macbook 2017 i5 vs i7 benchmarks

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by benoitc, Jul 3, 2017.

  1. benoitc macrumors newbie

    benoitc

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    #1
    are there any benchmarks/tests available for these specs? I can only find it for m3 vs i5 at the moment.
     
  2. EugW macrumors 68000

    EugW

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2017
    #2
    Geekbench, if you care about that one.

    i7: Expect about 4450 / 8400
    i5: Expect about 4000 / 7400
    m3: Expect about 3800 / 7000

    IOW, the jump from m3 to i5 isn't very big, but the jump from i5 to i7 is somewhat bigger. Only problem is theoretically, the i7 might throttle faster, esp. when compared to the m3.

    I bought the m3, BTW.
     
  3. wishxmaster macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2017
    Location:
    Turkey
    #3

    what about when compare with m5 2016? big difference?
    Thanks
     
  4. tley, Jul 4, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2017
  5. EugW, Jul 4, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2017

    EugW macrumors 68000

    EugW

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2017
    #5
    More realistically 3400 / 6400 for 2016 m5 on a good day, but that still means that 2017 m3 is noticeably faster than 2016 m5.

    2017 m3 can hit over 7000 multi-core.

    One factor not looked at by benches:
    2017 all models: Perfect 10-bit 4K HEVC playback
    2016 all models: Unusable for high bitrate 10-bit 4K HEVC
     
  6. wishxmaster macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2017
    Location:
    Turkey
  7. benoitc thread starter macrumors newbie

    benoitc

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    #7
    Thanks for the bench. Is this problem documented somewhere? It was an issue on 2015 versions with the upper cpu, but has it been noticed since?
     
  8. EugW macrumors 68000

    EugW

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2017
    #8
  9. Scorcher macrumors newbie

    Scorcher

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2017
    #9
    Why did you buy the m3?
     
  10. EugW, Jul 4, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 12, 2017

    EugW macrumors 68000

    EugW

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2017
    #10
    I only need 256 GB, so I put the extra money towards more RAM. I went with the 256 GB SSD / 16 GB RAM combo.

    Also, the m3-7Y32 is very similar in performance specs now compared to the i5-7Y54. The former in a MacBook is 1.2 GHz with Turbo Boost to 3.0 GHz. The latter in a MacBook is 1.3 GHz with Turbo Boost to 3.2 GHz.

    The real boost in power on paper was the i7, but it was considerably more expensive, and I didn't need the 512 GB SSD. Furthermore, I was a little concerned we'd see a repeat of the i7 throttling issues, to which the m3 would likely be less susceptible.

    If Apple had used the m3-7Y30 with the new MacBooks though, I would have gotten the i5 for sure. The m3-7Y30 is Turbo Boost up to 2.6 GHz.
     
  11. benoitc thread starter macrumors newbie

    benoitc

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    #11
  12. EugW macrumors 68000

    EugW

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2017
    #12
    I want to see some comparisons of the i5 and i7 (and m3) for sustained loads. If the i7 throttles down too much again in 2017 then it's pointless. But if they've somehow fixed that, or if the 2016 test was just an anomaly, then it would be a decent upgrade over the m3/i5.

    And the i5 upgrade over the m3 upgrade is only marginal in terms of CPU speed. IMO, the main reason to get the i5 is to get the 512 GB SSD.

    ===

    BTW, the other thing is the i7 has the fastest GPU Turbo speed.

    m3: 300 MHz and 900 MHz Turbo
    i5: 300 MHz and 950 MHz Turbo
    i7: 300 MHz and 1050 MHz Turbo

    I have no idea what that means in real world terms though.
     
  13. effineji, Jul 4, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2017

    effineji macrumors newbie

    effineji

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2017
    Location:
    Germany
    #13

    Not sure if it's helpful but I just opened 30 tabs of macrumors forums in chrome on my 2017 i7 16GB RAM and it slowed down to a crawl for about 5 minutes before all the tabs crashed (but stayed). During the whole time though, CPU was only 30-50%, RAM was about 7GB, and all other apps including expose worked fast and smooth. Not sure if this is the cpu not capable of pulling Chrome through these tabs or just a problem with chrome.
     
  14. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #14
    Last year the m5 was the sweet spot since Intel crippled the Turbo Boost on m3 chip relative to the m5. This year they brought the m3 back up to speed.
     
  15. Esquire1 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2010
    #15
    If you're getting a 2017 model, the M3 is for sure the sweet spot. That's a good thing.
     
  16. benoitc thread starter macrumors newbie

    benoitc

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    #16
    I ordered the i7 but now I'm not sure :) tempted to cancel it for just the m3 + 16 go (though there may be a reason for the i5 vs m3 since the m3 is over clocked...
     
  17. EugW macrumors 68000

    EugW

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2017
    #17
    All of them have have the CPU base speed increased by 100 MHz. However, that isn’t “overclocked”. That’s acceptable if the voltage/power specs are met. Intel allows adjustment like that.
     
  18. benoitc thread starter macrumors newbie

    benoitc

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    #18
    oh... you're right :) thanks for the info.

    So wondering how much the extra perf of the i5 could play. Maybe it's better for the long term usage?
     
  19. gim macrumors 6502

    gim

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2014
    #19
    Chrome for macOS is garbage. I cringe every time I see someone using this crappy software on their brand new MacBook. Better buy a Chromebook if you desperately need to use this disgrace of a browser.
     
  20. effineji macrumors newbie

    effineji

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2017
    Location:
    Germany
    #20
    Safari is definitely faster, but the integration with other machines is pretty sweet, and nothing beats the automatic translation, unless you can tell me a better solution/plug-in.
     
  21. Alien1969 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2017
    #21
    I just got a 2017 i5 with 512SSD and 8GB Ram....
    Geekbench 4 - CPU: Single-Core 3927 / Mulit-Core 7507
    Geekbench 4 - Compute OpenCL: 17452
    Blackmagic Disk: Read 1330 / Write 1245
    Cinebench: OpenGL Test: 26.52 fps / CPU: 260 cb
    Unigine Heaven: Basic: FPS: 17.6 / Score: 444 / MinFPS 6.8 / MaxFPS 29.2
    Unigine Heaven: Custom Medium Quality, 1440x900: FPS: 12.5 / Score: 315 / MinFPS 5.8 / MaxFPS 20.4
     
  22. steve60549 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2014
    #22
  23. wishxmaster macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2017
    Location:
    Turkey
    #23

    ı dont understand anything with numbers :/ is it good or not that scores
     
  24. Alien1969 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2017
    #24
    don't have a test for that
    --- Post Merged, Jul 13, 2017 ---
    In my opinion it is very good for such a portable device... of course my MacBook Pro 15 i7 late 2013 is faster, but for Mail, Safari, MS Office, Omnifocus, Devonthink pro office (my main programs for working throughout the day) there is no real difference other than of course screen size..... For me it is my everywhere computer... I like having MacOs instead of iOS. I tried a iPad with external Keyboard for 3 month but its not for my computing habits...
    Will try how good the macbook handles Logic Pro X for mobile guitar recording with a USB Audio Interface on the weekend. Normally use my MacBook Pro for that...
    It's great for listening to music too. The built in speaker do very well for such a small form factor. I don't have any issues with the keyboard....
     

Share This Page