or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's new Ivy Bridge-powered MacBook Pro, Air benchmarked
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's new Ivy Bridge-powered MacBook Pro, Air benchmarked

post #1 of 32
Thread Starter 
Benchmark data collected on Tuesday show incremental gains for most of Apple's new MacBook Pro and MacBook Air notebooks that were announced yesterday at the company's Worldwide Developers Conference.

As Apple's newly-refreshed MacBook lineup starts to make its way into the hands of consumers, Geekbench 2 maker Primate Labs began compiling results received at its Geekbench Browser database and pitted the scores against comparable models from 2011.

Four models of the MacBook Pro and all configurations of the MacBook Air were analyzed and the 32-bit data showed the expected moderate gains in performance with the new 2.7GHz Pro leading the way.

Tested models include the new 15-inch Retina Display MacBook Pro with 2.3GHz and 2.6GHz Intel Ivy Bridge CPUs, the legacy design 15-inch MacBook Pro with 2.3GHz and 2.7GHz processors, the 13-inch MacBook Air with dual-core 1.8GHz and 2.0GHz chips and the 11-inch MacBook Air with 1.7GHz and 2.0GHz CPUs.

Apple's fastest 2.7GHz quad-core i7 15-inch MacBook Pro took the top spot with an average score of 12,303 which is almost 14 percent faster than 2011's 2.5GHz 15-inch notebook. The Retina Display MacBook Pro's 2.6 GHz outpaced the carry-over design by a mere 44 points with both being about 13 percent faster than comparable 2011 machines. Trailing the pack was Apple's entry model next generation MacBook Pro which managed a score of 10,810.

Geekbench 2 Pro
Source: Primate Labs


As for the MacBook Air, the top-of-the line 13-inch model sporting a 2.0GHz dual-core Ivy Bridge chip barely squeezed past its identically configured 11-inch counterpart with a score of 7,007. Both of the 2.0GHz MacBook Airs outperformed previous generation models by nearly 20 percent.

Geekbench 2 Air


Noticeably absent from the charts is the 13-inch MacBook Pro, which didn't have any data posted to the Geekbench Browser as of Tuesday.

While the Geekbench 2 benchmark suite computes processing power and memory performance, the jury is still out on video performance and stress tests which should be favorable given Apple's move to an all-SSD architecture and next-generation NVIDIA graphics.
post #2 of 32
It seems that most of the performance gains are a factor of the extra cores. How would the 13" air and the Retina Mac compare on a single threaded application. Both processors are listed as having a similar "boost" speed, so I would guess they would be similar. Any thoughts?
post #3 of 32
Hardly worth the cost to upgrade.
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #4 of 32
post #5 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Hardly worth the cost to upgrade.

 

So you won't be buying 3 each for everyone in your family?

post #6 of 32

My current MacBook Pro 15" (mid 2009) scores 4001.

The new top Retina MacBook Pro scores 11844.

I'm soon in for a pretty noticable upgrade!

post #7 of 32

There's something wrong with the graphic for the 13" MacBook Air.

The 1.8GHz i5 13" MacBook Air cannot have a score of 6900 based on the graph, or it's graph is wrong.

6900 is very close to 7004, but the graph shows a bigger gap.

It looks more like ~6200.

post #8 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Hardly worth the cost to upgrade.

Its raining outside... and the forecast is grim...

post #9 of 32

I'm pretty excited to upgrade. I'll be moving from my mid-2007 15" MBP with a 2.4GHz dual-core C2D to the top-end non-retina 15" MBP with a 2.6GHz quad-core i7. $250 more to bump the 2.6GHz to 2.7GHz certainly does not seem worth it. I have my pennies saved, just have to decide on some details before plunking down my order! Then the old MBP goes to my sister...

post #10 of 32

I'm agree with you, check out this done in 2 mins:

 

Real graph

 

100% Primate Labs accuracy...

post #11 of 32

Just bought refurbished early 2011 15" for a discount of £500 don't think it is worth paying the extra for the new ones though was toying with the lowest spec 13" Pro would be interested to see the benchmarks on this. Going to replace the drive with a 256GB SSD and the optical with a 500GB 7200 rpm drive. This is only a stop gap until they bring out new iMacs as my old ones graphic card got fried and I will be hooking it up to a 23" Cinema display and maybe get a Thunderbolt one as well. Still it is going to be much faster than the 2006 MacBook Pro I have been putting up with recently which has a benchmark speed of 1329 !!! 

post #12 of 32
5 yr old computer, you're a good brother, lol
post #13 of 32

I'll take it if she doesn't want it. That's still a nice machine.

post #14 of 32
The performance of these laptops is amazing. A 2010 8-core Mac Pro scores 12,642, pretty much on par with the highest MBP.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

The highest 12-core is only 75% faster. A Cinebench render will show the difference more accurately but even at that, the 3820QM scores 6.8 vs 15.1 in the 12-core Pro (120% faster).

Personally, I'd take a retina MBP over a 12-core Pro any day. I know Sandy Bridge Xeons change things a bit but not by that much.
post #15 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Hardly worth the cost to upgrade.

Unless, like me, you have a 2.3 GHz Core 2 Duo machine from about five years ago.

I'm expecting it to be at least twice as fast on everyday things.

Wish they had a 17", though. However, my current machine is falling apart and I can't wait to see if a new 17" will ever appear.

post #16 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Hardly worth the cost to upgrade.


From the last model? Of course not.  But that's almost never the case, and it's not the reason they upgrade the line in the first place.  This will be very tempting to people with pre-2010 machines.

post #17 of 32

I will wait for 17" Retina hopefully they will release it soon. Also looking forward to the newer MacPro in 2013. So for now, I am happy with my early 2009 17" MBP.

post #18 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhyde View Post

Unless, like me, you have a 2.3 GHz Core 2 Duo machine from about five years ago.
I'm expecting it to be at least twice as fast on everyday things.

I think I have that generation of MBP. For everyday things, it seems plenty fast. Unless you have something that takes sustained CPU power (rendering, etc.), I think upgrading your current machine to SSD and maybe upgrading your RAM would give you a lot more of a bang for the buck in making your computer feel a lot more responsive. If it's showing other issues, or if you want the Retina display, then a new machine is the way to go.
Quote:
Wish they had a 17", though. However, my current machine is falling apart and I can't wait to see if a new 17" will ever appear.

That seems unlikely when they've pulled all 17" models from the store. Picking up a clearance model may be your best bet.
post #19 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post

 

 

The retina screen and the slimmer body are both good incentives.  The performance increase is not a good reason alone, however. That being said,  some people will benefit from the SSD.  If  they are often calling up big chunks of data, it could make a nice difference.


I don't understand why is everyone so obsessed with thin. I would understand if you were talking about weight... But width? I don't really care about width (in fact I preferer bulkier laptops).

post #20 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Conrail View Post


From the last model? Of course not.  But that's almost never the case, and it's not the reason they upgrade the line in the first place.  This will be very tempting to people with pre-2010 machines.

 

OK, but the price could have dropped a little. I don't believe the manufactoring costs to be the same...

 

It's funny but in my country (Czech Republic, Europe) has the price risen by 20%. I didn't believed it when I first saw it. I was thinking how greedy can they be?

post #21 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by ic70 View Post

There's something wrong with the graphic for the 13" MacBook Air.

The 1.8GHz i5 13" MacBook Air cannot have a score of 6900 based on the graph, or it's graph is wrong.

6900 is very close to 7004, but the graph shows a bigger gap.

It looks more like ~6200.

 

It currently reads 6197.

 

Still a wee bit faster than the 2770 score of my MacBook (late 2006).

 

Hmmmmm tempting :)

post #22 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26 View Post


Yes, but only when the CPU is working hard.  For most stuff, and most of the time for most people, there will be less of a difference.  CPUs have been fast enough for most things for a long time now.  The SSD should speed things up a lot for certain tasks as well.,

Actually, it's when you're NOT doing CPU-intensive stuff that the new MBP will shine. Your last sentence is the important one - SSD is such a massive improvement over conventional hard disks that it's noticeable the minute you first use the computer. A faster CPU is only really noticeable when doing CPU intensive stuff - which, for most people, isn't very often.

For the casual user, simply upgrading their drive to SSD and maxing out RAM will get much of the usability benefits of a new computer. However, you miss out on new features, and you won't get the faster CPU or GPU (which is becoming increasingly important).

For me, I'll be getting the new one. Here's the way the math works.

New MBP 15", 512 GB $2799
Sell my old 17" MBP $700 (maybe more)
Net $2099 (actually, a couple hundred less because I qualify for educational purchases, but not everyone does, so we'll leave that out).

Keep an old one:
Max RAM $200
SSD $600
Upgrade to ML (which will presumably be free by the time I get my computer) $20
Net $820

So, the difference is actually only $1200. For $1200, I get a state of the art machine with warranty, even more RAM than my machine will hold, faster CPU, faster GPU, vastly better screen, and a brand new computer without all the dings and scratches and failing keyboard of my existing machine. It's not a 'no brainer', but it is a very reasonable price to upgrade.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #23 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Keep an old one:
Max RAM $200
SSD $600
Upgrade to ML (which will presumably be free by the time I get my computer) $20
Net $820
So, the difference is actually only $1200. For $1200, I get a state of the art machine with warranty, even more RAM than my machine will hold, faster CPU, faster GPU, vastly better screen, and a brand new computer without all the dings and scratches and failing keyboard of my existing machine. It's not a 'no brainer', but it is a very reasonable price to upgrade.

Where did you get your $200 figure for RAM? For what amount? If it's for 8GB, then that RAM upgrade is $60. If it's 16GB, then the price is about right, OWC offers the kit for $162, I'll round up to $200 for shipping and installation labor. But that would mean you left out the extra $200 cost to upgrade to 16GB on the new model. The MBP Retina with 16GB/512GB is $2999, making your cost difference between your two options, assuming like levels of RAM and SSD, about $1400.
Edited by JeffDM - 6/13/12 at 9:23pm
post #24 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Actually, it's when you're NOT doing CPU-intensive stuff that the new MBP will shine. Your last sentence is the important one - SSD is such a massive improvement over conventional hard disks that it's noticeable the minute you first use the computer. A faster CPU is only really noticeable when doing CPU intensive stuff - which, for most people, isn't very often.
For the casual user, simply upgrading their drive to SSD and maxing out RAM will get much of the usability benefits of a new computer. However, you miss out on new features, and you won't get the faster CPU or GPU (which is becoming increasingly important).
For me, I'll be getting the new one. Here's the way the math works.
New MBP 15", 512 GB $2799
Sell my old 17" MBP $700 (maybe more)
Net $2099 (actually, a couple hundred less because I qualify for educational purchases, but not everyone does, so we'll leave that out).
Keep an old one:
Max RAM $200
SSD $600
Upgrade to ML (which will presumably be free by the time I get my computer) $20
Net $820
So, the difference is actually only $1200. For $1200, I get a state of the art machine with warranty, even more RAM than my machine will hold, faster CPU, faster GPU, vastly better screen, and a brand new computer without all the dings and scratches and failing keyboard of my existing machine. It's not a 'no brainer', but it is a very reasonable price to upgrade.

 

You can upgrade old machines with a smaller, cheaper SSD (for the OS, applications etc), and transfer your existing HD to a special caddy in the optical drive bay.  Search for "optibay" on eBay.  It involves surgery on your laptop, but it's doable (that's my setup).  It's probably the best route to keeping an old MacBook / MBP functional.

 

But if you can afford it, the new machine is awesome.  Go for it.

post #25 of 32

Re: You can upgrade old machines with a smaller, cheaper SSD (for the OS, applications etc), and transfer your existing HD to a special caddy in the optical drive bay.  Search for "optibay" on eBay.  It involves surgery on your laptop, but it's doable (that's my setup).  It's probably the best route to keeping an old MacBook / MBP functional.

 

Quite just did the same with a 6 year old first gen Intel  Mac Book Pro and it is surprisingly snappy.

post #26 of 32

The mobile Ivy Bridge i7-3820QM @ 2.70GHz on the new MacBookPro Retina is faster than the Desktop Intel Sandybridge Core i7-2600K @ 3.40GHz

 

TOTAL WIN!!!


Screen Shot 2012-06-15 at 1.29.50 AM.png

post #27 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Where did you get your $200 figure for RAM? For what amount? If it's for 8GB, then that RAM upgrade is $60. If it's 16GB, then the price is about right, OWC offers the kit for $162, I'll round up to $200 for shipping and installation labor. But that would mean you left out the extra $200 cost to upgrade to 16GB on the new model. The MBP Retina with 16GB/512GB is $2999, making your cost difference between your two options, assuming like levels of RAM and SSD, about $1400.

I got the price from Otherworld Computing. And you need to use 16 GB because the base 8 GB MBP has 2 x 4 GB DIMMs. You have to dump both of them to upgrade to 16. For third party RAM, their price was around $170 last time I checked.

I could probably have given a credit for the 2x 4 GB DIMMs being replaced, but I never do that. If there's a problem, Apple wants you to bring it in with the original RAM, so I usually keep it around. The amount you can get for RAM on eBay is low enough that it's not worth selling.

Regardless of how you want to quibble about the price, the point is that the price difference between buying a new one and upgrading my old one is not as large as some people are implying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypercommunist View Post

You can upgrade old machines with a smaller, cheaper SSD (for the OS, applications etc), and transfer your existing HD to a special caddy in the optical drive bay.  Search for "optibay" on eBay.  It involves surgery on your laptop, but it's doable (that's my setup).  It's probably the best route to keeping an old MacBook / MBP functional.

That's certainly true, but doesn't really change things. The cost of the Optibay plus smaller SSD is not all that different than the cost of the SSD I quoted.

Again, it's not worth quibbling about minor differences. The point is that you can't simply say "the new one is too expensive, so just upgrade the old one". Instead, you have to consider the cost of the upgrade plus the amount you can get for selling the old computer before making that assessment.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #28 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I could probably have given a credit for the 2x 4 GB DIMMs being replaced, but I never do that. If there's a problem, Apple wants you to bring it in with the original RAM, so I usually keep it around. The amount you can get for RAM on eBay is low enough that it's not worth selling.

That's my position on part trade-ins. I keep the original parts for diagnostic aid and warranty purposes.
Quote:
Regardless of how you want to quibble about the price, the point is that the price difference between buying a new one and upgrading my old one is not as large as some people are implying.

It's not bad.
post #29 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

The cost of the Optibay plus smaller SSD is not all that different than the cost of the SSD I quoted.
Again, it's not worth quibbling about minor differences. The point is that you can't simply say "the new one is too expensive, so just upgrade the old one". Instead, you have to consider the cost of the upgrade plus the amount you can get for selling the old computer before making that assessment.

 

You quoted 600$ for a big SSD.

 

Optibays go for around 15$, and a small SSD would be less than 100$.  Just saw a local store advertising 120GB for 79$.  If for some reason you don't buy the new machine, you really should do this upgrade, it's very much worth it.

 

Also, I didn't say "the new one is too expensive, just upgrade the old one".  In fact, I said "if you can afford the new one, go for it".  With the new machine everything is next-generation: CPU, RAM, GPU, display, SSD, ports.

post #30 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by simtub View Post

The mobile Ivy Bridge i7-3820QM @ 2.70GHz on the new MacBookPro Retina is faster than the Desktop Intel Sandybridge Core i7-2600K @ 3.40GHz

TOTAL WIN!!!

LL


If that's for real, then I wish Apple did update the iMac this summer. I didn't realize Ivy Bridge was that much better.
post #31 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

If that's for real, then I wish Apple did update the iMac this summer. I didn't realize Ivy Bridge was that much better.

Ivy Bridge, clock for clock is 15% faster but they also bumped up the clock speed a little. If you compare a 2.2GHz SB to 2.7GHz IB, the latter would be 1.15 x 1.22 = 1.4x faster. As per the scores, 9501/6803 = 1.39.

The higher-clocked QM chips are more expensive though. Matching price, the IB chips are still just 15-20% faster.

The next iMac should score 10445 or something like that. But when you have scores so close together, you could switch from one machine to the other and wouldn't notice any difference. The iMac's GPU would really be its distinguishing feature.
post #32 of 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypercommunist View Post

 

It currently reads 6197.

 

Still a wee bit faster than the 2770 score of my MacBook (late 2006).

 

Hmmmmm tempting :)

It doesn't though. I still see 6915. I'm suprised there aren't more people wondering about this. I suppose most everyone just focuses on the top of the line model.  If the 1.8ghz 13" model is almost as fast as the 2.0ghz models, I'd just opt for that model, but I suspect the graph is correct and the number is off.  The 2.0 ghz 11" model w/ 8g of RAM is $50 more than the base 13" model w/ 8g of RAM, if the speed difference were just the 1% or so indicated by the scores printed here, I'd opt to save $50 and get a larger screen.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Apple's new Ivy Bridge-powered MacBook Pro, Air benchmarked