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.
Retina MacBook GeekBench 3 full report
- Thread starter Cvx5832
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
2/3 of 2015 13" rMBP
Compared to the Early 2015 13" rMBP at roughly 3000 single core and just over 6000 multi core it's at roughly 2/3 or 66% of the performance. Not as bad as expected! Especially considering you can get the 5Y51 or 5Y71 which should be at over 70% of the performance (at least according to Geekbench).
Compared to the Early 2015 13" rMBP at roughly 3000 single core and just over 6000 multi core it's at roughly 2/3 or 66% of the performance. Not as bad as expected! Especially considering you can get the 5Y51 or 5Y71 which should be at over 70% of the performance (at least according to Geekbench).
A geekbench score this low would only be acceptable if Apple cut the price by half.
Paying premium price for a computer which is just as slow as both the iMac I bought back in 2009 and the MBP in 2010 is plain ridiculous.
I hope no one buys the MBr which would force Apple back to the drawing board or lowering the price.
Paying premium price for a computer which is just as slow as both the iMac I bought back in 2009 and the MBP in 2010 is plain ridiculous.
I hope no one buys the MBr which would force Apple back to the drawing board or lowering the price.
Compared to the Geekbench from this thread here is the difference in % of performance. (Multicore doesn't makes sense)
EDIT: Irrelevant as OP has done a 32bit bench.
EDIT: Irrelevant as OP has done a 32bit bench.
Last edited:
That won't happen. I am buying one.
. The performsce sounds good enough for me and the size / form factor sound wobderful!It will sell well, I think .
So the 1.3 is at 2865 vs 1964 for the 1.1? That's a massive difference!
At 2569 the 1.2 might be a good value upgrade too, quite a big bump from the 1.1.
That won't happen. I am buying one.
It will sell well, I think .
Well why on earth would anyone pay for an app like geekbench? 32bit is free unlike 64bit.
Funniest post of the day. Millions will buy this laptop.
And f you're benchmark-obsessed - buy top-of-the-line 1.3Ghz model, which benchmarks roughly the same as 2014 i7 MBA.
Nice numbers on such a small system, only drawback for me personally is the display, equally if the new MacBook doesn't meet my expectations same spec`d Air is the solution.
Q-6
Thanks! I was surprised by the read/write speed between the i7 quad-core 2014 MacBook Pro vs. the i7 duo-core 2015 MacBook Air. It may be the new Intel chipset and PCI. But not sure though but still a shocker compared to the late 2013 Mac Pro.
Last edited:
That`s what caught my attention, am hoping for similar read/write performance on the MacBook as it will significantly benefit the Core M, if not I will go for the 11" Air and revisit the MacBook when Skylake is released.
Q-6
I debated about returning the MacBook Air and go full throttle with the MacBook simply for the retina display but I make use of the USB(s) available on the computer and though it's a little heavier and thicker, etc... the power out weighs the display.
I may not utilize the amount of power from this or other machines in my possession but I'd rather hold on to this until several revisions come down the road then I'll go from there.
Not sure how trustworthy Geekbench is anyways. 9 to 5 said
"The 12-inch Retina MacBook was put through its paces twice with Geekbench. The laptop received single-core scores of 1924 and 2044 and multi-core scores of 4038 and 4475."
4038 to 4475 is a pretty good sized jump in back to back tests.
"The 12-inch Retina MacBook was put through its paces twice with Geekbench. The laptop received single-core scores of 1924 and 2044 and multi-core scores of 4038 and 4475."
4038 to 4475 is a pretty good sized jump in back to back tests.
I wonder that myself. I doubt it will be linear since CPU throttling will probably kick in earlier for the 1.3GHz model (which is what I will be ordering). I hope it makes a noticeable difference, and I hope the 1.3GHz version is more energy efficient.