Mid-Range 1.2 GHz Retina MacBook CPU Shows Nice Speed Boost Over Low-End Model

[MacRumors]

Ahead of last Friday's launch of the new Retina MacBook, we saw several early benchmarks for the entry-level notebook running a 1.1 GHz Intel Core M processor, putting CPU performance for the new machine roughly on par with the 2011 MacBook Air according to Geekbench.

With the machines now available for purchase, we're starting to see Geekbench results for the mid-range 1.2 GHz processor, revealing a significant performance boost over the low-end chip for multi-core benchmarks, but less so for single-core testing.

It will take a little while for Geekbench results to firm up as the machines work through their early housekeeping tasks, but the best results we're seeing so far for the 1.2 GHz model are approaching 2600 on 64-bit single-core tests and over 5300 on multi-core tests. That performance compares to roughly 2400/4450 for the 1.1 GHz model, meaning that the mid-range model seems to be showing performance improvements at least in line with the 9 percent increase in CPU frequency. Multi-core performance in particular seems to be seeing a nice bump with the faster chip.

These scores for the 1.2 GHz Retina MacBook are roughly in the same range as the low-end models of the previous-generation Early 2014 MacBook Air, despite the much lower power consumption that has enabled Apple to build an ultra-thin fanless design.

In addition to the 1.1 GHz and 1.2 GHz chip options, Apple is also offering a 1.3 GHz processor as a build-to-order option. We have, however, yet to see any Geekbench results for these chips, and shipping estimates for machines with these chips were at 3-4 weeks when Apple began taking orders on Friday, suggesting it may yet be some time before we see data on their performance.

Apple is taking advantage of Intel's latest "Core M" Broadwell chips for the new Retina MacBook. The chips offer extremely low power usage, but Apple is slightly overclocking these chips for higher performance. The low-end MacBook uses a 5Y31 chip that runs by default at 900 MHz but which supports overclocking to 1.1 GHz at the cost of bumping power consumption from 4.5 watts to 6 watts, and Apple has elected to use the faster speeds to improve performance.

The mid-range MacBook uses the 5Y51 chip, which defaults to 1.1 GHz but which Apple has bumped by 100 MHz to run at 1.2 GHz. The high-end custom MacBook takes advantage of the 5Y71 chip that is designed to run at 1.2 GHz, and Apple has similarly bumped this one by 100 MHz to run at 1.3 GHz.

The Retina MacBook is in very short supply following its launch last Friday, with all stock and custom configurations currently listed as shipping in 4-6 weeks from Apple's online store. The company's retail stores also have yet to begin stocking the new machines, although some (mainly in the United States) do have models on display for customers to test out.

Article Link: Mid-Range 1.2 GHz Retina MacBook CPU Shows Nice Speed Boost Over Low-End Model

 

[anzio]

Very nice machine.

Incoming: all the comments from people who are far from the target of this laptop.

 

[MartinAppleGuy]

Wow, even slightly faster than an iPad Air 2

 

[Alumeenium]

Finally a Computer that's as fast as an iPhone ...

 

[kazmac]

To be expected, but interesting none-the-less.

My 2010 iMac is purring along (thank goodness), but I am definitely curious as to where the Macbook will go in subsequent revisions.

 

[Yurieff]

That's the same as my three years old i5-2450M powered machine. Given that I'm pretty satisfied with its performance I think the Retina Macbook will be a nice machine for the casual consumer. Of course, the casual consumer in my country buys a Celeron N2840 powered $300 machine, but.. yeah

Curious to see how the HD 5300 is performing though.

 

[TxExCxH]

Very nice machine.

Incoming: all the comments from people who are far from the target of this laptop.

And who is the target of this Macbook? People with more money than brains?

 

[Mac Fly (film)]

This MacBook is going to be near perfect in ~4 years when it's fast, has two USBc ports (one either side), is priced at $999 or less, comes in a 14" version with an SD card slot and has ~18 hours battery life. Yes, I'm aware you can always say this about a tech product, but this will be when I take the plunge on this machine, or sooner if it reaches those goals.

 

[ohsnaphappy]

Does anyone happen to know if those benchmark scores reflect the turbo boost mode? Because that's kind of what I'm guessing. If I'm right and those scores are turbo boost scores then the MacBook will not be able to produce that kind of speed for sustained periods of time, but this is just speculation on my part. I could be completely wrong and if the MacBook can maintain that kind of performance over time then it would be acceptable for some pro apps, some. The computer is still very overpriced for the level of performance you're getting, but if you are set on getting the MacBook at least with this level of performance you can actually get some work done

 

[Thijs Moonen]

1.2 Ghz? What a joke. My 2001 Pentium IV was almost twice as fast at 2 Ghz.

 

[ohsnaphappy]

This MacBook is going to be near perfect in ~4 years when it's fast, has two USBc ports (one either side), is priced at $999 or less, comes in a 14" version with an SD card slot and has ~18 hours battery life.

An hdmi port would be pretty sexy too. And thunderbolt is just done right? Wow that was short lived

 

[Mac Fly (film)]

An hdmi port would be pretty sexy too. And thunderbolt is just done right? Wow that was short lived

USBc negates both those ports. And will further in the future when it becomes defecto industry standard. One kind of reversible port to rule them all is a dream. Now if only it was also magnetic. Obviously long-term all ports will go away when wireless power goes mainstream, so I suppose USBc and its revisions will have to tied us over until then.

 

[Traverse]

Ugh!

The nerd in me is telling me to do the upgrade now, but since this will just be an on-the-go writing and office machine, I know I don't need it! Plus, $300 is a big up charge.

 

[NoneOfYourB]

Wow, even slightly faster than an iPad Air 2

...in an almost useless lowest common denominator benchmark.
Try running cinebench on an ipad.

 

[creediddy]

I'm beginning to think that this will be the speeds of the A9. If true I will be happy! Single core speed is important for every day use.

 

[Mac Fly (film)]

1.2 Ghz? What a joke. My 2001 Pentium IV was almost twice as fast at 2 Ghz.

Someone needs to get you an instruction manual.

 

[Mac.User]

I still do not understand the selling point of this device.

It is more pricey than an Air and slower. Sure but has a nice screen but if there is an Air revision then it's expected to have the ForceTouch and also a Retina display.

The 256GB 11in Air + 8GB RAM is $100 less and much faster, and if you want a bigger screen then the 256GB 13in Air + 8GB is the same price. Both giving you more ports, performance, and the same battery life(11in Air) or more (13in).

I know I'm probably going to be based but unless you REALLY need USB-C or REQUIRE Retina on a sub 13in device I do not get why you would buy the MacBook. I'm all ears as to why ANYONE thinks this is the perfect device for them over the Air, but I have not seen a single person make that statement.

I do admit the Space Grey is sexy though.

 

[3bs]

I still do not understand the selling point of this device.

It is more pricey than an Air and slower. Sure but has a nice screen but if there is an Air revision then it's expected to have the ForceTouch and also a Retina display.

The 256GB 11in Air + 8GB RAM is $100 less and much faster, and if you want a bigger screen then the 256GB 13in Air + 8GB is the same price. Both giving you more ports, performance, and the same battery life(11in Air) or more 13in).

I know I'm probably going to be based but unless you REALLY need USB-C or REQUIRE Retina on a sub 13in device I do not get why you would buy the MacBook. I'm all ears as to why ANYONE thinks this is the perfect device for them over the Air, but I have not seen a single person make that statement.

I do admit the Space Grey is sexy though.

I don't understand why people are trying to figure out why someone wants to buy it.

I'm getting it because I insist on having a retina screen and want something more portable than my 13" rMBP. I don't want to wait for the Airs to get a retina screen. I don't care about having 1 port. I don't do anything that needs a faster more capable CPU. Is this machine expensive? Yes but if I'm willing to pay that much for what it offers, why does it bother others so much?

 

[Rogifan]

This MacBook is going to be near perfect in ~4 years when it's fast, has two USBc ports (one either side), is priced at $999 or less, comes in a 14" version with an SD card slot and has ~18 hours battery life. Yes, I'm aware you can always say this about a tech product, but this will be when I take the plunge on this machine, or sooner if it reaches those goals.

So the product will be near perfect for you when it checks off all your requirement boxes. Ok.

 

[Brian Y]

It's not really a nice speed bump, it's in line with clock speed. Clock speed is ~8% faster, benchmarks are ~8% higher.

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

To be expected, but interesting none-the-less.

My 2010 iMac is purring along (thank goodness), but I am definitely curious as to where the Macbook will go in subsequent revisions.

My 2007 iMac says your young one will keep going for many years before it calls it quits.

I'm expecting to replace it with a Skylake MBP, whenever Intel gets around to releasing that. Hopefully this year. Maybe not until next year. Either way I'll be okay with continuing to use my iMac until then.

 

[Vanilla Face]

This puts it in line with my 13" early 2011 i7 MBP with 16gb of ram. I'm debating getting this model or waiting for the Skylake version as I expect that to be a huge performance increase over this broadwell model

 

[ttss6]

The target audience of this Mac are people like my mom, whose most intense task they do with it is updating the OS

 

[MR.Raul]

And who is the target of this Macbook? People with more money than brains?

People that doesn't need that much power and want something really portable that's light, and cares allot about design.

 

[Rogifan]

I don't understand why people are trying to figure out why someone wants to buy it.

I'm getting it because I insist on having a retina screen and want something more portable than my 13" rMBP. I don't want to wait for the Airs to get a retina screen. I don't care about having 1 port. I don't do anything that needs a faster more capable CPU. Is this machine expensive? Yes but if I'm willing to pay that much for what it offers, why does it bother others so much?

Because some people think their definition of value is everyone else's too and so if they think it's too expensive/bad value for money they can't understand why anyone else would think differently.