Geekbench scores showing up for i5 + i7

Discussion in 'MacBook Air' started by derlockere, Jul 21, 2011.

  1. derlockere, Jul 21, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2011

    macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2009
    Messages:
    66
    #1
    Here are some Geekbench scores I found:

    Model numbers seem like: Macbook Air 4,1 = 11" / Macbook Air 4,2 = 13"

    11":
    i7:http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/441499 (32-bit)
    5767

    i5:http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/441114 (64-bit)
    5032

    13":
    i7: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/441437 (32-bit)
    5835

    i7: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/441556 (64-bit)
    6316


    i7 via user scottlu13: http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12992496&postcount=40 (32-bit)
    5814

    i5:http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/441093 (64-bit)
    5879

    I didn't find more results.
    Does anybody know what's the difference between the 32-bit and the 64-bit test? edit: It seems about 10% --> that could be a rather steep margin in CPU speed regarding i5 vs. i7 in the 11"
     
  2. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Messages:
    1,441
    #2
    The 13" i5 looks interesting so far, hope it runs silent most of the time.
     
  3. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    246
    Location:
    Glasgow UK
    #3
    Build 11A2063 of Lion in the Airs
     
  4. macrumors member

    dixido

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2010
    Messages:
    51
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2006
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    England
    #5
  6. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,256
    #6
    Why is the i5 on the 11 inch doing to poorly? Not nearly as big of a gap as the i5 and i7 on the 13 inch model.
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    344
    #7
    The i5 on the 13" turbo boosts to 2.7 GHz while the 11" boosts to 2.3 GHz.

    I wouldn't call the score poor though, I seem to remember my previous 2.4 GHz C2D MBP got like 3700 in geekbench.
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Messages:
    1,441
    #8
  9. macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    15,043
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #9
    Guys, Geekbench scores are worthless. You can get the same information by looking up where the part number fits in Intel's part list.

    It's simply a measure of pure CPU+memory performance.
     
  10. Typswif2fingers, Jul 21, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2011

    macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    370
    Location:
    Dubai, UAE
    #10
    This totally revealed stupid question, has been proudly brought to you, by me.

    :)

    Sorry guys, but what do these numbers mean?
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    arctic

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    Messages:
    632
    #11
    So true. Geekbench is hogwash. I recall, just a few hours after the 2010 MBA's were out, a front page article also boasting the Airs to equal or better the MBPs. Yet we didnt see all MBA owners boasting their MBAs kicking butts against MBP performances. What I'd love to see though is for the new MBA's to be included in practical tests just like these:

    http://www.macworld.com/article/157893/2011/02/2011macbookpro_benchmarks.html#lsrc.mod_rel
     
  12. macrumors Pentium

    KnightWRX

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    15,043
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    #12
    Stuff with faster CPUs score higher numbers. Really, that's all these numbers mean. Again, a quick glance at Intel's part list could tell you the same thing.
     
  13. macrumors 68020

    MattZani

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Messages:
    2,392
    Location:
    Weymouth, UK
    #13
    Still waiting for a 13" i5 32bit test, so I can see how it really matches up to my MBP!
     
  14. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    53
    #14
    What about some Xbench results?
     
  15. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 4, 2011
    Messages:
    153
    Location:
    VA
    #15
    Will I notice the difference in the i5 vs i7?

    I am going to get 256gb no matter what, but I am either going to the store to get the 256gb i5...or waiting till next week for 256gb i7.

    I am going to use this for email, internet, school work, projects, no heavy gaming, light imovie occasionally, and videos online.

    What difference will the i7 make compared to the i5?

    Thanks,
    Swayne
     
  16. macrumors 68000

    ghsNick

    Joined:
    May 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,882
    #16
    I've been reading that the i5 in the 11" is worse than the i5 in the 13"

    *Score Wise*

    Can anyone confirm or deny this?
     
  17. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Messages:
    46
    #17
    The 11'' i5 has 1.6GHz, the 13'' i5 1.7GHz.
     
  18. MRU
    Demi-God

    MRU

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2005
    Messages:
    18,813
    Location:
    Ireland
    #18
    Alongside the fact that the 1.6 turbo to 2.3 whilst the 1.7 to 2.7ghz
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2008
    Messages:
    586
    Location:
    Denver
    #19
    I'm with you. Looking forward to XBENCH results.

    No benchmark is completely valid for all users but Geekbench is pretty much meaningless for a feel for a systems overall speed. Xbench isn't perfect but a lot better. Enough real user reports in combination with a variety of benchmarks are best.

    I know if I bought a 2011 MBA it wouldn't seem twice as fast even though the CPU may be twice as fast. Lots of other components and thee way they interact are just as important. I'll be impressed if XBENCH scores go up 20% over what I'm currently getting (score=140).
     
  20. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    340
    Location:
    Utah
    #20
  21. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    Messages:
    753
    #21
  22. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    1,273
    #22
    I got my new mba earlier today and ran geekbench

    13" i5 1.7ghz

    32bit
    5470

    64bit
    5853
     
  23. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2005
    Messages:
    741
    #23
    Looks like on xbench base 13" airs are beating base 13" pro's. That's good news. I can't afford anything more than the base 13". It's just too much to justify going for the 256 for $300 more. $300 buys a lot of external :)
     
  24. nebulos, Jul 21, 2011
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2011

    macrumors 6502a

    nebulos

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    555
    #24

    2010 MBA as fast as 2010 MBP? NO.

    this is an extremely common mistake, one that was very convenient for 2010 MBA marketing:

    the test you're referring to is not geekbench, it's a test 'suite', called speedmark (i believe), which involves several different tests, including file transfer speeds and other operations that are disk-bound, which is why the SSD on the Air helped it score comparably, when averaging over all tests, to the MBP.

    geekbench is purely CPU and RAM (has nothing to do with disk speed).

    ***************

    EDIT: Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your post. I don't know what article you first referred to. It reported comparable geekbench scores for the 2010 MBA and MBP? the Macworld article is the one I was referring to, which seemed to me to be the one that planted the idea that "2010 MBA ~ 2010 MBP" for 13" models.

    ***************

    EDIT 2: In fact, I guess the Macworld article does show that for the 2010 13" models, MBA was, overall, or, on average, about as 'fast' as MBP. The crux of the issue is the meaning of 'fast'. Some tasks are disk bound, some are CPU bound. We just have to be careful when reporting/interpreting test results.

    If we perform a new test on Macs where we take each computer and toss it out the window of a moving van, I think the first gen MBA may easily be 'faster' than the upcoming Mac Pros.
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    nebulos

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    555
    #25
    somehow i was smart enough to miss/forget that this is the first post in the thread! ... i got caught up looking up scores and started organizing them, then i looked back up and struck myself on the forehead. anyways, for what it's worth:


    13" Samsung Series 9

    1.4GHz i5-2537M, Hyperthreading, Turboboost 2.3GHz

    32-bit Geekbench: ~3800

    64-bit Geekbench: 4500 (only one score)


    base 11" 2011 MBA

    1.6GHz i5-2467M, Hyperthreading, Turboboost 2.3GHz

    32-bit Geekbench: ~4600

    64-bit Geekbench: ~5000


    11" 2011 MBA with CPU upgrade

    1.8GHz, i7-2677M, Hyperthreading, Turboboost 2.9GHz

    32-bit Geekbench: ~5800

    64-bit Geekbench: 6200 (only one score)


    base 13" 2011 MBA

    1.7GHz i5-2557M, Hyperthreading, Turboboost 2.7GHz

    32-bit Geekbench: ~ 5400

    64-bit Geekbench: ~5900


    13" 2011 MBA with CPU upgrade

    1.8GHz, i7-2677M, Hyperthreading, Turboboost 2.9GHz

    32-bit Geekbench: ~5800

    64-bit Geekbench: ~6300


    ... some outlier scores were ignored. we'll see how the averages settle over time.
     

Share This Page