Benchmarks for Mid-2012 MacBook Pro and MacBook Air

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Jun 12, 2012.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    With the first Mid-2012 MacBook Pro and MacBook Air models reaching the public, Primate Labs has collated some data from its Geekbench 2 benchmarking database to assess the raw performance of these systems compared to their predecessors.

    For the MacBook Pro, Primate Labs has data on four different models: the new Retina model with 2.3 GHz and 2.6 GHz processors and the non-Retina model with 2.3 GHz and 2.7 GHz processors. The top-of-the-line 2.7 GHz system registers with a Geekbench average score of 12,303, roughly 16% higher than the top-of-the-line 2.5 GHz Sandy Bridge system from the previous generation.

    [​IMG]


    Notably, the leaked MacBook Pro benchmark from mid-May does appear to have been legitimate, with details corresponding to the new non-Retina 15-inch MacBook Pro. That machine is designated MacBookPro9,1, while the 13-inch model is designated MacBookPro9,2. The Retina MacBook Pro appears as MacBookPro10,1.

    On the MacBook Air side, top-of-the-line systems are seeing boosts of over 20% in Geekbench scores over their corresponding predecessors. As with the MacBook Pro, even the low-end systems of the new generation outperform the high end of the previous generation.

    [​IMG]


    Geekbench testing focuses on processor and memory performance, providing comparisons of raw power between machines but only telling part of the story. But with these machines seeing significant boosts in graphics performance with the addition of Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics and/or the NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M, and systems with solid-state drives using faster drives than in the previous generation, real-world performance should see marked improvement.

    Article Link: Benchmarks for Mid-2012 MacBook Pro and MacBook Air
     
  2. macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
  3. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2005
    #3
    Great single core performance on the Pro. The scaling to 8 threads isn't as good as 8 real cores but close enough.
     
  4. macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #4
    These kinds of benchmarks were more relevant in the powerPC days. Now it's pretty much, "Yup, those faster intel processors that we already saw the benchmarks of are in the new MBP."
     
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    #5
    So has anyone seen one of the new MBP with Retina in the wild at a store? I haven't found a single store in my area with one. I try to not spend $3000 on something without trying it first.
     
  6. macrumors regular

    entropy1980

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Location:
    Canyon Country, CA
    #6
    Can't wait for my 13" Pro to get here tomorrow!!! Bummed to not see any benchmarks for it yet though...
     
  7. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Location:
    Norway
  8. macrumors 65816

    sweetbrat

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2009
    Location:
    Redford, MI
    #8
    If you check in the MBP forum, someone over there found one at the store and bought it. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1385037
     
  9. macrumors 68000

    Demosthenes X

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    #9
    Checked out the local Apple Store today, only last-gen machines. I thought for sure if they were shipping yesterday they would have been on display today...
     
  10. macrumors 6502a

    djrod

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2008
    Location:
    Madrid - Spain
    #10
    The top of the line Macbook Air is almost as fast as my 2009 i7 iMac :eek: 7007 vs 8500
     
  11. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2011
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    #11
    I was really expecting it to be a lot faster then that. :/
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    fel10

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    Woodstock, GA USA
    #12
    Very nice, if my MBP was in bad shape, I would definitely get the retina one, but I still have a few more years with my current MBP.
     
  13. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2012
    #13
    1.8 and 2.0 isnt hardly worth the extra investment on the air?
     
  14. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    #14

    Does that mean these new ivy bridge CPU's are 17% faster than less year CPU's ?
     
  15. macrumors 6502a

    coder12

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2010
    #15
    No kidding! I remember back in the DOS days playing Battle Chess (or something like that...) and it took like 30 seconds to 2 minutes for the computer to think. ;)
     
  16. macrumors 68030

    CylonGlitch

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Location:
    SoCal
    #16
    Anyone else notice that the MBA chart doesn't look skewed correctly.

    Going from the 11-inch Mid 2012 at 5770 to the 13-inch Mid 2012 at 6915 (a delta of 145) is about 1/2 the difference of the 13-inch Mid 2012 at 6915 to the 11-inch Mid 2012 7004 (a delta of 89). Just looks odd.
     
  17. needfx, Jun 12, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 12, 2012

    macrumors 68030

    needfx

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    macrumors apparently
    #17
    they just trashed my maxed out mid11 mba

    edit
    seems that the 5710 to 7004 bump does not register as significant to a couple of you, specifically 22,67%
     
  18. macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    The Amalgamated States of Central North America
    #18
    No one cares about the poor 13-inch MacBook Pro . . .
     
  19. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2010
    #19
    Interesting that the numbers are very similar to the leaked benchmarks from a few months ago, especially considering that there was an iMac benchmark too. Maybe Apple was developing two new products, the Retina MBP and some new iMac. Maybe instead of shadowing each other by releasing them the same day they decided to break their releases up, or perhaps the iMac isn't ready yet. Those benchmarks for the new iMac are the biggest evidence of a potential iMac release in the next month or so, IMO. A man can dream right?
     
  20. macrumors 68020

    charlieegan3

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2012
    Location:
    U.K
    #20
    big jump in the air performance! good to see.

    Not such a jump in the Pro though...
     
  21. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    #21
    I think it should be noted that last generation 17" Macbook Pro's didn't come with 8GB of memory.
     
  22. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2012
    #22
    Upgrading from 1.8 (i5) to 2.0 (i7) costs $100, which is about 4.7% of the cost of the MBA 13" (i5) fully configured. For that you get a 1.3% increase in gb score.

    I don't like that math.
     
  23. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Location:
    Michigan
    #23
    Could check the 650M on notebookcheck.net - it's been covered extensively well before yesterday.

    Ivy Bridge has always been known to be a smaller performance upgrade, but 16-20% might matter for some people.
     
  24. macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #24
    So if the Macbook Pro geekbench was legitimate, that would suggest the Ivy Bridge iMac was legitimate too. Can we expect a silent spec bump?
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2004
    Location:
    Omaha, NE
    #25
    No 17" model means that I will be left to only used models. I used to do that. Plus it saves dollars. Apple has done their part in keeping my bank account untouched. They finished my want to update with keeping the Mac Pro the longest computer to not keep an update. But at least they are still selling one, unlike the 17" laptop.

    I had a 15" PowerBook, but after purchasing the first of at least 4 17" Ma laptops, I refuse to go back in size.

    I'll have to check out the Frankentosh market, that Hackintosh to most. No wonder I do not feel welcome at the local Apple Store. I have my own requirements & will not go with what Apple is selling unless it meets those requirements.

    What good is a 1,0000,000 X 1,000,0000 pixel display if it is to small to see or have enough useable space to work with?

    I give the new Macs 0 Stars at this point. Let's see if they can change that. To make matters worst I've purchased only Macs since they came out in 1984. I always thought that Apple has always been run by the almighty dollar, now I know it for sure.
     

Share This Page