Retina MacBook GeekBench 3 full report

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by Cvx5832, Apr 5, 2015.

  1. Cvx5832, Apr 5, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2015

    Cvx5832 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2014
    #1
    GeekBench 3 on retina MacBook 12. I didn't see the full report posted yet. Please delete if it exists.

    This is for the 5Y31. If/when more are posted about the 5Y51 or 5Y71 before launch date I'll post it here.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
  2. keviig macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    #2
    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).
     
  3. petsk macrumors 6502

    petsk

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Location:
    Northern Europe
    #3
    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.
     
  4. 556fmjoe macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2014
    #4
    Not bad. It's dead even with my X201 (i5-540M) which is perfectly capable.
     
  5. jwdawso macrumors regular

    jwdawso

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2002
    #5
    lol!
     
  6. bibyfok, Apr 5, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2015

    bibyfok macrumors 6502

    bibyfok

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Location:
    France
    #6
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
  7. iRun26.2 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    #7
    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 .
     
  8. keviig macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2012
    #8
    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.
     
  9. bibyfok macrumors 6502

    bibyfok

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Location:
    France
    #9
    [​IMG]
     
  10. Significant1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2014
    #10
    You are comparing 32bits results with 64bits
     
  11. bibyfok macrumors 6502

    bibyfok

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    Location:
    France
    #11
    Oh yeah, my bad! Why on earth would someone do 32bit benchmark??
     
  12. petsk macrumors 6502

    petsk

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2009
    Location:
    Northern Europe
    #12
    Well why on earth would anyone pay for an app like geekbench? 32bit is free unlike 64bit.
     
  13. kingofwale macrumors 6502a

    kingofwale

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    #13
    2569 single core for 1.2GH version?

    Sweet, I'm getting a 512gb model I guess. ;)
     
  14. unibility macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    #14
    MacBook Air (11-inch, Early 2015)
    Processor Intel i7 2.2 Ghz Dual-Core
    Memory 8 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
    SSD APPLE 512 GB SSD SM0512G Media
     

    Attached Files:

  15. unibility macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    #15
    Mac Pro (Late 2013)
    Processor Intel Xeon E5 3.5 GHz 6-Core
    Memory 16 GB 1866 MHz DDR3 ECC
    SSD APPLE 256 GB SSD SM0256F Media
     

    Attached Files:

  16. unibility macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    #16
    MacBook Pro (15-inch, Retina Mid 2014)
    Processor Intel i7 2.5 Ghz Quad-Core
    Memory 16 GB 1600 MHz DDR3
    SSD APPLE 512 GB SSD SM0512F Media
     

    Attached Files:

  17. ctyrider macrumors 6502a

    ctyrider

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    #17
    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.
     
  18. squirrrl macrumors 6502a

    squirrrl

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2013
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    #18
    I don't fully buy those benchmarks. I don't think that's the right chip listed.
     
  19. Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Enjoying Better Things
    #19
    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
     
  20. unibility, Apr 5, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2015

    unibility macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    #20
    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.
     
  21. Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Enjoying Better Things
    #21
    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
     
  22. unibility macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2012
    #22
    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.
     
  23. danielwerner macrumors regular

    danielwerner

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    Location:
    Stockholm, Sweden
    #23
    So what will the benchmark difference between the 1,1 ghz and the 1,3 ghz be you think?
     
  24. dexterbell macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    #24
    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.
     
  25. iRun26.2 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2010
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page