GeekBench Scores for the Haswell 15 rmpb (2.3 and 2.6) out

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by ppone, Oct 23, 2013.

  1. ppone macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    #1
  2. moep macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    #2
    Those benchmarks seem somewhat disappointing.

    Geekbench isn’t the end it all of all benchmarks, but looking at last year’s Intel Core i7-3840QM versus the new i7-4960HQ, I’m seeing a measly 6.5% improvement overall. And that’s without any power savings whatsoever.

    I’m tempted to cancel the order and wait for broadwell, but who knows how the graphics performance will turn out if they decide to axe dGPUs for the high end models. :rolleyes:
     
  3. ppone thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    #3
    Mavericks will improve the UI performance not necessarily graphics performance.

    I doubt Haswell rmbp will have a marked graphics increase. If it did wouldn't Apple compare it to the 650m on their website.

    Whenever something is at least 50% faster they put as a selling point.

     
  4. auero macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    #4
    I've been researching this all morning. I compared the processors earlier and found them to be very similar. Shockingly enough, the GPU's are almost identical. The 750M scores about .1 better in each test when compared to the 650M.

    I might just pick up a first gen and save some money. I'm curious to see how much faster the SSD's are.
     
  5. iPersian macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Location:
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    #5
    do you have links to these tests? would like to see before i decide.
     
  6. auero macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    #6
    Sure.

    This is for the GPU. In terms of performance they seem similar.
    http://gpuboss.com/gpus/GeForce-GT-750M-vs-GeForce-GT-650M

    The processor scores can be compared to those of the geekbench scores.
    http://browser.primatelabs.com/geek..."Intel Core i7-3840QM" frequency:2800 bits:32

    Not sure if you were looking at this particular processor but this is what I found for my own personal research on the models I'm interested in.

    http://www.cpu-world.com/Compare/32..._(BGA)_vs_Intel_Core_i7_Mobile_i7-4850HQ.html

    http://versus.com/en/intel-core-i7-3840qm-vs-intel-core-i7-4850hq
     
  7. iPersian macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    Location:
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    #7
    thank you very much.

    ----------

    would love to see cinebench tests of these machines/GPUs.
     
  8. auero macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    #8
  9. justin216 macrumors 6502

    justin216

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #9
    The problem with those benchmarks is they are mostly using the GDDR3 650M and 750M -- Apple uses the GDDR5 variants, and also clocks them a little higher. The performance delta could be similar, but actual performance numbers should be a little bit higher on both.
     
  10. dusk007 macrumors 68040

    dusk007

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2009
    #10
    Actually all of those tested 750Ms are DDR3. It is this old annoying we don't mention the memory idea. I wish Nvidia/AMD would finally use different names for DDR3 and GDDR5 versions.
    Up till now all higher end more gaming focused notebook that have been released, went straight for 760M or 765M. These are all GDDR5. Thin high end allrounders like the Asus UX51VZ or the Samsung Ativ Book 8 still haven't been updated and these are the most likely to get 750M with GDDR5 unless they go directly for a 760M or some AMD chip.
    Currently aside from the MBP all the 750M notebooks are fairly price conscious multimedia allrounders that try to capitalise on the 750M name and do not bother with significantly more expensive GDDR5 memory when DDR3 comes almost for free these days. With DDR3 1800 the 750M still seems to do okay but it really cannot be compared to a 750M that would come with GDDR5.
    It isn't GDDR3 it is just DDR3. GDDR3 is something else.

    Notebookcheck lists all the notebooks the tests come from and also different results side by side if there is a significant margin. They first need to test a GDDR5 750M before they can really compare them.
     
  11. foxkoneko macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2011
    #11
    Would that bump to 2.6 be a significant difference for video editing? :)
     
  12. zI INFINITY Iz macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2013
    #12
    http://www.game-debate.com/gpu/inde...geforce-gt-750m-2gb-gddr5-vs-geforce-gtx-660m

    The 750M 2GB GDDR5 is slightly better then the 660M. It's also less draining on the battery.

    Seems like the 750M in the Haswell rMBP is quite good, right? I'm really trying to get a Good view of Iris Pro, the 750M, how good they both are and if the 750M model is worth the huge price over the Iris Pro only model.
     
  13. ppone, Oct 23, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2013

    ppone thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    #13
    If 750m gpu is so good why didn't apple mention on their website.

    For the haswell iMac they did mention the nvidia was faster.
     
  14. Xerotech macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2011
    #14
    Sata rMBPs 450-500 read/write, Haswell PCI 800 read/write.
     
  15. Yahooligan macrumors 6502a

    Yahooligan

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2011
    Location:
    Illinois
    #15

Share This Page