performance is a lot worse, even though both are running 1600 MHz RAM. Odd.

The iMac might just be using a single memory channel with a single 4GB DIMM for testing. You'd expect shipping configurations to be dual channel of course and hopefully 8GB standard, at least for high-end models.

[DaveN]

Well that is a little more than triple the speed of my early 2009 iMac. At what point do you get off the treadmill and say fast enough? My MacBook is over five years old and is starting to decay so I'll update that which will then be triple the speed of my iMac.

Woo hoo... web pages will decode in 1/30th of a second instead of 1/10th of a second!

[Jaro65]

Looks like any Tuesday now we may get a nice surprise.

[Peace]

I thought it odd that the MBP was tested with 8GB instead of the stock 4GB. Does anyone remember if Apple used stock RAM in the other benchmarks a year ago ?

[scottsjack]

Pretty darn fast. My 3.2GHz quad Mac Pro 5,1 is 11175, not that I would ever trade if for an iMac. A hex 3.4 would cure its ills.

Unfortunately my trusty MacBook Pro 5,1 cranks out a mighty 3617 with 8GB RAM and a 7200RPM HD! Ouch!

BTW, nice scoop for a Sunday evening.