Any benchmarks for the core m7?

[izzyfanto]

Out of friendly curiosity(I don't want to get people upset), why spend $1500+ for bursty performance when in a month they'll be $1700(give or take) sustained performance with dGPU? Disclosure: I bought the base rMB, and even $1250 was a tough sell. I don't need performance though.

 

[glindon]

Hey, glindon, did you buy a m7/256 or m7/512? Thanks!

m7/512

 

[Biggie Robs]

Out of friendly curiosity(I don't want to get people upset), why spend $1500+ for bursty performance when in a month they'll be $1700(give or take) sustained performance with dGPU? Disclosure: I bought the base rMB, and even $1250 was a tough sell. I don't need performance though.

Portability and availability.

 

[glindon]

Out of friendly curiosity(I don't want to get people upset), why spend $1500+ for bursty performance when in a month they'll be $1700(give or take) sustained performance with dGPU? Disclosure: I bought the base rMB, and even $1250 was a tough sell. I don't need performance though.

What MacBook in recent times was $1700 with a dGPU? The only MacBook with dGPU is the 15" and that's well above $1700. The new MacBook is ultra portability distilled to its' core. I don't game so dGPU doesn't matter to me. The 2016 MacBook is finally a machine I can live with that doesn't sacrifice power, and screen quality.

 

[izzyfanto]

Portability and availability.

Gotcha

What MacBook in recent times was $1700 with a dGPU? The only MacBook with dGPU is the 15" and that's well above $1700. The new MacBook is ultra portability distilled to its' core. I don't game so dGPU doesn't matter to me. The 2016 MacBook is finally a machine I can live with that doesn't sacrifice power, and screen quality.

Valid point. Even without a dGPU, the WWDC MBP will have sustained CPU performance and better GPU for $1700
[doublepost=1461547570][/doublepost]And believe I love the new MB. Totally get it. Just seems like the WWDC MBP would be a better option in regards to price & performance ratio for those that spent $1500 on a bursty m7

 

[glindon]

Gotcha

Valid point. Even without a dGPU, the WWDC MBP will have sustained CPU performance and better GPU for $1700

Yeah. I have a top spec 2015 13" Retina that I bought in November. I'd rather have the 12".

 

[izzyfanto]

Yeah. I have a top spec 2015 13" Retina that I bought in November. I'd rather have the 12".

Oh ok so you just really like the portability compared to a hypothetical WWDC MBP?

 

[glindon]

Oh ok so you just really like the portability compared to a hypothetical WWDC MBP?

Yeah. My favorite before this was the 11" Air.

I think there's going to be a lot of disappointed people when the new MBP's come out. The Skylake replacement for the 13" retina is the same 28 wattage and there's only so much you can do to remove the heat. Considering they just refreshed the 13" air (just a memory boost) I highly doubt the new 13" pro will weigh the same as the air unless they sacrifice battery life and ports.

 

[izzyfanto]

Yeah. My favorite before this was the 11" Air.

I think there's going to be a lot of disappointed people when the new MBP's come out. The Skylake replacement for the 13" retina is the same 28 wattage and there's only so much you can do to remove the heat. Considering they just refreshed the 13" air (just a memory boost) I highly doubt the new 13" pro will weigh the same as the air unless they sacrifice battery life and ports.

Yeah I loved the portability of the 11 MBA but sold it weeks after buying it because of the screen quality and size. Very excited about my MB screen.

Logical thought process on the MBP, I could see that being the story.

 

[youngturk]

Hello everyone.

Checking in... Just ordered 2016 Space Grey MacBook M7-256gb. 1.644 something Euros in France with student discount.

I will use it for my school and internship. (Business School / MSc Marketing)
A lot of writing, reading, surfing, light to medium level Photoshop & LightRoom, SPSS 13 and MAYBE, just maybe some light video editing.(very rarely)

I don't plan on gaming, I have a gigabyte laptop for that. (very hard to carry)

I was going to wait until June but then I was like "what the hell, go for it". I surely will regret it, I always do. Hahaha.

 

[Biggie Robs]

Gotcha

Cheers

 

[geachy92]

Congrats on your purchase!
Would you be able to do a stress test (like handbrake convert a video) and run Intel Power Gadget at the same time to see what GHz it throttles down to under full load after a while? Also, temp and power draw would be nice.

I completed a Handbrake conversion of a 42m34s video from .mkv to .mp4 in 5m35s. Video dimensions were 720x404, original file size of 459MB, completed version 375MB. Handbrake kept an average FPS of around 195.

CPU started at around 40°C and then IMMEDIATELY ramped up to around 80 before settling in at 90.

 

[duervo]

Out of friendly curiosity(I don't want to get people upset), why spend $1500+ for bursty performance when in a month they'll be $1700(give or take) sustained performance with dGPU? Disclosure: I bought the base rMB, and even $1250 was a tough sell. I don't need performance though.

If they redesign it (MBP) enough, they may use it as justification to bump up the base price of it up accordingly. In which case, I doubt you will get one for $1700.

There is also the possibility that if for whatever reason, the base price of the MBP remains steady, and there is redesign to make it thinner, they may drop the price of the rMB slightly when the MBP is released.

A lot of "if's", admittedly, but there's just as much chance of any one of them happening as there is that the prices will remain exactly as they are now.

Economies of scale factors into all of it too, which will also contribute to the likelihood of a rMB price drop, but personally I don't think we'll see that until 2017. I suspect Apple will raise the base price of a redesigned rMBP, and there will be an outcry here in these forums, but people will still buy it.

 

[izzyfanto]

If they redesign it (MBP) enough, they may use it as justification to bump up the base price of it up accordingly. In which case, I doubt you will get one for $1700.

There is also the possibility that if for whatever reason, the base price of the MBP remains steady, and there is redesign to make it thinner, they may drop the price of the rMB slightly when the MBP is released.

A lot of "if's", admittedly, but there's just as much chance of any one of them happening as there is that the prices will remain exactly as they are now.

Economies of scale factors into all of it too, which will also contribute to the likelihood of a rMB price drop, but personally I don't think we'll see that until 2017. I suspect Apple will raise the base price of a redesigned rMBP, and there will be an outcry here in these forums, but people will still buy it.

Yeah it'll interesting to see what Apple considers sufficient for performance vs thinness. They'll be angry people either way...either that Apple sacrificed performance for thinness/coolness and labeled it Pro(with a designer tax) or that they didn't provide a slim enough Pro and Apple has lost its innovation.

 

[TigerMSTR]

I completed a Handbrake conversion of a 42m34s video from .mkv to .mp4 in 5m35s. Video dimensions were 720x404, original file size of 459MB, completed version 375MB. Handbrake kept an average FPS of around 195.

CPU started at around 40°C and then IMMEDIATELY ramped up to around 80 before settling in at 90.

View attachment 628507 View attachment 628508

M5 is spec'd to turbo up to 2.7 GHz. Yours throttled down to only 2.2 GHz. Not too shabby. I would've expected more throttling

How long did the export take to complete? Was the computer having performance issues during the export?

 

[glindon]

M5 is spec'd to turbo up to 2.7 GHz. Yours throttled down to only 2.2 GHz. Not too shabby. I would've expected more throttling

How long did the export take to complete? Was the computer having performance issues during the export?

You have to remember that the 2.7 Ghz turbo only applies to single core. As he was doing an encode and using both cores the frequency is always going to be lower. This applies to all intel CPU's not just fanless. I'm not sure what the supposed frequency is supposed to be for both cores as intel doesn't list that info and I guess it really depends on how the OEM programs the EFI or BIOS for whatever thermal design the casing can handle.
[doublepost=1461565714][/doublepost]Okay so I found this...

m5 (6y54) is maxed at 2.4 Ghz for dual core turbo, while the m7 is maxed out at 2.9 Ghz for dual core turbo. Quite the difference. Seeing that the m5 only throttled down to 2.2 Ghz when the max is 2.4 Ghz for dual core seems fantastic to me.

 

[joscejrod]

Was the computer over 90° all the process? Is it not dangerous for the cpu?

 

[glindon]

Was the computer over 90° all the process? Is it not dangerous for the cpu?

No, the cpu is rated at 100º C. Modern CPU's will throttle themselves before heat would ever damage them. Say your CPU fan dies while you're in the middle of something, your CPU will clock itself down to stay below the designed threshold.

 

[Jobsian]

I completed a Handbrake conversion of a 42m34s video from .mkv to .mp4 in 5m35s. Video dimensions were 720x404, original file size of 459MB, completed version 375MB. Handbrake kept an average FPS of around 195.

CPU started at around 40°C and then IMMEDIATELY ramped up to around 80 before settling in at 90.

View attachment 628507 View attachment 628508

Thanks for this and the level of detail, exactly what a lot of us wanted to see. Would be grateful if you can do a 720p or 1080p file.

 

[joscejrod]

Thanks for this and the level of detail, exactly what a lot of us wanted to see. Would be grateful if you can do a 720p or 1080p file.

Yeah!! 1080p would be perfect!

 

[where is it]

Out of friendly curiosity(I don't want to get people upset), why spend $1500+ for bursty performance when in a month they'll be $1700(give or take) sustained performance with dGPU? Disclosure: I bought the base rMB, and even $1250 was a tough sell. I don't need performance though.

Men have been spending millions of dollars on a burst of performance in bed for years.

Surely a few hundred dollars on a burst of Macbook performance doesn't hurt?

 

[keviig]

I completed a Handbrake conversion of a 42m34s video from .mkv to .mp4 in 5m35s. Video dimensions were 720x404, original file size of 459MB, completed version 375MB. Handbrake kept an average FPS of around 195.

CPU started at around 40°C and then IMMEDIATELY ramped up to around 80 before settling in at 90.

View attachment 628507 View attachment 628508

Just what i was looking for. Thanks for taking the time to do this.
Yeah the Core M's temp ramp up quickly, but it also goes back down again quickly.
[doublepost=1461573663][/doublepost]

You have to remember that the 2.7 Ghz turbo only applies to single core. As he was doing an encode and using both cores the frequency is always going to be lower. This applies to all intel CPU's not just fanless. I'm not sure what the supposed frequency is supposed to be for both cores as intel doesn't list that info and I guess it really depends on how the OEM programs the EFI or BIOS for whatever thermal design the casing can handle.
[doublepost=1461565714][/doublepost]Okay so I found this...

m5 (6y54) is maxed at 2.4 Ghz for dual core turbo, while the m7 is maxed out at 2.9 Ghz for dual core turbo. Quite the difference. Seeing that the m5 only throttled down to 2.2 Ghz when the max is 2.4 Ghz for dual core seems fantastic to me.

View attachment 628515

From this chart, there is not only a bump in CPU speed, but also GPU speed! I wonder how this affects gaming performance.

- m3 = 850MHz
- m5 = 900Mhz
- m7 = 1000MHz

 

[geachy92]

Thanks for this and the level of detail, exactly what a lot of us wanted to see. Would be grateful if you can do a 720p or 1080p file.

So I completed both a 720p and 1080p conversion as well.

1080p file: m4v. file type, 22m07s in length. Original was 171MB (was encoded 265) output file was 376MB (encoded in 264)
1080p computer performance: The MacBook started off throttling at 2.2Ghz again, but after a little while throttled to 2.1 and then 2.0. It only dipped below 2.0 for very brief moments, and usually when I was doing something else on the computer. Completed at an average of around 28.7fps in Handbrake. Time took: 18m23s

720p file: mkv. file type, 18m40s in length. Original was 401MB (encoded 264) output file was 247MB (encoded 264)
720p computer performance: Again, the computer started at around 2.2Ghz but eventually throttled to 2.0Ghz. I did leave around 2 minutes between these two conversions to allow it to settle back down. Completed at an average of 80.73fps. Time took: 5m35s

A couple of notes. During all my tests I had around 6-7 programs open and iTunes playing in the background. Other than the 1080 test I never used anything else whilst the conversion was running. During the 1080 test I was downloading the file for the 720 test and loaded one or two webpages, but that was it. All Handbrake settings were standard, I just added the file and used the preset 'Normal'.

 

[izzyfanto]

Men have been spending millions of dollars on a burst of performance in bed for years.

Surely a few hundred dollars on a burst of Macbook performance doesn't hurt?

HAHA

 

[TigerMSTR]

So I completed both a 720p and 1080p conversion as well.

1080p file: m4v. file type, 22m07s in length. Original was 171MB (was encoded 265) output file was 376MB (encoded in 264)
1080p computer performance: The MacBook started off throttling at 2.2Ghz again, but after a little while throttled to 2.1 and then 2.0. It only dipped below 2.0 for very brief moments, and usually when I was doing something else on the computer. Completed at an average of around 28.7fps in Handbrake. Time took: 18m23s

720p file: mkv. file type, 18m40s in length. Original was 401MB (encoded 264) output file was 247MB (encoded 264)
720p computer performance: Again, the computer started at around 2.2Ghz but eventually throttled to 2.0Ghz. I did leave around 2 minutes between these two conversions to allow it to settle back down. Completed at an average of 80.73fps. Time took: 5m35s

A couple of notes. During all my tests I had around 6-7 programs open and iTunes playing in the background. Other than the 1080 test I never used anything else whilst the conversion was running. During the 1080 test I was downloading the file for the 720 test and loaded one or two webpages, but that was it. All Handbrake settings were standard, I just added the file and used the preset 'Normal'.

Thanks. Did you notice any lag or stutter while the conversion was happening?