Think the price is deliberately high. When ARM Macs come along at a lower price, people will happily switch.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New 12-Inch Retina MacBook is Between 5% and 18% Faster Than 2015 Model
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There is a significant difference between the internal components in the rMBP and the rMB. Mostly stemming from the power and heat requirements of the faster, better cooled options in the larger devices.
the Retina MacBook comes pretty much with a CPU that is geared for the super, ultra mobile workloads. it's even lower heat and power requirements than the Ultra Low Voltage intel chips of the MacBook airs.
And because Apple is passively cooling the rMB's CPU, it also suffers from far more significant thermal throttling upon heavy loads than the rMBP's can sustained due to their larger cooling provisions
Intel's Core M3 (stock option) is a 4.5w TDP CPU
The base CPU in the rMBP is intels i5 - 3210M with a thermal TDP of 35w.
Significant difference in allowable power envelope.
Another Macbook article, seems like a slow news day.
Let me guess... you're more interested in the Apple Watch bands in all new colors???
Besides the fact in order to fit everything inside the rMB's case, they had to go with a fanless design which precludes installing more power-hungry heat producing processors like you'd find in the MBP line, which would quickly cook all the internal components as well as ignite the enclosed lithium ion battery, severely burning the user and potentially setting fire to anything nearby? Nope. None at all.
The benchmarks for the m7 model are just below the benchmarks for a 2015 Air core i7. Also, Skylake Core M throttles significantly less than the Broadwell Core M's did. As someone who did heavy work on the 2015 MacBook and never suffered any throttling or slowdown in performance, I have no doubt that these new 2016 MacBook's will be great computers. Maybe you should try one before outright assuming they're crap.
[doublepost=1461613917][/doublepost]
Yes, but not just because of the CPU speed increases. It'll be noticeable for numerous reasons such as significantly faster GPU and SSD speeds along with the fact that Skylake Core M chips throttle significantly less than Broadwell chips did. Hence, the new MacBook's will be able to sustain performance longer than last years MacBook would. In addition to that, the new chips can ramp up their clock speed significantly faster than last years could which means opening programs and executing tasks will be quicker.
[doublepost=1461614011][/doublepost]
Eh, while the price is still high the performance is actually very good for the m5 and m7 MacBooks. The m5 benchmarks higher than the Core i5 in the 2015 Air and the m7 benchmarks slightly below the Core i7 in the 2015 Air. Combine that with a 25-40% faster GPU and overall performance should be very good.
[doublepost=1461614159][/doublepost]
In those terms it sounds like less of an increase, but in terms of benchmarks these numbers put the Core m7 MacBook just below the Core i7 in the 2015 Air and the Core m5 MacBook above the Core i5 in the 2015 Air. Look at it this way and it's easier to see that the performance is pretty significantly increased and should overall be very good.
Last edited:
Folks may be laughing at the power of this Macbook. But I bet it would blow away my iMac 2011. Especially so in real world usage.
Not at all, I am a long time Apple Laptop user, not interested in an Apple watch at all.
It's just that MR had 3 Macbook stories in a row while they could have merged that all into 1 article.
As customers begin receiving the new 12-inch Retina MacBook, more benchmark results for the Early 2016 model have been uploaded to Geekbench.
Based on the results, the new Skylake-based 12-inch MacBook models are between 5% and 18% faster than the original Broadwell-based models depending on whether you purchase the low-end 1.1GHz, mid-tier 1.2GHz, or top-end built-to-order 1.3GHz model. Geekbench scores vary and were therefore averaged.
The low-end Skylake-based 1.1GHz Intel Core m3 configuration earned average 64-bit single-core and multi-core scores of 2,534 and 5,025 respectively, which is between 5% and 10% faster CPU performance than the equivalent Broadwell-based 1.1GHz 12-inch MacBook released in 2015.
Geekbench 3 results for low-end 1.1GHz model
Geekbench results for the mid-tier Skylake-based 1.2GHz Intel Core m5 configuration surfaced last week, with the model earning single-core and multi-core scores of 2,894 and 5,845 respectively, which is between 15% and 18% faster than the equivalent Broadwell-based 1.2GHz model from 2015.
Geekbench 3 results for built-to-order 1.3GHz model
Meanwhile, the top-end Skylake-based 1.3GHz Intel Core m7 built-to-order configuration earned average 64-bit single-core and multi-core scores of 3,023 and 6,430 respectively, which is between 9% and 17% faster than the equivalent Broadwell-based 1.3GHz model released in 2015.
The 12-inch MacBook is now widely available for $1,299 (1.1 GHz) or $1,599 (1.2GHz), while the 1.3GHz processor is an optional $150 to $250 upgrade. Early reviews find much improved SSD performance, but the lack of ports, a 480p FaceTime camera, and no DDR4 RAM are viewed as drawbacks by some customers.
Article Link: New 12-Inch Retina MacBook is Between 5% and 18% Faster Than 2015 Model
Just pulling a few figures from geekbench
So the 1.3ghz m7 12 inch MacBook on geek bench of 3001/6707 beats a 2015 13 inch MacBook Air i5 2609/5108; a 2015 13 inch MacBook Air i7 2830/6188 and a 2015 13 inch MacBook Pro i7 2852/6036. I know it's got just a dual core and crappy integrated graphic but for a second super portable machine it looks like a winner. Mines coming on Wednesday.
Well, you've hit the nail on the head. It's not really about pure performance, it's about price-to-performance. These numbers would be just fine in a cheaper notebook, but that m5 model comes in at $1600 (or the m7 at $1550 if you just upgrade the processor on the base model).
Also, still can't drive a 4K display at 60hz, which is crap for a $13-1600 notebook in 2016.
Last edited:
most overpriced and least useful apple product.
Where are you getting your numbers? The other Mac notebooks bench far better than that.
https://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
Just pulling numbers from geekbench
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?utf8=✓&q=MacBook+Air+2015
https://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?q=model:"MacBook Pro (13-inch Retina)" platform:"Mac" processor:"Intel Core i7-3520M" frequency:2900 bits:32
I've not used statistics or drawn any graphs just pulled a few average looking figures off
Your link gives very similar numbers.. Doesn't compare to a quad core but well / comparative against other dual cores
Can someone help me interpret these numbers?
This is how my current Macbook performs on Geekbench:
Single core score: 1560
Multicore score: 2866
So how much more powerfull is the new Macbook 12 inch? I see the numbers are higher. But what does it actually mean?
I am considering both this, the Macbook air 13inch, or waiting untill autumn for the new refreshed Macbook-whatever-line.
I am editing alot of video and photos, but I dont need the best of the best. But I do need something drastically more powerfull than my now eight year old Macbook. Cause if Im going to spend loads of cash on a new one, I want to spend it right.
This is how my current Macbook performs on Geekbench:
Single core score: 1560
Multicore score: 2866
So how much more powerfull is the new Macbook 12 inch? I see the numbers are higher. But what does it actually mean?
I am considering both this, the Macbook air 13inch, or waiting untill autumn for the new refreshed Macbook-whatever-line.
I am editing alot of video and photos, but I dont need the best of the best. But I do need something drastically more powerfull than my now eight year old Macbook. Cause if Im going to spend loads of cash on a new one, I want to spend it right.
I think people need to keep in mind the core m processor pricing is close to that of the core i5, hence the cost of computer, whether core m or i5 will be comparable. You are buying the core m because your priority is low weight, long lived portability and you are willing to make that compromise.
Um, the i7 MacBook Pro you're linking to is a 2012... And it's a 32 bit test.
The new m7 is a fine processor, and comparable to i7s from a few years ago, but the 2015 i7 13" MacBook Pro is more like 3400/7300, and the 2015 i7 airs are about 3200/6800.
But so what if it's going to be better in the future.
The issue is what's available now.
If I buy this Macbook it won't magically gain extra ports or whatever when a new genuinely improved version comes out.
While I agree the price is high it's worth noting that the people who are going for this aren't people who can expect Pro performance from a computer with this form factor. Prior to the MacBook if portability was more important than raw power, people would go for the Air. The MacBook is now as powerful as the higher end Air's, which are, in their own right, pretty powerful laptops.
I'm guessing a price drop is what we'll see next year along with maybe an additional USB-C port.
As for 4K @ 60Hz: that's a call Apple made. The new MacBook supports DisplayPort 1.2 which supports 4K @ 60Hz by using 4 USB lanes and thus leaving data transfer rates at around USB 2 speeds since the MacBook only Has USB 3.1 Gen 1 (5Gbps speeds). I'm guessing that Apple didn't want to leave people with slow transfer speeds while running a 4K display at 60Hz, so they opted for 4K @ 30Hz which only uses 2 USB lanes and thus leaves the other 2 for full 5Gbps speeds. With USB 3.1 Gen 2 this isn't an issue since speeds are doubled to 10Gbps which means that even if DisplayPort 1.2 was using all 4 lanes to run 4K @ 60Hz you'd still get USB 3.1 Gen 1 speeds of 5Gbps. Personally, I think it was a stupid call to make, but Apple does stupid things sometimes.
[doublepost=1461618624][/doublepost]
It seems he messed up his geekbench links, but from what I've seen the comparison was always with the 2015 i7 Air's, not the Pro's. In that case the m7 MacBook scores just below the i7 Air's.
If TB3 would have fit into this I would probably have bought one by now.....now waiting to see what new pros offer first....
What MacBook do you currently use? You'd see significant performance improvements from nearly any Mac and we're at the point where performance from all of the current Mac's are great, so you really can't go wrong. However, I wouldn't recommend the MacBook Air. They're getting more and more outdated and their displays look like crap next to displays on the retina MacBook Pro's or new MacBook's.
If you're gonna get a Mac that you want to last as long as possible and can wait a month and a half, wait for the new rMBP's. They're due to be updated at WWDC in June with a major redesign, so if I were you I'd wait and get one of those. Don't expect any new Mac's this fall, there's no rumors indicating anything will be coming out then, but if they do it'd likely just be iMac's.
[doublepost=1461618976][/doublepost]
Yeah, sucks that it requires a whole separate chip and controller or else it likely would've been added, but it'll definitely be added next year with Kaby Lake. I'm betting the new rMBP's will have it, though.
I get that, but it was a bad call, and the result to the user is the same.
Quite so. I'm not criticizing the m7; as I said, it's a fine processor. But he had it as substantially faster than not just the air but the pro, which it assuredly is not.
Oh yeah, I agreed with you in my previous. It was an absolutely stupid call.
Correct. It's easy to mix up numbers though if you look quickly. I made that same mistake just a few days ago.
In what sense? Spec out an Air to the same level and your only $100 off.
[doublepost=1461619762][/doublepost]
Proper tool for the job, dude. Get a Pro.
Agreed, but you can go back further to the original iMac without a floppy drive. People were up in arms. Same when Apple began to drop optical drives.
I have a MBA I use for writing, and the only ports I use are the 3.5mm audio (because I have yet to find a set of headphones that noise cancel and produce sound equally well...) and the power to charge. It may not be for everyone, but the MB (with its screen) would be perfect for me.