Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Any benchmarks for the core m7?
- Thread starter SR71
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well... That's my new question, 256 or 512? My actual rMBP has 256 with 180 GB of free space, so I think 256 should be fine, but 512 looks tempting!
Snap - some benchmarks show the 256 is faster, others the 512. Probably multiple manufacturers.
Should not be using Geekbench to be doing comparisons like those that you've done.
Geekbench is the wrong tool to be using to get an accurate picture.
I'm considering a Windows 10 install with bootcamp. But then again, maybe I'll settle for El Capitan solo after all.
Yes, just 1549 and I'm already used to store my movies or tv series in an external drive, so as soon as I sell my rMBP, m7/256 will be.
As far as I know, several users told here that W10 was snappy and works fine with the rMB 1, so I think it will perform even better with this second generation. I also remember a user who bought one just to install windows, no OS X use at all.
Maybe in your case the 512 are more useful, split it and you'll have the best of both worlds, 256 per each OS, or if you plan a light use for the Windows partition, Parallels might work fine with the m7, and it's easier to resize the space and copy files between W and OS X.
Yeah, much lower variance on that one. So yes, the Core Ms seem to throttle way more.
I dont know which one is the right for me at the moment, need to wait for more extrnsive tests on the thermal situation. As it looks know the m7 looks quite good, but unless it can sustain the lead under long durations it is not nearly as good.
The thing about 512 is I don't have to think about storage. Whenever I have had a 256 I was always having to keep an eye on it. Worth it to me.
It was already on its way when I last wrote... I opted for the premium processor over storage. I'll try to live with OSX.
[doublepost=1461492879][/doublepost]
Lol.Ha ha ha, fixed that for you
Much lower variance? Have you seen the chart?? i5-5257U results (64-bit multicore) are between 4200 and 7100 (and only in one page of the results). This is a 40% variance.
Again, the m7 is a beast. If one thing makes me choose the next 13,3"/14" mbp (if apple releases it next wwdc) instead of 12" rmb, it's not going to be the cpu...
Do you even know how to calculate the variance?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variance
It is too bad that we cant really get a reliable result with only 3 data points for the m7. The i5 does give quite stable results though, which is to be expected from how the CPUs are designed. The i5 is made for sustained high turbo frequencies while the m7 is designed to handle boosting in bursts without throttling. The question is how long those boosts are.
Most CPUs can handle the normal users today so it doesnt really matter what Geekbench score they get and Geekbench does not test how CPUs handle sustained load. What we need are some more in depth testing (I am hoping for Anandtech to do so) testing actual workloads like 10 minute encodes, 2 minute unrars and so on. Then we will see if the m7 is a beast or not.
For what it's worth, I've gone ahead and picked up the m5/512 and have been putting it through its paces over the last day or so. It has performed really impressively. Compared to the 1.3ghz version I had from the original release, it handles everything I do much better. I honestly suspect it has more to do with the boosts in the GPU and SSD performance than the CPU.
As for throttling, the Mac tells you outright when that happens. I was testing out the free version of World of Warcraft just to see where the graphics would get you, and with the recommended settings after about 5 minutes it throttled. It popped up a notification which said the app most likely causing the slowdown. But honestly, even with throttling going on, WOW ran fine for single player play. I could also play TF2 on lowest settings without throttling kicking in, or at least, without kicking in enough for the machine to warn me.
I realize the m7 is only $150 more but, I don't see any reason to spend that money. It isn't going to put you over any performance thresholds. The m5 is fast enough, and if the trend of behaviors matches between m5:m7::i5:i7 then you can expect lower battery life and quicker overheating with the m7 that ultimately reduces the value depending on how you utilize that hardware.
So I put that $150 towards a nice new bag and the requisite USB-C AV adapter I will probably never use (but feel the need to have around just in case.)
As for throttling, the Mac tells you outright when that happens. I was testing out the free version of World of Warcraft just to see where the graphics would get you, and with the recommended settings after about 5 minutes it throttled. It popped up a notification which said the app most likely causing the slowdown. But honestly, even with throttling going on, WOW ran fine for single player play. I could also play TF2 on lowest settings without throttling kicking in, or at least, without kicking in enough for the machine to warn me.
I realize the m7 is only $150 more but, I don't see any reason to spend that money. It isn't going to put you over any performance thresholds. The m5 is fast enough, and if the trend of behaviors matches between m5:m7::i5:i7 then you can expect lower battery life and quicker overheating with the m7 that ultimately reduces the value depending on how you utilize that hardware.
So I put that $150 towards a nice new bag and the requisite USB-C AV adapter I will probably never use (but feel the need to have around just in case.)
I think based on the 2015 rMBs, the 1.3 model did better than the others when it came to battery life/heat dissipation etc, as it was a more efficient chip. I could be wrong but i'm pretty sure that was the case.
232GB because of the OSX taking up so much space I think.
Of course I do, I'm an industrial engineer. But you're talking about the statistical variable, and I was talking about the difference between the highest and the lowest result. Variance has different meanings...
I agree, Anandtech will resolve these doubts.
Of course I do, I'm an industrial engineer. But you're talking about the statistical variable, and I was talking about the difference between the highest and the lowest result. Variance has different meanings...
I agree, Anandtech will resolve these doubts.
Sorry, occupational hazard I guess, for me there is no other variance than the statistical one
.But yeah, if the differences we see in Geekbench even slightly indicates the difference in higher loads it might be well worth the money.
I think I at least decided that the rMB is what I want for a mobile coding machine around the house. The best coding is the one you actually do so having something easier to use than my big desktop or my 15" Asus notebook will help me much there I guess. The question remains which CPU though, hopefully more reviews will pop up.
Congrats on your purchase!
Would you be able to do a stress test (like handbrake convert a video) and run Intel Power Gadget at the same time to see what GHz it throttles down to under full load after a while? Also, temp and power draw would be nice.