Geekbench Results 2017 m3 i5 i7

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by Ynk, Jun 12, 2017.

  1. Ynk macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2013
    #1
  2. Eldar Gezalov macrumors newbie

    Eldar Gezalov

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Location:
    Planet Earth
    #2
    Thanks for sharing!
     
  3. Koudspeel macrumors regular

    Koudspeel

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2013
  4. maerz001 macrumors 6502a

    maerz001

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    #4
  5. bigjnyc macrumors 603

    bigjnyc

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    #5
    Glad I ordered the i7.... That's a pretty nice bump in performance.
     
  6. Zdodo macrumors newbie

    Zdodo

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2016
    #6

    Just wow! Been dreaming about a macbook because of its lightness for a while, but haven't been able to justify the purcase yet. With these results, as soon as it gets tb3, I'm bying an i7 Macbook :D

    Kind regards,
    Owner of base nTB
     
  7. psymac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #7
    These are only single data points, not averages, I would be careful to extrapolate from such limited data.
     
  8. Graham Perks macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #8
    Looking at the single-thread numbers, there's roughly a 5% jump between each model. Even going from m3 to i7 is only 10%, which is barely (if at all) noticeable. Save your money for something else.
     
  9. Appleaker macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2016
    #9
    As expected, the (at least multi-core) score is significantly higher with the i7 but smaller with the i5. Again, they should just go with the i5 for the baser model. Stop confusion while also giving users power. They can still charged for a higher clocked i5. And they're effectively the same price for Apple.
     
  10. amycishere macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    #10
    Ordered the i5 as my last MacBook was the MBP 2011 and I did not need the i7.
     
  11. C64 macrumors 65816

    C64

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2008
    #11
    Will you keep posting this in every.. single.. topic? :)
     
  12. bill-p macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    #12
    If it is hard to believe, that's because it's false.

    Guys, take Geekbench with a grain of healthy salt. It engages the Accelerate framework, which kicks the dedicated hardware accelerators (including the GPU) into taking over for the CPU for certain tasks.

    Kaby Lake does include a new video accelerator for both decoding and encoding, and as Geekbench seemingly makes use of this, scores will be inflated for those tests.
     
  13. Appleaker macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2016
    #13
    Yes because I feel so strongly about it. Just as strong as the branding is on the new Y-series i5 and i7 processors. Yet another reason why i5 should be in the base model! :p
     
  14. amycishere macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
  15. thunng8, Jun 13, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2017

    thunng8 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    #15
    This is false.
    - GPU Is not used
    - There are no video encoding or decoding benchmarks in geekbench.

    I personally believe there should be a video encoding benchmark that uses the ffmeg library - it would make a great CPU benchmark. Applications like handbrake and many others make us of this library.
     
  16. bill-p macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    #16
    So then Geekbench is flawed. Plain and simple. It seems to favor certain types of tasks over other more objective measurements.

    This has been shown before, too:
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/3006...he-ipad-pro-really-isnt-as-fast-a-laptop.html

    Again, what Geekbench shows does NOT correlate to real world performance.
     
  17. kiranmk2 macrumors 6502a

    kiranmk2

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    #17
    I'm not surprised the rMB CPUs are hitting high scores as the chips can turbo pretty far. What would be interesting to know is how long they can sustain these speeds. Most people will only need these speeds for short periods (opening/installing apps, editing photos etc) and these chips will be absolutely fine. For people interested in video encoding, there are still questions about performance over longer time periods.
     
  18. Mike Boreham macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #18
    For CPU intensive like multicore continuous Chess analysis it will run at just below the turboboost peak indefinitely as far as I can see. This thread has Intel Power Gadget screenshots after an hour at 350% CPU...it just seemed in a steady state mode. As pointed out in the thread tasks with more graphics load would change this.
     
  19. thunng8 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    #19
    And somehow you think tabletmark correlates?

    It is an obscure benchmark that no one mentions and the only CPU manufacturer that is a member of the group is Intel. AMD left the group because it believes Bapco is biased towards Intel. Apple, Qualcomm and Arm have not joined.
     
  20. bill-p macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    #20
    So anything that shows that the iPad is actually not as fast suddenly no longer "matters"?

    Way to debate, good sir.
     
  21. duervo, Jun 13, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2017

    duervo macrumors 68020

    duervo

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    #21
    Geekbench is valid for what it’s used to show. However, it’s still a rediculous benchmark to use to make a purchasing decision. A lot of people will base their choice on its results, without realizing that it’s a nonsense indicator of real world performance, as the MB will throttle due to temperature long before the MacBook Pro will (passive vs active cooling.) The geekbench tests do nothing to test long running workloads in that regard.

    Takeaway from this is if you’re only going to be a casual user, with small bursts of CPU activity, then the MB will be fine. This would include tasks like listening to music, watching videos, photo editing, web browsing, word processing, presentations, and emails. If you know you’re going to be using the CPU heavily for extended periods (ie: handbrake encoding as just one example,) then it’s most likely not the machine for you ...or at least the MBP would be much better option, and a desktop even better.
     
  22. Mike Boreham macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #22
    Did you have a look at post #18 above and the link in that?
    My M5 will run indefinitely at 350% CPU throttled back from the peak overboots 2.4 to 2.2.
    GPU seems to be what is more likely to cause throttle back, but I have only seen reports not hard data.
     
  23. duervo macrumors 68020

    duervo

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    #23
    Before we go any further, we should come to an understanding about terminology. When I state “CPU”, I am including the integrated GPU in that CPU term, as it’s all in the same package. This is also why I mentioned handbrake video encoding as one example where the MB would likely not hold its own against a MBP.
     
  24. Mike Boreham, Jun 13, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2017

    Mike Boreham macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #24
    Indeed terminology is important.

    I don't normally use Handbrake on my MB but just did a 47 minute encode. Looks like the CPU/GPU throttles back to about 1.8. This screenshot was near the end. Note the temperature is only 80 degC so not sure why it has throttled back. Throttle back from 2.4 to 1.8 after 45 minutes is not as drastic as often implied. It dropped fairly uniformly during this period.

    I am not claiming the MB is a fast machine (my quad core 15" did the same encode in 16 mins)....only that it doesn't throttle back as much as often implied. Certainly won't hold its own against an MBP, although it would be interesting to know how long a dual core 13"MBP would have taken for this same encode.

    Nor do I claim to understand as much about the subject as the experts here....just making simple user observations and measurements.

    Screen Shot 2017-06-14 at 07.20.18.png
     
  25. Yonge, Jun 15, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2017

    Yonge macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2017
    #25
    The following values are the median (I think it is a better reference than the average) of all the current data from Primate Labs' Geekbench Browser:

    Benchmark 4
    Single-Core Score Multi-Core Score​
    MacBook10,1 Intel Core m3-7Y32 1200 MHz (2 cores) 3655 6856.5
    MacBook10,1 Intel Core i5-7Y54 1300 MHz (2 cores) 3726 7239
    MacBook10,1 Intel Core i7-7Y75 1400 MHz (2 cores) 3776 7551

    Percentage difference between each CPU
    MacBook10,1 Intel Core m3-7Y32 1200 MHz (2 cores) 3655 6856.5
    MacBook10,1 Intel Core i5-7Y54 1300 MHz (2 cores) 3726 7239 +1.94% +5.58%
    MacBook10,1 Intel Core i7-7Y75 1400 MHz (2 cores) 3776 7551 +1.34% +4.31%

    Percentage difference between the less powerful (m3) and the most powerful (i7)
    MacBook10,1 Intel Core m3-7Y32 1200 MHz (2 cores) 3655 6856.5
    MacBook10,1 Intel Core i7-7Y75 1400 MHz (2 cores) 3776 7551 +3.31% +10.13%

    Benchmark 3 (I would not trust Benchmark 3 because there is not enough data at this time)
    MacBook10,1 Intel Core m3-7Y32 1200 MHz (2 cores) 2908.5 5807
    MacBook10,1 Intel Core m3-7Y32 1200 MHz (2 cores) 2918 6040
    MacBook10,1 Intel Core i7-7Y75 1400 MHz (2 cores) 3147 6781

    I am very surprised that there is only 3,31% difference in Single-Core and just 10,13% in Multi-Core between the m3 and i7. I have been buying i7 since 2011 but I wonder if is worth to buy an i7 over an m3 in this case, not just because of the price (I am willing to pay the difference) but because of the fan noise (is there actually a fan on the i5 and i7?) and battery life..
     

Share This Page