Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

13" MBP w/Touchbar benchmark (geekbench)

M

mikeo007

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Mar 18, 2010
1,373
122
Was just browsing geekbench results and came across a new 13" MBP benchmark that was run yesterday. Likely someone with a review model is running geekbench on it to test performance.

It's about 10-15% faster than last years model, which is about par for the course for a "tock" in Intel's cycle.

But what's more important is that fact that people have these in their hands and are using them right now! I'm expecting reviews to be out soon.

smMIOg0.jpg


https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/983171
 
  • Like
Reactions: nstz, stockscalper, keviig and 1 other person
Not bad. Not bad at all! Should be interesting to see what other people come up with. If this is true, it will be a very nice upgrade from my current MBP.

Looks like we get a pretty big jump in multicore performance over the base 13" without touchbar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nstz
I'm looking forward to the results from all three models, i5 @ 2.9, i5 @ 3.1, and i7. The base performance is really good. I wonder if the 3.1 is worth an extra $100. I'm almost certain the i7 won't be worth a $300 premium. But let's see.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nstz
Wouldn't the non-TB with the lower TDP have much more aggressive throttling? It seems to me that if I were to tax that thing out it would throttle down at some point. That sort of thing makes me nervous if i'm running a couple apps I need.

Of course I don't know. Just guessing. The reason i'm asking is the Geekbench for the 2GHZ isn't far off from the 2.9GHZ, which confuses things a bit. I understand the boost aspect, just saying. Got to 'try' to sort this out. :)
 
Macalway said:
Wouldn't the non-TB with the lower TDP have much more aggressive throttling? It seems to me that if I were to tax that thing out it would throttle down at some point. That sort of thing makes me nervous if i'm running a couple apps I need.

Of course I don't know. Just guessing. The reason i'm asking is the Geekbench for the 2GHZ isn't far off from the 2.9GHZ, which confuses things a bit. I understand the boost aspect, just saying. Got to 'try' to sort this out. :)
Click to expand...

As mentioned above, the 2GHz will throttle much more aggressively than the 2.9. They both have very similar turbo frequencies (3.1 vs 3.3) but the CPU in the base model won't be able to maintain the turbo for nearly as long as the one in the touchbar model.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hj576
mikeo007 said:
As mentioned above, the 2GHz will throttle much more aggressively than the 2.9. They both have very similar turbo frequencies (3.1 vs 3.3) but the CPU in the base model won't be able to maintain the turbo for nearly as long as the one in the touchbar model.
Click to expand...

Yes that's what I figure. It would be interesting to test this; see how long the 2ghz can go at varying loads. Because it's an attractive package. It's just an unknown this way, so until I see charts, I can't really commit to it.
 
And the results, as expected are better than the Kabylake i5 (in Dell XPS 13) that some people are soo sad was not included in the Macbook Pro. How dare apple use an older generation processor when its clearly better than the newer generation one available in the market right now
https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/compare/986436?baseline=983171
[doublepost=1478618773][/doublepost]Whats more surprising is, the baseline 13 inch w/o touchbar actually has better results than the new XPS13 with 7th gen ..

https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/compare/983217?baseline=989057

(sorry I know out of topic)
 
  • Like
Reactions: terminator-jq, myscrnnm and archi_130w1
keviig said:
Here it is compared to the 13" without Touch Bar:
https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/compare/983171?baseline=908540

Not really a big gain. But the higher TDP and better cooling should allow for better performance when both the CPU and GPU is taxed at the same time.
Click to expand...
I had a MBP wo touch bar and could not make it slow down. I pegged the CPU until the entire chassis was quite warm and ran geekbench immediately after and it was pretty much the same speed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Macintosh IIcx and hj576
dmelgar said:
I had a MBP wo touch bar and could not make it slow down. I pegged the CPU until the entire chassis was quite warm and ran geekbench immediately after and it was pretty much the same speed.
Click to expand...
Louis try to see thermal throttling as well in his video, couldnt find any
 
dmelgar said:
I had a MBP wo touch bar and could not make it slow down. I pegged the CPU until the entire chassis was quite warm and ran geekbench immediately after and it was pretty much the same speed.
Click to expand...
I could. Try running a game without Vsync. The GPU will max out at around 800-900 MHz (max speed is 1000 MHz) and the CPU will hover around 1.8-1.9 GHz (max turbo 3.1 GHz). This combined results in a 24-29W power draw and 90c temp with 5000 rpm fan (according to Intel Power Gadget). Geekbench only tests the CPU, not the GPU (unless you do the compute benchmark, which no one seems to do).
 
guys, not meaning to be bashing, but considering the price tags, these scores are nothing to get too excited about:

(Geekbench 3 scores, geekbench 4 scores below)

my 11in MacBook Air 2015: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/8127053
mba 2015.jpeg


my 17in MacBook Pro 2011: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/8121533
mbp 2011.jpg


my Hackintosh, because MacPros are the most useless overpriced thing since the MiniDisc player: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/8129561
hackintosh.jpeg


And unless you spend your working days duplicating 30GB files a faster SSD (beyond 500 MB/s) will NOT make macOS "feel" faster ... these are pure benchmark values ... just saying ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: protoxx and raqball
markusberger said:
guys, not meaning to be bashing, but considering the price tags, these scores are nothing to get too excited about:

my 11in MacBook Air 2015: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/8127053

View attachment 671041

my 17in MacBook Pro 2011: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/8121533

View attachment 671043

my Hackintosh, because MacPros are the most useless overpriced thing since the MiniDisc player: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/8129561

View attachment 671040

And unless you spend your working days duplicating 30GB files a faster SSD (beyond 500 MB/s) will NOT make macOS "feel" faster ... these are pure benchmark values ... just saying ;)
Click to expand...


FWIW - those are all GeekBench 3 Results, the link in the original post in GeekBench 4.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hj576, mikeo007, myscrnnm and 1 other person
The increase compared to my MBPr early 2015 is only 8% for multicore and for single core roughly 2%. Not worth the extra money for this unnoticeable speed difference.
 

Attachments

  • Schermafbeelding 2016-11-08 om 17.33.03.png
    Schermafbeelding 2016-11-08 om 17.33.03.png
    67.2 KB · Views: 147
  • Like
Reactions: raqball
raymond7 said:
The increase compared to my MBPr early 2015 is only 8% for multicore and for single core roughly 2%. Not worth the extra money for this unnoticeable speed difference.
Click to expand...

Only 8%? I don't know, 5-10% is usually the annual performance jump by Intel, as they work more on efficiency rather than performance.

Anyway, the new rMBP's, the performance of the SSD's/RAM and the better display/speakers are the main selling points, a long with the smaller form factor - not the CPU/GPU side of things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hj576, HansumKingtut, justinf77 and 1 other person
  • Like
Reactions: nstz and raqball
  • Like
Reactions: markusberger
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back