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

Just got 2.3 GHz 15 rmbp Haswell

I picked one up today, and it seems to have more battery life then advertised. I usually see it estimate about 7-8 hours on my old retina 15", this new 15" retina is estimating 10 hours right now.
 
ppone said:
Starting off with GeekBench 3.

2.3 Ghz Haswell rMBP =>

Single-Core = 3077
Multi-Core = 11566

2.3 Ghz Ivy Bridge rMBP

Single-Core = 2824
Multi-Core = 10707


Haswell is (1 - 2824/3077) * 100 => 8.22 % faster single core
and
Haswell (1 - 10707/11566) * 100 => 7.43 % faster multi-core

So basically your new shiny 2.3 Ghz Haswell rMBP is less than 9% faster cpu wise than the 1+ year old 2.3 Ghz Ivy Bridge base rMBP.
Click to expand...

Underwhelming update in terms of CPU performance.

Remember, the 2.3Ghz Haswell/CrystallWell is replacing the 2.7Ghz Ivy Bridge in terms of price point.

In that case, there is no performance improvement at all.
 
prestong said:
I picked one up today, and it seems to have more battery life then advertised. I usually see it estimate about 7-8 hours on my old retina 15", this new 15" retina is estimating 10 hours right now.
Click to expand...

your rmbp is base or high end??
 
Thanks so much for this. Too bad they went with 750M, I'm curious if 2GB of video RAM will make some bigger differences in games. Other than that, it's really a minor spec bump, but at least it's a bump. Really the best thing is that 512GB SSD is now standard, and that iGPU doesn't suck anymore, which again is not much of an issue with Mavericks anyway. I might upgrade only if I get some crazy good deal selling the current model.
 
thunng8 said:
Underwhelming update in terms of CPU performance.

Remember, the 2.3Ghz Haswell/CrystallWell is replacing the 2.7Ghz Ivy Bridge in terms of price point.

In that case, there is no performance improvement at all.
Click to expand...

Don't underestimate the "power" of a $200 price drop. ;)
 
prestong said:
I picked one up today, and it seems to have more battery life then advertised. I usually see it estimate about 7-8 hours on my old retina 15", this new 15" retina is estimating 10 hours right now.
Click to expand...

Interesting. What kind of workload are you running when seeing this kind of battery life? I've been seeing numbers that would put my system at around 5-7 hours of life while running my current "new system" workload. Definitely heavier than just a couple of safari tabs. Sometimes very heavy with Lightroom and virtualization work. Still, even at it's lightest I can't see 8 hours.

coconutBattery tells me:
Capacity: 8778
Power Usage is running around 14-16w with what I would think is a light workload
 
Thanks for helping us!

1) Is the screen.... yellowish? Compared to your Ivy Bridge?
2) Is the system quieter at all?
 
Last edited:
Huge PROPS to OP to taking the time to run these benchmarks! Was not required to do this but this is great information for those who are either wanting to upgrade from last year and/or trying to figure out if they want to hop onto the new ones or last years models.
 
Wonder what the 64 bit specs are. You guys are looking at it from last years model. For me coming from 2010 its a huge jump. If it was huge jumps every year it would piss a lot of people off. You can't be buying a 3k laptop every year. They are supposed to last at least 3 years. You see the big jumps then.
 
should i go for base early 2013 model or base late 2013 15 inch?

i live in tokyo so price difference is only around 150 euros( refurb vs new+ student discount)

i like the new ssd and all the other small improvements , extra battery is a bonus

do you think there will be a noticeble difference between 2.4 ivy + 650m vs 2.0 haswell + iris pro?

i will use the notebook mainly for photo editing, pretty much no games will be played. importing exporting files is crucial so 2x faster ssd is great, just hope the cpu igpu wont be kinda slow

which model should i go for?
 
with mavericks macbook airs get almost 3 more hours with mavericks than the official statement. How is your MBP with mavericks ? it last only 8 hours or a bit more?
 
changhyun said:
your rmbp is base or high end??
Click to expand...

Both were the high end 16GB/512GB models. Basically web browsing, chatting on Skype pretty heavily, unix work in the terminals accessing my servers, that kind of stuff. Right now its at 77% with 6.5hours remaining, but I have been doing a lot of installing applications, etc..

----------
theKitch said:
Interesting. What kind of workload are you running when seeing this kind of battery life? I've been seeing numbers that would put my system at around 5-7 hours of life while running my current "new system" workload. Definitely heavier than just a couple of safari tabs. Sometimes very heavy with Lightroom and virtualization work. Still, even at it's lightest I can't see 8 hours.

coconutBattery tells me:
Capacity: 8778
Power Usage is running around 14-16w with what I would think is a light workload
Click to expand...

See my other reply, but I am sure anything like lightroom that uses the 750m card is going to suck down the battery life. I pretty much wouldn't care if I even had the higher end video card, since I play games on my windows pc. I use my notebooks mostly for communication with all my clients/workers, programming heavily, administration, and a lot of web browsing.


My MBA on the other hand is seeing INSANE battery life now, i easily gained another 2 hours with maverick doing the same stuff.
 
Anyone know of a good program to simulate web browsing? I'd like to bench mark my 11" MBA, 13" MBA, and two retina MBP and see how the battery lives compare.
 
Some buyers advice.
If you game and don't want to spend 2600$ get the early 2013 refurbished for 1600$. Thats a 1000$ price difference. For this kind of money you can get a gaming PC. The performance difference between 650M and 750M are minor because the 750M is just a rebranded 650M with higher clocks (Same Chip only 1Gb extra Vram which you won't notice). In windows you can easily overclock your 650M near or over the 750M lvl. If you consider buying the new one base 1999$ you will loose massive gaming performance because the Iris Pro really sucks in gaming and you can't overclock it !!
 
ppone said:
Going to review this when I get home ASAP.

I will be posting.

I will be comparing

Late 2013 2.3 Ghz 15 rMBP Haswell (Crystal Well), 16 GB, Intel HD 5200, Nvidia 750M

with

Late 2012 2.3 Ghz 15 rMBP Ivy Bridge, 8GB, Intel HD 4000, Nvidia 650 M
Click to expand...

The million dollar question here is sir that whether ur new rmbp is a lg screen or samsung or whateva. Because this matters the most as the last gen rmbp was plagued with ghosting and burn-ins
 
nill1234 said:
Some buyers advice.
If you game and don't want to spend 2600$ get the early 2013 refurbished for 1600$. Thats a 1000$ price difference. For this kind of money you can get a gaming PC. The performance difference between 650M and 750M are minor because the 750M is just a rebranded 650M with higher clocks (Same Chip only 1Gb extra Vram which you won't notice). In windows you can easily overclock your 650M near or over the 750M lvl. If you consider buying the new one base 1999$ you will loose massive gaming performance because the Iris Pro really sucks in gaming and you can't overclock it !!
Click to expand...

That the "Iris Pro really sucks in gaming" is a bit of an exaggerated statement. What "sucks" for you, can be not so good, reasonable, great or even fantastic for others. That's always the problem with these kind of things, everybody has a different perspective on things.

It depends on what games you play, what kind of settings you expect. If you expect to play the most demanding games on max settings at FHD resolution, you might think the Iris Pro sucks. If you want to play not so demanding games at maybe a slightly lower resolution with medium settings, you might think the Iris Pro is just fine.
 
Gaming with Iris pro
1) Drivers are bad nvidia cooperates with most of the publishers to increase the driver performance.
2) no real dedicated RAM 1gb shared DDR3 + 128mb shared edram against GDDR 5 RAM in the nvidia
3) lower overall chip performance
4) you can't overclock it. I can squeez +15-20% performance Out of my 650m
5) low bandwith between GPU and crystalwell

Overall the Iris pro is in most games 30% slower. Only in Metro its just 5% slower. But if you bump the resolution the Iris pro gets more and more lost. Overall the Iris pro is no bad graphicscard but its always slower than the 650m

Check this review out:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/7
 
Look at the result and we can see easily the difference in performance between rMBP late 2012 (mc975, i think) and rMBP late 2013. In general, the most difference still be the speed of reading/writing, all remains may be not much. But i wonder how the performance comparison between rMBP late 2013 & rMBP early 2013 with the same memory (me665 16gb memory, 2.7ghz, 650m etc..). I think the difference will be less ..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back