Benchmarks for Mid-2012 MacBook Pro and MacBook Air


macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001

With the first Mid-2012 MacBook Pro and MacBook Air models reaching the public, Primate Labs has collated some data from its Geekbench 2 benchmarking database to assess the raw performance of these systems compared to their predecessors.

For the MacBook Pro, Primate Labs has data on four different models: the new Retina model with 2.3 GHz and 2.6 GHz processors and the non-Retina model with 2.3 GHz and 2.7 GHz processors. The top-of-the-line 2.7 GHz system registers with a Geekbench average score of 12,303, roughly 16% higher than the top-of-the-line 2.5 GHz Sandy Bridge system from the previous generation.

Notably, the leaked MacBook Pro benchmark from mid-May does appear to have been legitimate, with details corresponding to the new non-Retina 15-inch MacBook Pro. That machine is designated MacBookPro9,1, while the 13-inch model is designated MacBookPro9,2. The Retina MacBook Pro appears as MacBookPro10,1.

On the MacBook Air side, top-of-the-line systems are seeing boosts of over 20% in Geekbench scores over their corresponding predecessors. As with the MacBook Pro, even the low-end systems of the new generation outperform the high end of the previous generation.

Geekbench testing focuses on processor and memory performance, providing comparisons of raw power between machines but only telling part of the story. But with these machines seeing significant boosts in graphics performance with the addition of Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics and/or the NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M, and systems with solid-state drives using faster drives than in the previous generation, real-world performance should see marked improvement.

Article Link: Benchmarks for Mid-2012 MacBook Pro and MacBook Air


macrumors 601
Jun 12, 2005
Great single core performance on the Pro. The scaling to 8 threads isn't as good as 8 real cores but close enough.


macrumors 603
Oct 29, 2007
These kinds of benchmarks were more relevant in the powerPC days. Now it's pretty much, "Yup, those faster intel processors that we already saw the benchmarks of are in the new MBP."


macrumors member
Jun 9, 2008
So has anyone seen one of the new MBP with Retina in the wild at a store? I haven't found a single store in my area with one. I try to not spend $3000 on something without trying it first.

Demosthenes X

macrumors 68000
Oct 21, 2008
So has anyone seen one of the new MBP with Retina in the wild at a store? I haven't found a single store in my area with one. I try to not spend $3000 on something without trying it first.
Checked out the local Apple Store today, only last-gen machines. I thought for sure if they were shipping yesterday they would have been on display today...


macrumors 68000
Feb 2, 2010
Woodstock, GA USA
Very nice, if my MBP was in bad shape, I would definitely get the retina one, but I still have a few more years with my current MBP.


macrumors 68030
Jul 7, 2009
Anyone else notice that the MBA chart doesn't look skewed correctly.

Going from the 11-inch Mid 2012 at 5770 to the 13-inch Mid 2012 at 6915 (a delta of 145) is about 1/2 the difference of the 13-inch Mid 2012 at 6915 to the 11-inch Mid 2012 7004 (a delta of 89). Just looks odd.


macrumors 68040
Aug 10, 2010
macrumors apparently
they just trashed my maxed out mid11 mba

seems that the 5710 to 7004 bump does not register as significant to a couple of you, specifically 22,67%
Last edited:


macrumors member
Nov 20, 2010
Interesting that the numbers are very similar to the leaked benchmarks from a few months ago, especially considering that there was an iMac benchmark too. Maybe Apple was developing two new products, the Retina MBP and some new iMac. Maybe instead of shadowing each other by releasing them the same day they decided to break their releases up, or perhaps the iMac isn't ready yet. Those benchmarks for the new iMac are the biggest evidence of a potential iMac release in the next month or so, IMO. A man can dream right?


macrumors 65816
Sep 15, 2006
I think it should be noted that last generation 17" Macbook Pro's didn't come with 8GB of memory.


macrumors 6502a
Feb 24, 2012
1.8 and 2.0 isnt hardly worth the extra investment on the air?
Upgrading from 1.8 (i5) to 2.0 (i7) costs $100, which is about 4.7% of the cost of the MBA 13" (i5) fully configured. For that you get a 1.3% increase in gb score.

I don't like that math.


macrumors 604
Aug 10, 2010
Poole, England
So if the Macbook Pro geekbench was legitimate, that would suggest the Ivy Bridge iMac was legitimate too. Can we expect a silent spec bump?


macrumors 6502a
Jun 12, 2004
Omaha, NE
No 17" model means that I will be left to only used models. I used to do that. Plus it saves dollars. Apple has done their part in keeping my bank account untouched. They finished my want to update with keeping the Mac Pro the longest computer to not keep an update. But at least they are still selling one, unlike the 17" laptop.

I had a 15" PowerBook, but after purchasing the first of at least 4 17" Ma laptops, I refuse to go back in size.

I'll have to check out the Frankentosh market, that Hackintosh to most. No wonder I do not feel welcome at the local Apple Store. I have my own requirements & will not go with what Apple is selling unless it meets those requirements.

What good is a 1,0000,000 X 1,000,0000 pixel display if it is to small to see or have enough useable space to work with?

I give the new Macs 0 Stars at this point. Let's see if they can change that. To make matters worst I've purchased only Macs since they came out in 1984. I always thought that Apple has always been run by the almighty dollar, now I know it for sure.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.