Received 1.3/512 SG Today - GeekBench Results

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by southerndoc, Apr 24, 2015.

  1. southerndoc, Apr 24, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2015

    southerndoc macrumors 65816

    southerndoc

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Location:
    USA
    #1
    I received my 1.3 BTO today, way ahead of expected date.

    The previously posted GeekBench results were accurate. For some reason it shows 1.2/1.3 GHz for the CPU.

    See attached pics.


    EDIT: See the second Geekbench score (after things had been on for a while). I think background processes -- maybe indexing -- causing the initial low score. Sorry to make everyone cautious about the 1.3. It's a great machine!
     

    Attached Files:

  2. bcaslis macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    #2
    Cool. My 1.2 shows 1.1 and 1.2 so this is normal. I just ran Geekbench 3 64-bit mode and got 2595 / 5355 on the 1.2.
     
  3. SBruv macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    #3
    That's lower than the 1.2, no? :-/
     
  4. legioxi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2013
    #4
  5. meboy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2012
    #5
    That's pathetic. Not worth the price at all for any of these mghz bumps (as is usually the case).
    I was really hoping for more. This more than any previous mac laptop really could have used it.

    The image in the link below got me excited for a minute. Not anymore..
    http://netafull.net/macbook/049781.html
     
  6. southerndoc thread starter macrumors 65816

    southerndoc

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Location:
    USA
    #6
    Apparently so. Will retest in 24 hours after all the background stuff (it's downloading photos from iCloud).

    If only I can get my app-specific password to work with iMessage and FaceTime. Very annoying!!
     
  7. Cvx5832 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    #7
    What the heck. Were you running something in the background? There's at least 15 5Y51 MacBooks getting better results.

    If you weren't running anything in the background then I guess we can just chalk it up to binning.

    Macbook8,1 5Y51 on GeekBench 3

    [​IMG]

    ----------

    Thanks for your willingness to re-test. I'm sure others are also curious as to what this chip can really do, and how much it's set apart from the base models!
     
  8. EnderTW macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    #8
    Yes please retest after 24-48 hours of keeping it plugged in, especially if you turned on file vaut as it does it in the background.
     
  9. southerndoc thread starter macrumors 65816

    southerndoc

    Joined:
    May 15, 2006
    Location:
    USA
    #9
    I think there is something going on in the background. I only got 2551 and 5085 that go round.

    I have FileVault enabled (it seems to have finished though). It's only been powered up about 3-4 hours, so not sure how long it takes to index things etc.
     
  10. SBruv macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    #10
    Which previously posted results do you mean, btw?
     
  11. Cvx5832 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    #11
    Leave it running overnight plugged in so it finishes whatever it has to do post-setup. Also turn off any doodads (if any) that's running on the dock prior to the test.

    That will be a better baseline because everyone has a different preference as to how much (or how little) junk they prefer to run in the background.
     
  12. noobinator macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #12
    We need charts showing all three models results side by side.
     
  13. squirrrl macrumors 6502a

    squirrrl

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #13
    Because they are binned, we may see a wide range of scores... even the link you posted had 64 bit multi cores from 4890 - 5433.
     
  14. saifrc macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    #14
    As a statistician, it irks me to see how many people make judgments based on just one test.

    Come on guys! You need to run the test over many trials, and then look at the distribution of the results!

    It would be even more scientific to run Geekbench under a wide variety of scenarios, with different applications running in the background, to get a sense of how performance is affected by different factors. Maybe I'll start doing that when I receive mine...
     
  15. amitdoc2b macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    #15
    I only have the free 32-bit Geekbench so not sure how much it alters scoring, maybe someone who has both my version of the software and the new one can shed light by doing a comparison.. but my Geekbench score on my 1.2Ghz/512GB is approximately 6270 consistently.
     

    Attached Files:

  16. squirrrl macrumors 6502a

    squirrrl

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #16
    I think you totally got lucky.
     
  17. Atimix macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2015
    #17
    Different machines will run at different rates. It seemed that this picture is also a legit 1.3 I thin OP either got a weaker processor or he's jumping on testing it before all the background processes are finished.
     
  18. freeskier93 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    #18
    You're also running Geekbench 2... install Geekbench 3 and report back.
     
  19. bcaslis macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    #19
    Is this Geekbench 2 or Geekbench 3? Geekbench 2 shows higher numbers than Geekbench 3.
     
  20. Cvx5832 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    #20
    That's Geekbench 2, and it's 32-bit. They couldn't be more incomparable.
     
  21. noobinator macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #21
    So geekbench 3 64 bit is the most "accurate"?
     
  22. amitdoc2b macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2008
    #22
    I agree, that's why I requested someone to post who has both softwares. I use Geekbench 2 because that's what was out when I had my 2013 MBA i7 so I compare it to that. That i7 had a 7900 score using the same software and this new 1.2 Macbook has a 6270 score in comparison.
     
  23. Cvx5832 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    #23
    Yours is not "wrong", just that the other 99.9% of rMB owners ran the test with something else. As such any reference to a GB2 32-bit test is meaningless. It's not like you can apply a factor and get a GB3 64-bit score equivalent.

    If you really want to compare your machine to the others, pay the 10 bucks for GB3!
     
  24. DarwinOSX macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    #24
    The mhz speed bumps usually have a bigger cache which is a significant performance improvement. In this case the 1.3 does not have a bigger cache.
     
  25. Maclee2010 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2010
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    #25
    Thanks for posting your results quickly. I am going to hold onto seeing a greater sample of testing before I make the decision to keep my order in or stay with the 1.1. Based on this test, It is not worth restoring the backup.

    Thanks,

    Lee
     

Share This Page