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

MacBook Pro 2016 Geekbench

Yoshimura said:
Off topic but how can we search results on GeekBench?

Searching for MacBook Pro (15-inch Late 2016) returns 0 result.
Click to expand...

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?q=MacBookPro13,3

their searchbar is rly, rly weird

you gotta put it like MacBookPro13,3 all as one word, and like, the number with comma instead of period and stuff, and like the version number not the year number, blablabla

looks like, going from 2.6 to 2.9, you only get about 200 point bump on single core and 1000 point bump on multicore
 
Last edited:
Looking at the geekbench scores in more details, there seems to be something wrong with the memory scores. Those should be substantially higher on the newer models, but they don't seem to? Not sure what's going on.
 
leman said:
Looking at the geekbench scores in more details, there seems to be something wrong with the memory scores. Those should be substantially higher on the newer models, but they don't seem to? Not sure what's going on.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, just because the RAM has more gigahertz doesn't mean it's going to be faster. There are a whole slew of factors that go into RAM performance. Based on the numbers, it appears the only major improvement in the memory subsystem is reduced latency, overall bandwidth actually appears to favor the old mac with DDR3.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/1047473?baseline=990489
 
Last edited:
Macalway said:
So there's really stagnation with cpu development. What if they can't break the 14nm barrier?

That's all folks? :D
Click to expand...

I've been saying this for months in the skylake thread people should prepared to be disappointed. I have an XPS 15 here with Skylake and it scores lower in geekbench than my late 2013 15" MacBook Pro - both single and multi core scores were lower in my tests in the Dell.

But the CPU is really unimportant. it's the graphics, SSD, etc. people be getting excited about.
 
monkeydax said:
Anyone who's got the new base 15" MBP could run a geek bench benchmark test too? I'm looking to see the performance of the base 2.6GHz. The ones on geekbench cannot be trusted yet hahaha.
Click to expand...

Yes please I would like to see this too for anyone that has one!
 
dumastudetto said:
I've been saying this for months in the skylake thread people should prepared to be disappointed. I have an XPS 15 here with Skylake and it scores lower in geekbench than my late 2013 15" MacBook Pro - both single and multi core scores were lower in my tests in the Dell.

But the CPU is really unimportant. it's the graphics, SSD, etc. people be getting excited about.
Click to expand...

I'm really glad I purchased a fully maxed out 2015 MBP 15 last week, based on the numbers I'm seeing it's only a matter of time before people wise up and realize the 2015 MBP is the better buy. I wouldn't be surprised if they run out of stock on the old MBP. My new computer arrives tomorrow! I don't render or game on my MBP, so the improved GPU compute performance is worthless to me. Furthermore, the 2015 MBP has a PCIe 3.0 x4 SSD, so I doubt you'll see much improvement on SSD performance.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: No. 44 and BarredOwl
Screen Shot 2016-11-14 at 8.13.45 PM.png
2015 2.5 15" w/r9 m370x.
View attachment 672335
 
This thread got me to cancel my 13" TB and re-ordered at 13" Non TB instead. It'll get here by around the end of this week, or early Next week instead of me having to wait until early December. The differences between the normal 13" and TB 13" is smaller than I thought it would be.
 
nbritton said:
Not necessarily, just because the RAM has more gigahertz doesn't mean it's going to be faster. There are a whole slew of factors that go into RAM performance. Based on the numbers, it appears the only major improvement in the memory subsystem is reduced latency, overall bandwidth actually appears to favor the old mac with DDR3.

https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/1047473?baseline=990489
Click to expand...

And that is exactly what is weird. The bandwidth should be significantly higher with the faster RAM. The old 1600 RAM has maximal theoretical dual-channel bandwidth of 25.6GB/s, which is more or less what we see in the benchmarks. The new 2133 RAM should have the max dual-channel bandwidth of around 34GB/s. But the benchmarks consistently show the same or lower figures than the old RAM. That is simply not right. Either Geekbench is misreporting the actual memory latency, or there might be something wrong with the MBP condifurations. We'd need someone to run some benchmarks from Windows.
 
markusberger said:
I was really excited about getting a new MBP and finally replacing my aging 2011 17in MBP, but all the reviews (especially Ars Technica) I've read in addition to the whole keyboard issue, mediocre battery life made me get a 11in MBA ... I'm really liking it.

Anyway, just thought I'd share my results:

View attachment 672377
MacBook Air 11in 2015: http://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/990402
MacBook Pro 17in 2011: http://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/990321
Hackintosh: http://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/990173
Click to expand...
the keyboard seems to be actually good, the battery life seems to be great, users here, from their 15" get up to 13-14h battery life
 
Still trying to decide between the 2,7 and 2,9 Ghz options for the 15" i'm about to order. The 460 is a no-brainer, when you look at the price difference for a 1TB model. I've compared the geek bench results from a different thread to the ones i get for my current mbp (15" 2010 with ntel Core i7-620M @ 2.66 GHz and GeForce GT 330M) and it looks as though i won't be disappointed :)

My CPU results being
Single-Core Score Multi-Core Score
2315 4477

are almost doubled for single-score (up 190%) and more than tripled in multi-core (up 307%) for the 2,9 Ghz model.

What really gets me excited is the difference in the top of the line discrete graphics you can get in 6 years.

With my geek bench dGPU results being
OpenCL Score
5500

which is way less than a THIRD of the score the integrated graphics can do :) its a change of +348% from my current dGPU to the iGPU in the 2016 model. Comparing it to the dGPU (460) gets really ridiculous. My current dGPU is more than ten times slower than this years model, which scores 57024 in OpenCL, an increase of 1040% :eek:

Still on the fence about the processor, but boy, i am not going to be disappointed :)
 
Is there a big difference between the 2,6 - 2,7 and 2,9 GHz CPUs and the 450, 455 and 460 GPU?
 
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