Received 1.3/512 SG Today - GeekBench Results

[southerndoc]

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!

 

[bcaslis]

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.

 

[SBruv]

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.

That's lower than the 1.2, no? :-/

 

[legioxi]

For some reason it shows 1.2/1.3 GHz for the CPU.

My 1.2 shows 1.1 and 1.2 so this is normal

The base speed is the first number. The speed Apple has the laptop running at is the second.

See this for details on the speed options of the 5Y71 proc:
http://ark.intel.com/products/84672/Intel-Core-M-5Y71-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-2_90-GHz

 

[meboy]

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

 

[southerndoc]

That's lower than the 1.2, no? :-/

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!!

 

[Cvx5832]

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.

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

----------

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!!

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!

 

[EnderTW]

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!!

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.

 

[southerndoc]

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.

 

[SBruv]

The previously posted GeekBench results were accurate.

See attached pics.

Which previously posted results do you mean, btw?

 

[Cvx5832]

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.

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.

 

[noobinator]

We need charts showing all three models results side by side.

 

[squirrrl]

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.

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.

 

[saifrc]

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...

 

[amitdoc2b]

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.

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.

 

[squirrrl]

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.

I think you totally got lucky.

 

[Atimix]

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

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.

 

[freeskier93]

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.

You're also running Geekbench 2... install Geekbench 3 and report back.

 

[bcaslis]

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.

Is this Geekbench 2 or Geekbench 3? Geekbench 2 shows higher numbers than Geekbench 3.

 

[Cvx5832]

That's Geekbench 2, and it's 32-bit. They couldn't be more incomparable.

 

[noobinator]

So geekbench 3 64 bit is the most "accurate"?

 

[amitdoc2b]

That's Geekbench 2, and it's 32-bit. They couldn't be more incomparable.

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.

 

[Cvx5832]

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!

 

[DarwinOSX]

That's pathetic. Not worth the price at all for any of these mghz bumps (as is usually the case).

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.

 

[Maclee2010]

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.

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