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


macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001

Though the Retina MacBook isn't officially launching until April 10, an early 64-bit Geekbench benchmark of the entry-level machine was spotted this afternoon, giving us our first glimpse at how the new ultra thin MacBook measures up to existing products in Apple's notebook line.

The 1.1GHz entry-level Retina MacBook with an Intel Core M-5Y31 processor was benchmarked twice, giving two single-core scores of 1924 and 2044, and multi-core scores of 4038 and 4475. Comparatively, the 2015 entry-level MacBook Air with a 1.6GHz Intel Core i5 processor has seen scores in the neighborhood of 2881 (single-core) and 5757 (multi-core), so it's a good bit faster than the new MacBook.

Performance wise, the Retina MacBook CPU seems to be par with the higher-end 2011 MacBook Air with a 1.8GHz Core i7 processor, but graphics performance on the new MacBook, which Geekbench does not measure, should be far superior to the 2011 machine. Taking into account the Intel HD 5300 graphics and an improved SSD, the Retina MacBook will outperform the aforementioned 2011 MacBook Air even though the CPU speeds are similar.

Apple offers two additional processor upgrade options for the Retina MacBook, at 1.2GHz in the higher-end machine and at 1.3GHz as an optional build-to-order upgrade, both of which will see somewhat better performance results than the entry-level 1.1GHz processor.

The new Retina MacBook, which is Apple's thinnest and lightest notebook to date, will go on sale on April 10. Prices start at $1,299 for the 1.1GHz/8GB/256GB model and $1,599 for the 1.2GHz/8GB/512GB model.

Update 8:34 PM: The original Geekbench results have been deleted, but a Google cache is available.

(Thanks, David!)

Article Link: Early Benchmarks Put Retina MacBook CPU Performance in Range of 2011 MacBook Air


macrumors 6502a
Jun 17, 2003
Am I the only one left who wants CPU horsepower over battery life?


macrumors regular
Mar 18, 2012
Gamma Quadrant
Does anybody know how this compares to the iPad Air 2 benchmarks? I think it's more appropriate to think of this Macbook as an iPad "Pro".


macrumors 68020
Apr 24, 2013
New Orleans
I highly doubt I will be running solid works on this machine... I hope the 15" rMBP implements a lot of the new features from the nMB without sacrificing performance.


macrumors 603
Jun 5, 2012
iPad Air 2 has roughly the same score as this Macbook.

Is it a Joke? Not really, however, I genuinely believed that the Macbook was supposed to be the iPad Pro with docking station with keyboard.

Then this shows how powerful is Apple with designing chips right now...


Jan 15, 2003
That looks like reasonable performance for what the machine appears to be designed for.

It's never going to be the fastest - get a Pro if you need speed.

For most, this will be fine.


macrumors 65816
Sep 2, 2010
New York
More interestingly than it being comparable to a 2011 MacBook Air is that it actually ranks pretty much equally to an iPad Air 2, with the iPad even outperforming it in multi-core tests.



macrumors regular
Aug 19, 2014
For most, this will be fine.

If it was the same price as a Mac Mini, I'd agree with that- and I'd get one in a heartbeat. But in reality it's in the same price range as other machines that are far more capable (and expandable...)


macrumors regular
Mar 12, 2015
Good news is that not many people were worried about using this computer for high level tasks. Should still do fine with the audience this laptop was intended for. Still pretty crappy though.....


macrumors 6502a
Sep 14, 2011
That looks like reasonable performance for what the machine appears to be designed for.

It's never going to be the fastest - get a Pro if you need speed.

For most, this will be fine.

I think this is the thing that many find frustrating with Apple products, though. You have certain requirements that you have, but those are not available to you in any packages you desire, or even any packages that Apple has paid attention to recently.

Sure, the new macbook can't have the internals of a macbook pro. But why can't you build a thicker one of these that has the internals of the macbook pro? With all the ports and all the speed, while integrating all of the same advances that they are touting for this thing?

I spent a good part of a year trying to figure out which laptop I wanted almost a year ago.

Do I want super portable? 11 air. Do I want a nice screen? 13 pro. The internals of the pro are overkill for me, and it's much more expensive. So let's go 11 air, even though I would pay the extra to put a retina screen in it.

Why can't they have one design, with multiple thicknesses, for the varying options? If this (performance-wise) piece of crap can support a retina screen, why can't the MBA? I like the balance of relative power and a nice screen that could be achieved with a retina 11" or 13" air. But no, if I want the nice screen, I need to go heavier, or lighter. The air, for some reason, is right in the middle of two capable machines but is hamstrung by this, despite better performance than the new macbook.

Apple takes away the ability to customize the machines to the point that you are forced to give up things you would happily pay for in order to simplify the check-out experience. I'd rather have a better computer.
Last edited:


macrumors 6502a
Jun 18, 2013
Hmmm! Scores are better than my old 2.26 GHz Core 2Duo MacBook pro from mid '09. Sure it has a purpose for someones lifestyle.


macrumors 68000
Dec 24, 2007
It's not that it's not aimed at professionals, but obviously it's not aimed at professional video or photography app users as their main machine. As a secondary portable handy thing, though, it could be perfect...
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.