Any benchmarks for the core m7?

[Davidkoh]

It's a demonstration of the heat throttling. Still impressive.

Im wondering if it will continue to throttle though, and how much the m3 will throttle.

If you look at the geekbench scores the m3 scores between 4100-5000, m5 between 4900 and 5900 and the m7 between 5400 and 6700. This is removing runs that are low outliers which can be run with a lot of backround tasks running.

Still quite a increase from the m7, wondering what happens if you push it further though.

 

[glindon]

They did Geekbench.

If I had your results to the chart posted before, that's very nice from the m7

Oh, wow. Thanks. Really glad I spent the extra money.

 

[c0mm0n]

Yes well worth the extra bucks.

The m7@256 is very tempting now and started wondering If I could just replace the RMBP 15 with an ultimate MB.

 

[glindon]

Im wondering if it will continue to throttle though, and how much the m3 will throttle.

If you look at the geekbench scores the m3 scores between 4100-5000, m5 between 4900 and 5900 and the m7 between 5400 and 6700. This is removing runs that are low outliers which can be run with a lot of backround tasks running.

Still quite a increase from the m7, wondering what happens if you push it further though.

I don't think I'll ever push my machine that hard in day to day use, however. At best I'll be doing some builds in Xcode or I'll be browsing some web pages while updates are going. I might fire up iMovie tomorrow and see how long a ~10 minute 1080p movie takes to render. I don't game on my Mac so can't really test any of those.
[doublepost=1461405603][/doublepost]

Yes well worth the extra bucks.

The m7@256 is very tempting now and started wondering If I could just replace the RMBP 15 with an ultimate MB.

Well I do run my MacBook at the scaled up resolution of 1440 x 900 so you'd get the same screen real estate you're used to unless you run yours scaled up higher. What year is your 15"? Seems like quite the change going from 15" to 12".

 

[c0mm0n]

I don't think I'll ever push my machine that hard in day to day use, however. At best I'll be doing some builds in Xcode or I'll be browsing some web pages while updates are going. I might fire up iMovie tomorrow and see how long a ~10 minute 1080p movie takes to render. I don't game on my Mac so can't really test any of those.
[doublepost=1461405603][/doublepost]
Well I do run my MacBook at the scaled up resolution of 1440 x 900 so you'd get the same screen real estate you're used to unless you run yours scaled up higher. What year is your 15"? Seems like quite the change going from 15" to 12".

I don't care much about the screen, rarely use it on the 15, just hooked to a 30". On the MB I cope with the screen using spaces and 1440. In both cases I need a bigger screen to work so not a big difference.

The 15 has turned into a desktop replacement, I tend not to take it, never really use it in the garden or sofa anymore (too bulky, may heat, etc...). I tried the iPad Pro 9 as a complement, but can't seriously work with that.

Bought the MB as a "candy" (base refurb) and now it changed everything about what I thought I need from my computer (considering the m7). Can't say I really use the i7 quad power, and I've stopped playing 3D games on the mac.

Or I just get a Mac Mini and get rid of the 15R, the MB is changing everything.

 

[joscejrod]

I don't think I'll ever push my machine that hard in day to day use, however. At best I'll be doing some builds in Xcode or I'll be browsing some web pages while updates are going. I might fire up iMovie tomorrow and see how long a ~10 minute 1080p movie takes to render. I don't game on my Mac so can't really test any of those.
[doublepost=1461405603][/doublepost]
Well I do run my MacBook at the scaled up resolution of 1440 x 900 so you'd get the same screen real estate you're used to unless you run yours scaled up higher. What year is your 15"? Seems like quite the change going from 15" to 12".

Could you test it with handbrake? I use it sometimes and I think m7 will be much better than m3/m5 in that test...

 

[Davidkoh]

I don't think I'll ever push my machine that hard in day to day use, however. At best I'll be doing some builds in Xcode or I'll be browsing some web pages while updates are going. I might fire up iMovie tomorrow and see how long a ~10 minute 1080p movie takes to render. I don't game on my Mac so can't really test any of those.

It is only when you push your machine you will really notice a difference in speed though, it doesnt really matter if one machine does something 30% slower if those 30% equates to less than a second.

If the m7 can sustain a good lead after both heat up it might make it more worth the money than if the lead shrinks due to throttling.

 

[Wowereit]

15W Core i and Core M3/5/7 are using the same DIE.
Of course you are getting slightly better chips with i7 and M7 due to Intel testing the silicon lottery for you, but everything else is just crippled down by lasercutting to the specifications of the chip it will be used for.


I would like to see some 15 minute benchmark loops with M3/M5/M7 in comparison.

 

[Gpulvi]

Yes well worth the extra bucks.

The m7@256 is very tempting now and started wondering If I could just replace the RMBP 15 with an ultimate MB.

I'm on the same boat, thinking about replacing my late 2013 base rMBP 15" with a m7 rMB. I've never pushed it hard, barely take it out, I'm using it mainly as a desktop computer, but I've got an iMac in my office so I think I can "downgrade" the laptop and use it more often outside.

If I need any urgent heavy task, Dropbox -> TeamViewer and done, got my iMac doing the hard work remotely through my rMB.

 

[Serban]

but hey, apple is marketing this thing great by saying is the future of notebooks...seems this second gen its a really nice machine. Probably like the macbook air the third one can be for some the only mac,. i mean this already have a decent cpu and gpu performance, a good battery life, they just need to put if they can a 720p facetime camera and remove the 3.5 jack and put a second thunderbolt 3(its by default with kaby) and a lightning port since Apple will advertising this will be the future for audio input
[doublepost=1461419062][/doublepost]and im very sure that if they keep the base 256 ssd in the next macbook they will drop the price by $100

 

[SR71]

Those Geekbench benchmarks seems more realistic than those first m7 that were posted. Thx

They're just as realistic as the first ones that were posted. If anything they're less realistic cause they're the scores that were achieved after he had run another stressful benchmark twice back to back before running Geekbench again.

 

[6749974]

Of course, it's the same chip limited by the same thermals.
If you are doing multiple runs of benchmarks, the M7 should get even closer with every single run.

If you ask me, 280€ more for an overclocked version of the same chip, which will clock down to the same level as the other Core Ms after a short amount of usage, is a total ripoff.

Do CPUs clock down over time? By how much and how soon?

Also, what would you recommend (bang for buck)?

 

[izzyfanto]

It is only when you push your machine you will really notice a difference in speed though, it doesnt really matter if one machine does something 30% slower if those 30% equates to less than a second.

If the m7 can sustain a good lead after both heat up it might make it more worth the money than if the lead shrinks due to throttling.

Very interesting results. I understand people wanting that touch more performance, but if I really wanted sustained performance, I just would have saved my $1500(rMB, M7, 256 SSD) and waited for WWDC MBP redesign in a month (which might be around $1700give or take). That's why I bought the M3 for only $1240. Those milliseconds difference would add up if I was doing tasks that took a long time, but in everyday use I can't see it being worth the extra money.

 

[Jobsian]

Could you test it with handbrake?

Would love to see this too

 

[Wowereit]

Do CPUs clock down over time? By how much and how soon?

Also, what would you recommend (bang for buck)?

CPUs start clocking down when temperatures are getting to high.
As we are talking about a fanless computer, you are getting to this point fasther than on other machines.

Apple charges very high prices for even small upgrades, so if you don't necessarily need more you should go with their base model. We are talking about small CPU performance increase for 280€ (don't know the $ price), if you really need this small spec bump that much, the MacBook probably isn't the right device for you in the first place.

 

[c0mm0n]

Do CPUs clock down over time? By how much and how soon?

Also, what would you recommend (bang for buck)?

Bang for buck => refurb

1.3 on par with m5

 

[happyslayer]

I have last year's 1.2/512. It's been the best laptop (for me) ever. Yesterday a relative offered to buy it for Apple's refurb pricing so I said yes and just pulled the trigger on the m7/256. It's cheaper than the m5/512 and I really don't use more than 170GB and that's with little to no system cleaning optimization. (Like I never use Garage band or iMovie so I could pull that kind of stuff.) since finding this post I'm glad I went with the m7. Now just gotta wait another 7 days...

 

[SSD-GUY]

Anyone got any benchmarks which compare the GPU from the skylake rMB to the Broadwell rMB? Thanks.

 

[izzyfanto]

Anyone got any benchmarks which compare the GPU from the skylake rMB to the Broadwell rMB? Thanks.

The base 2016 Cinebench was 20 FPS & 214 CB(CPU side) and the base 2015 was 18 FPS & 204 CB. Credit DetroitBorg

 

[SSD-GUY]

The base 2016 Cinebench was 20 FPS & 214 CB(CPU side) and the base 2015 was 18 FPS & 204 CB. Credit DetroitBorg

Thanks. I guess 25% of something low really doesn't equate to much boosts then. Saying that, the skylake rMB has made some nice gains in Geekbench though.

 

[izzyfanto]

Thanks. I guess 25% of something low really doesn't equate to much boosts then. Saying that, the skylake rMB has made some nice gains in Geekbench though.

Yeah I think the GPU will be a nice improvement for driving the Retina a little smoother. My 2016 1.1 is the same as the 2015 1.2, and the RAM is clocked a little higher than last years.

 

[TigerMSTR]

The base 2016 Cinebench was 20 FPS & 214 CB(CPU side) and the base 2015 was 18 FPS & 204 CB. Credit DetroitBorg

Thanks. I guess 25% of something low really doesn't equate to much boosts then. Saying that, the skylake rMB has made some nice gains in Geekbench though.

Mind this is comparing Base 2015 to base 2016 (m3). Compared to m7 would be much larger gains.

 

[SSD-GUY]

Mind this is comparing Base 2015 to base 2016 (m3). Compared to m7 would be much larger gains.

Yeah I think the GPU will be a nice improvement for driving the Retina a little smoother. My 2016 1.1 is the same as the 2015 1.2, and the RAM is clocked a little higher than last years.

Hopefully we'll see an in-depth review soon, maybe even on anandtech or something.

 

[izzyfanto]

Mind this is comparing Base 2015 to base 2016 (m3). Compared to m7 would be much larger gains.

Yeah on the CPU part of the Cinebench test. Wouldn't the FPS remain the same since that's driven by the GPU?

 

[joscejrod]

To those who have said that skylake core M have inconsistent performance because of throttling and termal restrictions (demostrated with different geekbench results), here you have the proof that all processors get different results based on termal situation, cpu load, trrottling...
The example is the Macbook pro retina (early 2015) i5-5257U:

Note: the new macbook with m7 is killer!! I'll say again. "Each day I like the 12" macbook more...new 13'3/14" macbook pro would have to be really different than actual version, to convince me to buy it instead the 2nd generation 12"macbook with m7"