I wouldn't focus on this benchmark too much. I feel at this point the slight variation of processor speed doesn't make a noticeable difference. The noticeable difference with the new retina MacBook pro retina screen will definitely be the blazing hard drive and the improved gpu
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.
Benchmarks for Mid-2012 MacBook Pro and MacBook Air
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Missing benchmark
No benchmark for the Retina with i7-3820QM? I assume it would be same as the regular Macbook Pro or slightly better, similar to the i7-3720QM.
No benchmark for the Retina with i7-3820QM? I assume it would be same as the regular Macbook Pro or slightly better, similar to the i7-3720QM.
Mislabeled
The Macbook Air chart is mislabeled. The number for the 1.8 ghz 13-inch model says 6,915. But the original chart from PrimateLabs says 6,197. The relative size of the bar is closer to 6,197 than 6,915.
The Macbook Air chart is mislabeled. The number for the 1.8 ghz 13-inch model says 6,915. But the original chart from PrimateLabs says 6,197. The relative size of the bar is closer to 6,197 than 6,915.
I'm curious as to what the base 13" MBP would bench w/ 8GB ram. That's what I have in mind is save $300 (Edit: compared to the upper 13") and use $100 for 16GB ram and the remainder for a 256GB Samsung 830... just need to wait for one to go on sale. I figure that'll give a good few thousand increase in the benchmark. Anyone w/ experience of doing this to last years late version?
Last edited:
Kind of worried heat is going to be a major issue with the RBPs.
Fast processors notwithstanding, FCPX render times increase substantially at high CPU temperatures (ditto for any heavy-duty CS work). I appreciate that the new assymetric fans "make it seem quieter", but if you want this thing to work optimally for heavy-duty work, you're not going to be able to have it on your lap, couch, or anything else that'll trap heat.
So for any Pro work, unless this thing's cooling system is miraculous (which it may well be -- I certainly hope so), there's a real danger that you'll only be able to use it when it's sitting on a...
...desk...top.
Fast processors notwithstanding, FCPX render times increase substantially at high CPU temperatures (ditto for any heavy-duty CS work). I appreciate that the new assymetric fans "make it seem quieter", but if you want this thing to work optimally for heavy-duty work, you're not going to be able to have it on your lap, couch, or anything else that'll trap heat.
So for any Pro work, unless this thing's cooling system is miraculous (which it may well be -- I certainly hope so), there's a real danger that you'll only be able to use it when it's sitting on a...
...desk...top.
Intel is more and more advancing on mobile chips. If 2012 iMac benchmark appearing a few time ago turns ou to be accurate, you can see that CPU wise i7 3730 on top end iMac earns no higher than one on MBP.
Means their peak performance is equal.
Still .. GPU is a weak sauce when it comes to laptop. Somethin like 7970M or GTX 690M need much thicker case than any MBP.
Means their peak performance is equal.
Still .. GPU is a weak sauce when it comes to laptop. Somethin like 7970M or GTX 690M need much thicker case than any MBP.
Just checked my geekbench 6b bit score and its 11108
its a 2008 MAC PRO.. coupled with the 27" LED display. it all looks great to me.
but still, to have power of mac pro in portable size is a unicorn esp one with geekbench score of 21000!! imagine that..maybe one day
its a 2008 MAC PRO.. coupled with the 27" LED display. it all looks great to me.
but still, to have power of mac pro in portable size is a unicorn esp one with geekbench score of 21000!! imagine that..maybe one day
Great performance from the MBA's they'll be awesome for people wanting to get the most out of Facebook and Twitter 
Isn't it weird that the the 2.3Ghz 15-inch has only 4GB RAM when the previous 13-inch has 4GB?
I have a November 2007 MacBook and im going now to upgrade for the 15-inch (was hoping they would increase the resolution on the 13-inch, like the Air, but, as they did not, i must now go to the 15-inch), but the 4GB RAM is a pain... I think i will buy 2x4GB elsewhere (is that the maximum i can put in?) as it is not that expensive. I think 4GB for Lion is not enough...
I have a November 2007 MacBook and im going now to upgrade for the 15-inch (was hoping they would increase the resolution on the 13-inch, like the Air, but, as they did not, i must now go to the 15-inch), but the 4GB RAM is a pain... I think i will buy 2x4GB elsewhere (is that the maximum i can put in?) as it is not that expensive. I think 4GB for Lion is not enough...
Is it the size or the resolution that you like most about the 17" MBP? I realize the 15" MBPs all lack an expresscard slot, but the new retina display has piqued my interest with its ability to handle multiple resolutions, including 1920x1200, and a putative reduction in glare. There is an article about the hi-res display over at anandtech.com. I will however reserve my judgment until I am able to see one in person. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.
Edit: I understand your concern about the size of the text, etc., but I am still interested to see how the screen handles different resolutions.
Second post deleted--wrong info.
Last edited:
That screen is MEGA crisp, even from looking at those compressed images on my iMac I can see how sharp that thing is . . . GEEZE!
That makes a 17" Retina even more drool worthy.
It won't affect the benchmark in any noticeable way. The Geekbench is really good at testing the processor and memory speeds while ignoring other variables. I've seen machines with SSD vs spinny disks, 4GB vs 16GB ram but have the same CPU and ram speed and the Geekbench hardly discerns between them. It's really effective at isolating the CPU. Now would you notice a big difference in actual use with more ram and a fast SSD? Definitely. But that's for another benchmark. The MacBook Pro R-Type apparently uses the Samsung 830, so for me coming from an early 2011 model with 220MB/s SSD, the difference is pretty huge. I'm also doubling my ram from 8GB to 16GB, so it will hardly even have to page that ridiculously fast 512GB drive. CS6 is going to fly and I can't wait to try it out!
Has anyone seen boot times for these new machines? Bet it's crazy.
No kidding! I remember back in the DOS days playing Battle Chess (or something like that...) and it took like 30 seconds to 2 minutes for the computer to think.
LOL, I thought I was the only one who played that with my dad as a kid.
Can anybody help me understand why the Macbook Air fares so well in comparison to the new Pros? I mean, a score of 7k for a 2-core 2.0 GHz versus a score of 10.8k for a 4-core 2.3 GHz. Wouldn't we expect the latter to be at least twice as fast as the former? What about the scaling prevents that?
I'm seriously reconsidering my Retina MBP order. The only advantages are a bigger and better display and 50% faster CPUs, but at the cost of significant weight, bulk, and price. Hmm...
I'm seriously reconsidering my Retina MBP order. The only advantages are a bigger and better display and 50% faster CPUs, but at the cost of significant weight, bulk, and price. Hmm...
I'm with you - 22% is a big chunk
----------
I was wrong to think this was a minor spec bump over the 2011MBA. The processors and HD speeds are pretty nice on the new airs.
Upgrading from a 2010MBA, I definitely think it's better to go for the i7 and just use Apple's SSD.
Makes the huge refurb discount on top of the line 2011 airs not so spectacular.
No kidding! I remember back in the DOS days playing Battle Chess (or something like that...) and it took like 30 seconds to 2 minutes for the computer to think.
The computer still takes that long to think, except today, it has analyzed, classified and created paths for every possible outcome until the end of the game, written it out to a relational database, indexed all the data and created lookup table queries to always select the best path where the outcome is a better chance for it to win.
The DOS computer in that same time had figured out about 2 moves ahead for 3 key pieces.
Moore's law, ain't it grand ?
Why do the quad-cores sale so poorly compared to the Air? They're only about 1.5 x faster when they should be 2.3 x and 2.6 x faster?