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.
Received 1.3/512 SG Today - GeekBench Results
- Thread starter southerndoc
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This may no longer be the case for most SSDs, and certainly the ones Apple has been using.
At the introduction of SSDs, you may have been right - the higher capacities were scaled up version of the lower ones, and were less efficient.
These days larger SSDs simply use parallel controllers for multiple sets of NAND memory.
Have a look for new Mac Pro benchmarks - the larger capacities are much faster!
----------
The brand makes a difference to sustained throughput. I suggest you Google "Black Magic tests" and find some benchmarks for the various sizes. Some have been posted on this very forum. I don't know whether there is a difference in the rMB SSDs, but in other Macs, this has certainly been the case. Often the difference was more marked between 128GB and 256GB, than between 256GB and 512GB, so there may not be much of an issue for the rMB.
It's also worth noting that sustained throughput is only part of the story. Unless your primary concern is regularly moving large files around, the more important metrics are latency (similar to HDD "seek time") and random small file performance. Your operating system accesses lots of small files all of the time, and this is where your SSD will make the biggest difference.
... that most people don't know how to benchmark and people have a wide variety of stuff already installed on their machines. A bunch of people aren't waiting for spotlight to stop indexing. A bunch of people have things running in the background. etc. etc. etc. etc.
Also, make sure you are distinguishing between 32 and 64 bit when you do your search.
Agree. Also if you look at the data points, it looks like a good spread of people doing that in each bucket (1.1/1.2/1.3). However, the 1.3 data points (though I know we still don't have as many as the other buckets) seem to convey a higher quality processor to me.
The leap between the 1.2-1.3 seems to be greater than the 1.1-1.2, but we really will see with time.
UPDATE:
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/chart?q=model:"MacBook8,1"
I was looking at the above ... though I don't know whether that was 32 or 64 bit.
Received 1.3/512 SG Today - GeekBench Results
I figured that much, but wouldn't you say that would be the same for the initial performance numbers of the 1.1 and 1.2? Then again, maybe they were comparatively worse out of the gate...
I figured that much, but wouldn't you say that would be the same for the initial performance numbers of the 1.1 and 1.2? Then again, maybe they were comparatively worse out of the gate...
Received 1.3/512 SG Today - GeekBench Results
Regrettably, this is what I was looking at (32bit). Explains it. Thanks for the clarification
Regrettably, this is what I was looking at (32bit). Explains it. Thanks for the clarification
https://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
All the info is at your fingertips my friend. Just don't confuse the 32 and 64 bit data.
benchmark 1.3
Guys stop worrying about the benchmarks having such a big variance. I was worried about the same thing until I got my 1.3/256 SG on thursday. It's now saturday and it consistently gets these results (lowest it scored was 2750 and 5500) without any other apps running. I should also mention the speed is really good regardless of benchmarks. There hasn't been much it can't handle so far, I've used 3 desktops at one time, 1 with Xcode and it handles the workload well.
Guys stop worrying about the benchmarks having such a big variance. I was worried about the same thing until I got my 1.3/256 SG on thursday. It's now saturday and it consistently gets these results (lowest it scored was 2750 and 5500) without any other apps running. I should also mention the speed is really good regardless of benchmarks. There hasn't been much it can't handle so far, I've used 3 desktops at one time, 1 with Xcode and it handles the workload well.
Attachments
Indeed. Too much worry about benchmark figures going on I suspect. 1.3/512 SG just arrived here in rural New Zealand, goes like the wind. Busy installing everything at the same time, thunderbird/dropbox/onedrive/bittorrent sync/logic pro/final cut and copying over virtual machines, still running cool and happy with all that lot going on in the background. Probably wouldn't run geek bench on this right now! 
Amazing machine, just the cutest computer ever. Exactly as perfect as I knew it'd be.
My iphone 5, 6, rMBP, retina iMac, and most of the iPads I bought were rubbish for various reasons I seem to remember reading on here. Weird that all the ones I ended up with were superb. Like this one.
I wonder what will happen on MacRumors when there comes a day when a new apple product actually is a bit of a dog? It'll be chaos!
Amazing machine, just the cutest computer ever. Exactly as perfect as I knew it'd be.
My iphone 5, 6, rMBP, retina iMac, and most of the iPads I bought were rubbish for various reasons I seem to remember reading on here. Weird that all the ones I ended up with were superb. Like this one.
I wonder what will happen on MacRumors when there comes a day when a new apple product actually is a bit of a dog? It'll be chaos!
It´s about the same as my old 2011 i7 MacBook Pro 13".
BUT, with better graphics, astronomically better display, better battery and like 1/3? of the weight. 8GB less RAM thou..
All at the same price.. It´s a bargin if you look at it that way.
But..
At least where I live you can get the base 15" MBP for less than the rMB 1,3..
So if horsepower is what you need then the rMB is a horrible value for money.
The base 15" is about 2-3x faster for heavy duty stuff..
I wish I hadn't read this area of the site. I have a 1.2 GHz MacBook that I was able to find at BB Open Box. My BTO 1.3 GHz MacBook arrived today. When I run Geekbench side-by-side, the 1.2 GHZ is just slightly under the 1.3 and has also exceeded it. Nothing is running in the background for either as nothing is yet installed. I did not accept File Vault and it doesn't appear that Spotlight is running. Was my 1.2 unusually fast or is my 1.3 unusually slow?
2537/5084
2765/5473
2624/5327
2799/5386
Top pair is 1.2 and bottom is 1.3. The 1.3 has gone as low as 2212/4854 and the scores above are the highest I've seen.
Any thoughts?
2537/5084
2765/5473
2624/5327
2799/5386
Top pair is 1.2 and bottom is 1.3. The 1.3 has gone as low as 2212/4854 and the scores above are the highest I've seen.
Any thoughts?
As far as I can tell, It seems your 1.2 are higher than average and your 1.3 are slightly lower than average. Please, when people post their numbers, they really have to put which Geekbench they are using and whether it is 32 or 64 bit.
