New MacBook - performance?

[corder]

hey,

I know nobody has had a chance to properly test/benchmark the new 1.3ghz MacBook, but based on the specs - would it be able to run Photoshop etc smoothly? I've seen some Geekbench results that supposedly place it on-par with a 2012 Retina MacBook Pro 13" (my current machine) - so am tempted to get it.

Though I'm studying Graphic Design next year, so not sure how advisable this is.

See:https://twitter.com/johnkeller101/status/586199737839194113 & http://cl.ly/abch/MacBook GeekBench.png

Any thoughts?
c

 

[Atimix]

I'm a graphic design student graduating now and I ordered the 1.3 Ghz model. The MacBook would more than run illustrator and the Adobe suite without any performance issues with those benchmarks.

 

[mutsaers-vr.nl]

which benchmarks !!!!!

I'm a graphic design student graduating now and I ordered the 1.3 Ghz model. The MacBook would more than run illustrator and the Adobe suite without any performance issues with those benchmarks.

 

[garyleecn]

i'd say if you are a graphic designer or heavy graphics user, be careful with it. pros are always safer choice.

 

[s54]

i'd say if you are a graphic designer or heavy graphics user, be careful with it. pros are always safer choice.

They're also twice the size and triple the weight.

Apples and oranges.

 

[garyleecn]

They're also twice the size and triple the weight.

Apples and oranges.

well, under certain technology level, you can't get performance and light weight both. you gotta do some trade offs

 

[Atimix]

which benchmarks !!!!!

2013 MacBook Pro
Intel 2.4 Ghz (2.6 Turbo) Intel i5 4258U
2628
5362

2015 MacBook
Intel 1.1 Ghz (2.6 Turbo) Intel Core M 5Y31
2367
4489


2015 MacBook
Intel 1.3 Ghz Intel Core M 5Y71
2831
5567

The top is my old MacBook Pro, and it's benchmarks on a 64-bit single and multicore respectively. The 2015 MacBook 1.1 Ghz was taken from a reviewers Geekbench 3 scores. For now disregard the third benchmark. If you compare the two CPUs, they both maintain a 2.6 turbo boost, and even though the multi core scores are a bit apart the single core scores are quite close, and this is the 1.1 Ghz Core M. If you want to talk GPU they're also similar in MHz base and turbo speeds.

Now the third scores are from the recent post on Twitter, and before you make a jump on its possible inaccuracies I'd like to argue they're at least not far off. If you compare Benchmark scores of the Core M 5Y31 (the Apple base model CPU) compared to the Core M 5Y71 (the Apple BTO CPU), you see around a 17% increase in single core, and 18% increase in multicore performance. While there is also higher GPU speeds as well. Taken with the fact this is still speculative, and we don't have any confirmed benchmarks, it should put the 1.3 Core M Model near my listed MacBook Pro (note that the controversial specs are actually above it).

My only point is that saying this machine is incapable of being an actual viable computer is just people repeating the things they want to hear, more than it makes sense to my understanding of the mathematics.

 

[corder]

The top is my old MacBook Pro, and it's benchmarks on a 64-bit single and multicore respectively...

Will you be using your new MacBook as your primary computer? Was tempted to pick up a refurb iMac, but not sure if it's worth the cost if this is decent in terms of performance.

 

[Atimix]

Will you be using your new MacBook as your primary computer? Was tempted to pick up a refurb iMac, but not sure if it's worth the cost if this is decent in terms of performance.

Yes it will be my only computer, and I'll be running adobe illustrator on it regularly, and I don't think that is unrealistic.