Is anyone else disappointed with the base clock speed of the new 13" MacBook Pros?

[CheesePuff]

Still no benchmarks

yes there is, on the front page of this site lol

https://www.macrumors.com/2019/07/11/base-2019-13-inch-macbook-pro-benchmarks/

 

[souko]

And there is more: https://www.mac4ever.com/actu/14494...-13-mi-2019-que-vaut-ce-nouveau-cpu-a-1-4-ghz
Personally I am curious about Cinebench R20 and Cinebench R20 repeated...

 

[sinksinksink]

From the Geekbench benchmarks they look about on par with the higher clocked models, at least as far as you'd notice. I guess the difference might come under sustained load, but they seem pretty decent.

 

[maflynn]

Base 2019 13-Inch MacBook Pro is Up to 83% Faster Than Previous Generation in Benchmarks

I'd say this consternation over clock rate is much ado about nothing

 

[redheeler]

It's the MacBook Air that is underpowered. The new Pros are fine, but Apple does need to stop shipping them with a puny 128 GB SSD and go to 256 GB as standard. SSD prices have come down and there is no longer any excuse for the 128 GB SSD.

 

[psingh01]

I thought it was curious. Going form 1.4 to 2.4. Thought it might have been a typo at first!

 

[leman]

I guess the difference might come under sustained load, but they seem pretty decent.

Exactly. Geekbench doesn’t measure sustained performance. Burst-wise, all these CPUs will be within 10% of each other anyway. In more sustained test I expect the new quad-core to be 30% faster than the old dual-core.

 

[souko]

According to the french site (https://www.mac4ever.com/actu/14494...-13-mi-2019-que-vaut-ce-nouveau-cpu-a-1-4-ghz) there is difference in Cinebench R15 626 pts (1.4GHz) vs 665 pts (2.4GHz) so it looks good...