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.
Geekbench 64-bit for 1.1 and 1.2
- Thread starter Aphid Acer
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nicely done! Seems there is not much gain in single core and roughly 10% in multicore between the two.
So the higher the core M processor goes, the lower it's single core result becomes? Multi core isn't too bad, nearly on par with 2013 MacBook Air's!
wish they offered an 1.1ghz +512GB option for cheaper because I would totally jumped on that.
Don't care about 1.2Ghz, but I do need the extra storage.
Theres a published single core thread for the 1.3 GHz. It's between 2800 - 2900 which is what I get out of my Surface Pro 3 since both Turbo to 2.9 GHz. Multicore is slightly less than the SP3 @ 5400 - 5500 against my SP3's 5636.
In conclusion, Core M 5Y71@ 1.3 GHz = Core i5-4300U @ 1.9 GHz
----------
I dont know why 1.2 GHz throttles too much while the 1.3 GHz is much much better
I don't believe the 1.3MHz result. I need to see more data
Doubting Thomas.
(I'd prefer a 1.1GHz / 512G SSD)
Last edited:
Thanks for this. Are these raw processor values or are they taking into account any throttling that'll be occurring? Either way, this is pretty encouraging (for me, at least!)
Don't forget, when the SP3 i5 turbo's up and the cores are loaded, the fan ramps up with some audible noise.
At least mine does.
Core M - not so much. However, sustained workloads I'd still like to see tested.
But it will throttle to slower than 1.3GHz if the temperature is too hot. I think there are going to be a lot of disappointed people who buy the 1.3GHz model. I hope I'm wrong.
This just shows the age of my 2010 MBP... The geek bench scores for a high end i7 is the same as this core M (my SSD has to help a little though).
CPU ignoramus here...
I get that his chart shows the 1.1 to be potentially snappier at single-core operations than the 1.2, and shows the 1.2 outperforming the 1.1 in multi core.
My question is - how often do OSX and/or typical, modern apps and programs actually run in single core mode? My assumption has been that nearly all programs now utilize multi-core threading, and so practically speaking, the multi-core score is really the relevant bit.
Am I wrong? Are there significant portions of time when things are running on a single core? Or are single core operations pretty minimal, with most computations being threaded between the two cores for maximized efficiency?
(Of course, the real question here is whether or not those single-core values really matter in real-world usage.... so what if he 1.1 is slightly faster in single-core testing, if most everything is happening multi-core anyway?)
I get that his chart shows the 1.1 to be potentially snappier at single-core operations than the 1.2, and shows the 1.2 outperforming the 1.1 in multi core.
My question is - how often do OSX and/or typical, modern apps and programs actually run in single core mode? My assumption has been that nearly all programs now utilize multi-core threading, and so practically speaking, the multi-core score is really the relevant bit.
Am I wrong? Are there significant portions of time when things are running on a single core? Or are single core operations pretty minimal, with most computations being threaded between the two cores for maximized efficiency?
(Of course, the real question here is whether or not those single-core values really matter in real-world usage.... so what if he 1.1 is slightly faster in single-core testing, if most everything is happening multi-core anyway?)
Yepp, you are wrong (or better put - not entirely correct). The everyday computing is still very asymmetrical, meaning that most of the important critical work is done by a single thread. For example, the entire UI (event processing, drawing etc.) happens on a single application thread. Browsers are essentially single-threaded etc. It is true of course that most modern application offload processing to background threads, but that is usually work that has lower priority. In order to have responsive, fluent applications, you want to maximise single thread performance.
Of course, there are applications that benefit from multiprocessing especially well. But these are usually applications that perform heavy-duty computations which can be easily split in multiple symmetric chunks such as compression, video encoding, image processing etc. However, Core M is certainly not designed for such workflows.
To sum it up, you need to consider whether the work performed by the application can be easily split in multiple chunks of same status (priority, amount of work etc.). If yes, then you will benefit from multi-core performance more. If no, you want to allocate most of the resources to the main thread.
They do not really matter, but for a different reason
Geekbench is a synthetic benchmark and should be taken very likely in this context. First of all, it measures sustained performance (which is irrelevant for average everyday tasks). Second, it only measures certain aspects of performance. This is akin to judging worth of a family car by how fast it can carry a ton of bricks up a very steep hill at full throttle. Most real world application operate very differently you have a very long cycles of waiting for user input, were literally nothing happens. Then the application has to 'burst'-process that input as quickly as possible and update its UI/data etc. to maintain the illusion of fluid interaction. These bursts are usually very short, we are speaking milliseconds here. Geekbench does not measure things like that. It also does not seem to benchmark other things that are vital for everyday applications such as indirect branches, branch prediction, cache behaviour etc. All in all, Geekbench is a reasonable measure if you want to judge how well the CPU will perform in a long-lasting computationally intensive task. For 'casual' (=home/office) usage though, you are probably better of looking at real-world browser tests and similar.
Good post Leman.
And I absolutely agree - Assume that practically all software you will run on that machine is not optimized for multiple threads. Also, we need real world results to see how good the machines actually are, especially in the light of the Anandtech article that showed major differences solely based on the ability to dissapate heat with different notebook architectures. Hopefully the aluminium chassis of the rMB will prove to be excellent at that.
And I absolutely agree - Assume that practically all software you will run on that machine is not optimized for multiple threads. Also, we need real world results to see how good the machines actually are, especially in the light of the Anandtech article that showed major differences solely based on the ability to dissapate heat with different notebook architectures. Hopefully the aluminium chassis of the rMB will prove to be excellent at that.
So am I correct in thinking for general typing of documents and web surfing the 1.1GHz is generally a better buy unless the larger hard drive is necessary?
I think, like many, this can be used to supplement (not replace) a desktop or larger/more power full laptop. Therefore for typing documents (such as my lovely dissertation ) the 1.1GHz is plenty! As long as people know what to expect then there should be minimal disappointment!
I think, like many, this can be used to supplement (not replace) a desktop or larger/more power full laptop. Therefore for typing documents (such as my lovely dissertation
) the 1.1GHz is plenty! As long as people know what to expect then there should be minimal disappointment!
True but if I was using a laptop from 2005 my street cred would be near 0 haha
I was just saying that for what many people want, does 0.1 or even 0.2GHz make a massive difference?
As I said, a 10 year old laptop would suffice. The MBr could have had a 500 Mhz chip, and it would still suffice.
Fully understand!! Just quickly, how will the CPU affect occasional streaming and movie playback? Just in case I am travelling and want to watch a movie off the hard drive or something
I read in another thread that a guy tried loading and playing somewhere around 10 Youtube videos at the same time and it didn't lag, so movie playback and streaming should be just fine.