The 2015 MacBook Pro has higher geekbench scores than the 2016 model?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by ahostmadsen, May 14, 2017.

  1. ahostmadsen macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    #1
    I checked geekbench, and it seems the 2015 15" MacBook pro has higher scores than then 2016 model. Can that really be true?

    I'm thinking of buying a MacBook Pro, instead of waiting for a new model iMac. But I want performance.
     
  2. Kcetech1 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2016
    Location:
    Alberta Canada
    #2
    yes depending on your software it can be the same or a little slower then the 2015, it however does have a much faster GPU if that helps your needs.

    sadly until we see some fully new products, performance = hackintosh
     
  3. ahostmadsen thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    #3
    Odd. I thought new processors meant higher performance?
     
  4. Kcetech1, May 14, 2017
    Last edited: May 14, 2017

    Kcetech1 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2016
    Location:
    Alberta Canada
    #4
  5. ahostmadsen thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2009
    #5
    Presumably they did it for battery life? On the other hand, I feel a big laptop like the 15" is mostly for desktop use, so higher performance probably would have made more sense.
     
  6. Kcetech1 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2016
    Location:
    Alberta Canada
    #6
    I can not speculate too much but I suspect for battery life and the ability to retain LPDDR3 memory in the system. to go to a newer Kaby Lake processor ( 7th gen ) they would had to improve cooling, and move to DDR4. and not give up thinning the system as they did.
     
  7. - rob - macrumors regular

    - rob -

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2012
    Location:
    Oakland, CA
    #7
    Possibly a last minute compromise when the tiered battery design "failed a key test."
     
  8. sublunar macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    #8
    The Kaby Lake CPUs seem to be capable of using LPDDR3 - see the i7-7700HQ. That CPU wasn't even an option last year as it was only launched in the first quarter of 2017. People may complain about using 'lesser' RAM but it's clear that thinness is driving the hardware choices here. LPDDR4 would be the next RAM that Apple will take an interest in and that comes with Cannon Lake which is probably 2 generations away with Intel probably releasing Coffee Lake CPUs later this year.

    To get a 32Gb option into a Macbook Pro Apple will have to provide more battery space or a more energy efficient Macbook Pro. I'd suggest the new terraced battery has to be a feature in the new Macbook Pro before they can certify this.

    Perfectly valid assumption though, I would say that Kaby Lake would be more energy efficient, it might not be a smaller process like Cannon Lake will be but features like hardware HEVC 4k encoding/decoding will help Final Cut Pro X users - a very important group of Macbook Pro users.

    Optane SSD (Kaby Lake only feature) may be too power hungry to use in these Macbook Pros - although desktop machines may use them.

    To sum up, every CPU going forward will be increasingly power efficient, it just depends on the deal with Intel that Apple cuts to get them into the Macbook Pro.
     
  9. caramelpolice macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2012
    #9
    Boy, there's a lot of bad info in this thread.

    Apple did use the top-end Skylake mobile i7s they could, with one exception - they didn't use the ones with Iris Pro graphics, which the previous Haswell MBPs did. The difference in CPU performance is ultimately pretty minor, but the Iris Pro-equipped models have an EDRAM cache available to them that the non-Iris Pro models don't get, which results in a slight performance boost in certain situations. They also have a very slightly higher (100MHz or so) base clock, if I recall.

    That said, extremely few (if any) other notebooks the MBP competes with bothered with the Iris Pro Skylakes either, and Iris Pro is going away entirely from here on out. The main reason the new MBPs score lower on Geekbench compared to the old ones is because their Turbo Boost clocks are slightly lower, but in actual practical use, the old MBP throttled much harsher under sustained load than the new models, so those theoretical advantages completely evaporate (and then some) in practice.

    The use of LPDDR3 has nothing to do with it, as both Skylake and Kaby Lake work fine with LPDDR3.
     
  10. leman macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #10
    Is this alternative facts MacRumours editions? :rolleyes: The 2016 MBP can be configured with the fastest consumer-level mobile CPUs that was available at their introduction. And sure, the 6700HQ is not the fastest Skylake, only the 3rd fastest :p

    As to why the Skylake doesn't benchmark faster than Haswell in Geekbench, you'll have to ask the Geekbench devs. The performance difference between those gens is not high, but its there and its very well measurable. In my case, its about 25% faster, which is far from bad.
     
  11. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #11
    Depends what spec you compare as above.

    The new entry level Macbook Pro drops a few tiers in terms of power consumpion and base cpu clock speed.

    For most people, CPU speed is irrelevant 99.9% of the time, however in a portable, battery life is more relevant most of the time.
    --- Post Merged, May 14, 2017 ---
    Depends very much what you're doing with the CPUs as far as the gains you get. Between Haswell and Kaby Lake you're only talking around 10-15% over a wide variety of benchmarks.
     
  12. maerz001 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2010
    #12
    Why Terraced in a MBP? This was done in the MB due to the wedge shape. In a rectangular body u use normal cuboid battery to get the highest capacity.
     
  13. sublunar macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    #13
    To reclaim as much of the interior space for additional battery life as possible - by using the older style batteries in the new shape the capacities are notably lower in the 2016 - something that translates to lower running times under high consumption workloads.

    Don't forget there's other components in there to work around plus some shielding (we don't want to mention the combustible Samsung Note 7 now do we? :))

    Rather than one solid unit, Apple have multiple cells packed around the motherboard and other components.
     
  14. - rob - macrumors regular

    - rob -

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2012
    Location:
    Oakland, CA

Share This Page