13-Inch MacBook Pro Benchmarks: $1,799 Model Up to 16.5% Faster Than $1,299 Model

[smetvid]

How can a Pro machine use integrated graphics?

Because not every pro needs a GPU. Gaming is not a profession despite what some people might think. Those that are gaming professionals don't earn money by how good the game looks on their computer. They earn money from speed running and being a good gamer. Frankly a pro gamer buying a Mac seems a little off to me anyway. Even if they got killer specs they still need to fart around with bootcamp and setting up Windows 10 on their own. With the added cost and that extra effort I just don't see the point. The only gaming aspect is for those that want a Mac but happen to occasional game and still want to be able to do so. Those typically are not the gaming pros that earn money from it however.

As for things like animation and video production that's a tiny market and you can still do those things. FCPX surprisingly works very well on the 13" MBP. Sure it takes much longer to render effects but then not every pro uses a lot of effects. Most Hollywood movies could totally be cut on a 13" MBP that are cuts only with a bit of titles here and there.

I also want a 13" with a dedicated GPU but a dedicated GPU absolutely does not make a MBP pro or not pro on its own.

There are professional authors, illustrators, graphic designers, photographers, vloggers, teachers, scientists, politicians, business executives, sales people, software developers and so forth that may never even touch a dedicated GPU.

 

[firewood]

16.5 percent faster... my humble opinion is that it’s not worth the $ 500 difference.

38% more expensive.... 16% faster ... what a deal!!

Yeah, maybe it's not worth it for 16% ... unless ... unless I could talk Apple into also giving me more RAM, a faster RAM bus, more storage, 2 more USB ports, and also boosting single core and gfx performance by over 30%.

If only ... If only I could do that, it might be closer to worthwhile to get one.

 

[deconstruct60]

Lower end MBP (8th gen) scores WORSE on single core performance than the 2020 MBA i5. Also, the lower end MBP has an older and much slower GPU. I'm really confused who the 8th gen intel 2020 base MBP is built for?

Perhaps for folks looking at the Multicore results. Because the MBA 2020 basically crumbles when throw lots of concurrent and higher thermal load workload at it. It is cheaper but it is also slower. The i7 option in the MBA really doesn't do much to "fix" that either.

Single tasking, poking at web broswer tabs , and looking at lots of video the MBA does better, but that isn't everybody's workload.

 

[smetvid]

My issue here is the marketing from apple is very misleading. Pretty much every claim of faster CPU and GPU is for the 4TB port models. The base 13" has a new keyboard and doubled the storage from 128 to 256 which if they did not would be a mortal sin since the MBA and Mac mini now starts at 256GB.

The base 13" is not much of an upgrade at all unless one was holding off just because of the keyboard. I'm really starting to value the MBA over the base 13". Slower but with the 4 core i5 CPU bump and 16GB of ram its the exact same cost of the base 13". Slightly slower 4 core clock speed but its also a 10th gen CPU vs the 8th gen in the 13" so likely fairly equal performance for the most part. The MBA can slow down a lot due to heat but that's only under heavy load for things the MBA isn't really designed for like 4k video editing in FCPX. That above MBA however would have double the Ram which means it might handle more everyday type work like writing code with dozens of websites/apps open for reference. plus apparently the MBA is more comfortable to type on due to the thinner front. As an away from my main system for doing some light code work I'm really leaning towards the MBA now.

 

[firewood]

Because not every pro needs a GPU.

Well. I could use a GPU like an Nvidia 2080 Super, et.al., for stuff like ML, but Apple doesn't seem to support them.

 

[progx]

Has the i3 improved to be in the $1299 category? Or is it because it's in a laptop? Noticed the next level up iMac 21.5" is running a quad i3 instead of an i5.

My early 2015 MacBook Pro 13" is a dual-core i5, not the same generation of course. When I got it in 2016, it was a $1299 (or $1499) model. No i3 at the time.

I'm genuinely curious since I never considered on Intel i3 in anything. If it was a Ryzen 3, that may be something...

 

[magbarn]

Intel 8th 9th 10th gen same same. No AMD Ryzen, no buy.

Sure if you're comparing 45 watt class CPU's like the one found on the MBP 16. The Ice lake 28 watt chip is true 10th gen at 10nm, not another 14nm++++++ Intel rehash since Skylake....
[automerge]1588878223[/automerge]

I just downloaded and ran Geekbench 5 on my i7 MacBook Air, it seems like performance is on-par with this new MacBook Pro: https://browser.geekbench.com/v5/cpu/2067376

View attachment 913019

I don't know why everyone's losing their minds trying to compare CPUs by looking at the watts of power they consume 🙄do you measure the performance of your vacuum cleaner or your fridge by the watts it consumes?

We want things to be more efficient, particularly on laptops. Using less watts is not a bad thing.

Now run benchmarks or apps that stress the i7 MBA.. My MBA i7 was only about 6-7% faster than the i5 MBA when running apps that stress it. Not worth the $150. Geekbench is a bursty benchmark which allows the MBA's i7 to hide it's power/cooling deficit vs the 28 watt MBP i5/i7....
Once you load up a 2020 MBA by adding the i7, 16gb, and 512 SSD, you're within $150 of the base 10th gen MBP 13. It's no longer a value

 

[smetvid]

Well. I could use a GPU like an Nvidia 2080 Super, et.al., for stuff like ML, but Apple doesn't seem to support them.

There are eGPUs for that. I use a Vega 56 eGPU with my Mac Mini. Not exactly an option for portable needs but then again I don't typically do GPU heavy tasks when I'm portable. Of course its a compromise and the eGPU adds to the cost but if you want a specific GPU like the Nvidia 2080 to use under windows your problems are solved. I like eGPU because I'm not stuck with that built in GPU for the life of the computer. I have two Macs at home that otherwise work great but are hampered by their built in GPU. My 17" 2011 MBP still works very well but is stuck on High Sierra and even a eGPU will not help that. My 2012 iMac with the Nvidia 680MX GPU still works very well but again that GPU is really holding it back now and eGPU sucks on Thunderbolt1 ports/bandwidth. Plus eGPU sucks on large built in displays even more so it just isn't practical. Thats why I went with a Mac mini. I can switch to any GPU the future provides just like a desktop PC can. MacOs may have limited support for cards but Windows does not. Already however the 5700 XT is a rather significant upgrade for my Vega 56 and at under $400 not a bad upgrade if I ever get to the point where I need an upgrade. By the time the Vega 56 feels slow however there will be a 5800 XT and 5900 XT or even better.

 

[subi257]

Shame the base model has the Touch Bar. If they took that off and knocked another $100 off, I'd take it over the Air.

I originally had disdain for the touch bar, but once I started using it in Outlook and a few other apps, started to like it as it is handy for switching between mail and calendar. I'm sure It's nice for some other apps too. I might do the upgrade on my personal MBP 13"" just to get the new keyboard...call it insurance

 

[citysnaps]

How can a Pro machine use integrated graphics?

Pro is just a label. Nothing to sweat over.

 

[subi257]

16.5 percent faster... my humble opinion is that it’s not worth the $ 500 difference.

That depends on what you use it for, if the lower priced on chokes...or slows down your work..making you less productive, then it is not worth the $500 more ? just a thoughtAt work, they gave me the bottom of the line basic 13" MBP and Photoshop was taking forever. It would take me 20 minutes to do something that should take 2. They eventually replaced it with the better one.

 

[citysnaps]

Excellent value!

 

[TechieGeek]

Now run benchmarks or apps that stress the i7 MBA.. My MBA i7 was only about 6-7% faster than the i5 MBA when running apps that stress it. Not worth the $150. Geekbench is a bursty benchmark which allows the MBA's i7 to hide it's power/cooling deficit vs the 28 watt MBP i5/i7....
Once you load up a 2020 MBA by adding the i7, 16gb, and 512 SSD, you're within $150 of the base 10th gen MBP 13. It's no longer a value

What exactly are you doing on a laptop that stresses the i7 for a long period of time? Laptop workloads are burst-y.

Sure, converting a video file from one format to another may take 1hr rather than 45min - no biggie.

The MacBook Air i7 performs the same as this new MacBook Pro (the single-core performance seems to be higher, the multi-core seems to be lower) at every-day workloads, which this benchmark simulates.

If someone's trying to train ML models or do massive conversions, they should use GCP or Amazon EC2, they're way more cost effective and way faster than a laptop will ever be.

 

[subi257]

How can a Pro machine use integrated graphics?

The last laptop that I saw without "integrated" graphics....an actual GPU graphics card was maybe 10 years ago. It was an HP "mobile workstation" for $4900.00 (in 2010 dollars), weighing about 8 pounds and was 3" thick.

 

[SRTM]

My GF will be going from a 2011 13" to the 10th gen 2020 13"!.
They should be good for video editing + basic gaming right, even though it doesn't have a GPU?

 

[aknabi]

16.5 percent faster... my humble opinion is that it’s not worth the $ 500 difference.

Agreed... don't know how you see "Up to 16.5% Faster" and need a diaper change... that's a pretty absurd of fanboy excitement

 

[falainber]

Because not every pro needs a GPU. Gaming is not a profession despite what some people might think. Those that are gaming professionals don't earn money by how good the game looks on their computer. They earn money from speed running and being a good gamer. Frankly a pro gamer buying a Mac seems a little off to me anyway. Even if they got killer specs they still need to fart around with bootcamp and setting up Windows 10 on their own. With the added cost and that extra effort I just don't see the point. The only gaming aspect is for those that want a Mac but happen to occasional game and still want to be able to do so. Those typically are not the gaming pros that earn money from it however.

As for things like animation and video production that's a tiny market and you can still do those things. FCPX surprisingly works very well on the 13" MBP. Sure it takes much longer to render effects but then not every pro uses a lot of effects. Most Hollywood movies could totally be cut on a 13" MBP that are cuts only with a bit of titles here and there.

I also want a 13" with a dedicated GPU but a dedicated GPU absolutely does not make a MBP pro or not pro on its own.

There are professional authors, illustrators, graphic designers, photographers, vloggers, teachers, scientists, politicians, business executives, sales people, software developers and so forth that may never even touch a dedicated GPU.

It's almost as if you think that GPU is needed only for gaming. It is not the case. Illustrators, graphic designers, photographers, scientists etc. definitely could benefit from a good GPU. The rest professions on your list have little to do with computers and they can get by with very simple and cheap devices.

 

[scupking]

So for $1000 less I can get a new dell 15 inch Inspiron 5000 with a 10th gen i7 (1065G7), Intel Iris Plus Graphics, 8 GB DDR4 Ram and 515GB M.2 PCie NVMe SSD all for $779.

 

[827538]

I'm not surprised, 2016 Skylake cores vs 2020 Sunny Cove cores. But the IPC/year increase is terrible.
Still have no idea why these 2 port, 8th gen 13" MBP's exist?

 

[PinnyHead]

The article is incorrect:
The single core is 33% higher. (1236/927) = 1.333
The 4 multicore is 16.5% higher. (4455/3822) = 1.165

It would be nice if people who write articles would do the simple math. But just by examination, it is clear that 1236 is more than 16% higher than 927.

Since most apps will probably rely on the single core, this is what really matters for benchmark speeds.

16% is correct. The number of programs that only utilize a single core is extremely low at this point. While the relative increase will indeed be greater for single-threaded functions, the multi-core score is much more real world. Your point had more validity 20 years ago.

 

[Peperino]

Did you skip to the last page and ignored everyone else who pointed out that the 500$ extra is not on the CPU only? You get double the storage, RAM, 2 more TB ports, MUCH faster GPU, etc?

Btw, it's 16% faster on multi-core, it's 33% faster on single-core. Single core is where most folks would notice the difference in day to day stuff.

Let's start that it is a joke that a so called "Pro" MBP ships with only 2 ports. Actually one if you consider that one is used for A/C, hence is why all MBP entry level specs in most of MBPS are ridiculous. If it was an Air maybe ok. Same goes for the storage. SHipping a Pro computer with 256 is another joke. IT should have been 512. Maybe you are NOT aware that both RAM and SSD prices actually go down in price with time and not UP!
It is ridiculous how out of touch, Apple is with the pricing of its computer line up, except the most recent iPhone.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Well. I could use a GPU like an Nvidia 2080 Super, et.al., for stuff like ML, but Apple doesn't seem to support them.

Apple hasn’t shipped a computer with an NVIDIA GPU in it since May of 2015. It’s been 5 years, I would think everyone would have gotten the hint by now.
[automerge]1588882386[/automerge]

So for $1000 less I can get a new dell 15 inch Inspiron 5000 with a 10th gen i7 (1065G7), Intel Iris Plus Graphics, 8 GB DDR4 Ram and 515GB M.2 PCie NVMe SSD all for $779.

Feel free, have at it, enjoy Windows 10 and that “famous” Dell build quality.

 

[chucker23n1]

16% is correct. The number of programs that only utilize a single core is extremely low at this point.

…no it isn't.

Heck, with the rise of Electron, single-threaded apps are kind of seeing a renaissance. But even with async/await-type concepts, you typically focus on I/O concurrency, not CPU parallelism.

You'll very frequently see that, while an process has quite a few threads, only one of them really does the legwork.

While the relative increase will indeed be greater for single-threaded functions, the multi-core score is much more real world. Your point had more validity 20 years ago.

The breakthrough computer science ideas of how to make parallelism more pervasive have yet to come, so, no.
[automerge]1588882432[/automerge]

Apple hasn’t shipped a computer with an NVIDIA GPU in it since May of 2015. It’s been 5 years, I would think everyone would have gotten the hint by now.
[automerge]1588882386[/automerge]

Feel free, have at it, enjoy Windows 10 and that “famous” Dell build quality.

OK but a $1500 xMac tower is coming next year, yes?

 

[magbarn]

What exactly are you doing on a laptop that stresses the i7 for a long period of time? Laptop workloads are burst-y.

Sure, converting a video file from one format to another may take 1hr rather than 45min - no biggie.

The MacBook Air i7 performs the same as this new MacBook Pro (the single-core performance seems to be higher, the multi-core seems to be lower) at every-day workloads, which this benchmark simulates.

If someone's trying to train ML models or do massive conversions, they should use GCP or Amazon EC2, they're way more cost effective and way faster than a laptop will ever be.

I bought the 2020 MBA to replace my 2016 MB 12 when I take it on the road. (The pandemic restrictions will hopefully end soon) I will process sometimes up to 1000 45MP RAW files from my D850/Z7 cameras in lightroom, process them by correcting for exposure/highlights, sharpen and export them as JPG. My MBP 16 powers through them but is too bulky on the plane. I ended up returning the MBA as it would constantly run at 100C and slow down after a few dozen files from power/heat constraints. When I brought this up in the Macbook Air forum, I was told I was trying to use the Air for "Pro Usage" so I had the "wrong machine" I will see if the 2020 MBP 13 i7 is much better in this application.

 

[BenConlin44]

The £1799 model isn’t really £500 more expensive. Spec for spec it’s £200 more expensive (RAM upgrade is cheaper in the base model) which is fair when you consider that we’re getting a faster processor on a more efficient process a much better iGPU and much higher frequency RAM. Plus the two extra ports double the fans and if it’s anything like last year better speakers compared the the base model. The majority of people won’t be upgrading from the 2019 or even 2018 model for many they’ll be upgrading for dual core models many pre 2016. So although performance isn’t 5 times as fast as last year it really doesn’t need to be as MacBooks aren’t meant to be upgraded yearly.