So...you want a little Macbook performance data comparison?

[LuciusWrong]

I put together a spreadsheet a year ago when I was first looking at upgrading. I compiled a list of various Macs to compare processor power and price. I chose models with the same ram and storage, so the main pricing variable was the processor.

I just wanted to figure out how much better the new machines actually are in comparison to my old 2013 15" MBP, and this was an attempt to get all the info side by side.

I used geekbench results to judge relative performance, and on a whim I decided to calculate the performance rating to price ratio. This is the Geek Bench points per dollar, or GB/$.

What I found was surprising. The GB/$ ratio, the multi-core performance to price ratio was very similar across every model I could find benchmarks for! There were a couple exceptions, but overall the consistency was remarkable to me. It seemed that machines of the same year have the same processing power to price ratio...with a couple exceptions. Like the 2018 MBP w/ 2.2ghz was a stand out value, and the 2017 iMac w/4.2ghz was also a better value.

From this data, I am suspicious that Apple looks at benchmarks when deciding on price. It just seems uncanny that, for example, the late 2017 iMac Pro has almost exactly the same GBs/$ ratio for all 4 options.

(One apparent exception is the new Mac Mini, with the top model coming in at over 11GBs/$. This looks like a killer deal, until you realize that by the time you pair it with the 5K monitor, you end up with the same GB/$ ration as if you just bought yourself a regular iMac!)


This is mainly GeekBench 4 data. I did run Geek Bench 5 on my machine, to give me a reference to compare with the new 16" machines. The new Geek Bench scores are coming in way lower, so the GB/$ ratio is also a lot lower. But what interests me is that the ratio for the newest machines is roughly 2x that of my 2013.

 

[Howard2k]

Coincidence. There's no logical reason why Apple would price them out this way. Interesting all the same though! Thanks for sharing.

 

[honcho]

Thanks for sharing this. Interesting hypothesis. What’s really helpful is the inclusion of GB scores for the 2.3GHz and 2.4GHz 16-inch MBPs, both configured with 16GB RAM. I had been questioning my decision to go with the 2.4GHz model, but the performance gains seem more significant than I expected.

 

[Plutonius]

Do the geek bench scores actually reflect the real world use ?

 

[honcho]

Do the geek bench scores actually reflect the real world use ?

I doubt it, but it’s cross-platform and popular. There’s likely to be something in it, though.

To be honest, my last MBP was a 2006 model. In 2010, the iPad replaced the MPB in my heart. For the past eight years, I have relied on a 2011 27” iMac to do the heavy lifting, and about 5 iPad models for everything else. Recently, I decided that I needed a new machine, or more importantly, a machine with USB 3.0. Enter the 2019 MBP.

I am excited to return to the fold. My new machine, when it arrives, will be way faster than what I’m used to. I’ve also just bought a full-frame Sony mirrorless camera/lenses to go with my MBP. Can’t wait to dive back into some photography, something I haven’t done for 20 years

 

[Plutonius]

I doubt it, but it’s cross-platform and popular. There’s likely to be something in it, though.

To be honest, my last MBP was a 2006 model. In 2010, the iPad replaced the MPB in my heart. For the past eight years, I have relied on a 2011 27” iMac to do the heavy lifting, and about 5 iPad models for everything else. Recently, I decided that I needed a new machine, or more importantly, a machine with USB 3.0. Enter the 2019 MBP.

I am excited to return to the fold. My new machine, when it arrives, will be way faster than what I’m used to. I’ve also just bought a full-frame Sony mirrorless camera/lenses to go with my MBP. Can’t wait to dive back into some photography, something I haven’t done for 20 years

Congrats on the new MBP !!!