or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Benchmarks show modest performance gains with Apple's new Retina MacBook Pros
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Benchmarks show modest performance gains with Apple's new Retina MacBook Pros

post #1 of 27
Thread Starter 
Apple's new Haswell-powered Retina MacBook Pros have started finding their way into the online score aggregator for popular benchmark suite Geekbench, less than 24 hours after their unveiling.

New 13-inch Retina MacBook Pro


Backed by Intel's latest silicon, the new MacBook Pros --?which first began showing up in late June --?achieve similar gains to those notched by the MacBook Air after its Haswell refresh. The laptops' appearance on the site was first noticed by MacRumors.

Single-core scores, which measure performance using only a single CPU core, average 3108 for the 15-inch model and 2823 for the 13-inch variant. Those scores represent modest increases of four and two percent, respectively, over the previous generation.

Despite the moderate upgrade in performance, Tuesday's hardware refresh was still rather significant. Moving to the new Haswell architecture, alongside efficiency improvements courtesy of OS X Mavericks's new power management features, allowed both the 13- and 15-inch models to make battery life gains, increasing to nine and eight hours, respectively, on a single charge.

The 13-inch model also slimmed down to the same 0.71-inch thickness as its larger-screened sibling, while both variants dropped $200 off of their base configuration price tag (Mac Price Guide).

Additionally, Apple introduced faster 802.11ac wireless networking and PCIe-based storage, and provided for expansion by equipping the laptops with twin Thunderbolt 2 ports.
post #2 of 27
Gains... Longer battery life.. Faster wifi... And Cheaper ! Sounds like a winner !
post #3 of 27

I thought battery life would have been much better. If the Air picked up an hour from Mavericks and the MBP 15" only picked up an hour? 

post #4 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post
 

I thought battery life would have been much better. If the Air picked up an hour from Mavericks and the MBP 15" only picked up an hour? 

 

Well remember the 15" MBP Retina has a true Core i7 not a dual core like MBA has, even when upgraded to a Core i7. It also has a 15" a screen, and its a retina. Also, the graphics are more intensive as well. The fact that they were able to pick up an hour with all of this stuff is amazing in itself IMO. 

post #5 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yojimbo007 View Post

Gains... Longer battery life.. Faster wifi... And Cheaper ! Sounds like a winner !

The 13" should have better GPU performance by a large margin.
post #6 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post
 

 

Well remember the 15" MBP Retina has a true Core i7 not a dual core like MBA has, even when upgraded to a Core i7. It also has a 15" a screen, and its a retina. Also, the graphics are more intensive as well. The fact that they were able to pick up an hour with all of this stuff is amazing in itself IMO. 

 

The previous 15" rMBP had the i7 and GT 60M w/1GB so again I wonder why only the 1 hour moving to Hasswell? The new base 15" rMBP has Irus Pro, not the GT 750M. 

 

I was expecting a wow like with the MBA

 

Also, the processors are a bit lower. 

 


Edited by Richard Getz - 10/23/13 at 12:57pm
post #7 of 27

Removing the graphics card from the base 15" rMBP was a stupid idea. What will happen to performance now?? 

 

I was about to buy it, but now I'll have to think twice before doing so.. 

post #8 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by diesel View Post
 

Removing the graphics card from the base 15" rMBP was a stupid idea. What will happen to performance now?? 

 

I was about to buy it, but now I'll have to think twice before doing so.. 

 

the base rMBP, correct, but the step up has the GT 750. 

post #9 of 27

Who cares about the number crunching scores? Where are the GPU benchmarks?

As far as thinness, where are the side by shots of the old next to the new?

post #10 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by diesel View Post
 

Removing the graphics card from the base 15" rMBP was a stupid idea. What will happen to performance now?? 

 

I was about to buy it, but now I'll have to think twice before doing so.. 


iris pro 5200 is no slouch for integrated gfx.  It runs faster or nearly the same as the 650M from the early 2013 model in most benchmarks I've seen.  (though its not anything like the 750M in the new upper end).

 

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6993/intel-iris-pro-5200-graphics-review-core-i74950hq-tested/16

Doodle Dice iPhone puzzle game: A fun, free physics-laden collection of dice games.  Greatest app made yet?  Perhaps young man... Perhaps.
Reply
Doodle Dice iPhone puzzle game: A fun, free physics-laden collection of dice games.  Greatest app made yet?  Perhaps young man... Perhaps.
Reply
post #11 of 27

The main problem with my last-year rMBP is that too many applications (such as the iPhone/iPad simulator) switch to the discrete graphics card. In that mode the battery only lasts for about four hours. 

 

Since the Iris Pro is much more powerful, it will be nice if most applications didn't resort to the GT 750M. That would significantly increase  battery life under higher (and actually more meaningful) loads.

 

I'm waiting for some real-world tests ... :)


Edited by capasicum - 10/23/13 at 1:24pm
post #12 of 27
I wonder if Mavericks allows you to manually switch between the Iris Pro or 750M?
post #13 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by diesel View Post
 

Removing the graphics card from the base 15" rMBP was a stupid idea. What will happen to performance now?? 

 

I was about to buy it, but now I'll have to think twice before doing so.. 

 

Don't just assume that just because its integrated graphics, that its crap. I'm willing to bet the performance will be more than fine with the Iris Pro Graphics. 

post #14 of 27
On Apple's website, they list the MacMini tech specs as having: 2.5GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 (Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz) with 3MB L3 cache, or 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 (Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz) with 6MB L3 cache.

All other Macs (aside from the MacPro) have either dual-core or quad-core Intel Core i5 or i7 in various GHz.

Does this mean that ALL of the Macs in their line-up now have Haswell inside, including the MacMini? If not, then how can you differentiate whether or not a certain product line has the Haswell?

Just curious because I'm needing to get a new MacMini soon. Thanx!
post #15 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress View Post

 

Don't just assume that just because its integrated graphics, that its crap. I'm willing to bet the performance will be more than fine with the Iris Pro Graphics. 

It's faster for OpenCL tasks. For games it's still around 20-40% slower than even the 650M of last years rMBP. The 750M should be around 10-15% faster than the 650M from most estimates I've seen.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trubador View Post

Does this mean that ALL of the Macs in their line-up now have Haswell inside, including the MacMini?

No, it does not mean that since it clearly states HD4000 graphics for the Mini. HD4000 is Ivy Bridge.

 

Quote:
If not, then how can you differentiate whether or not a certain product line has the Haswell?

Look at the graphics model.


Edited by MikeJones - 10/23/13 at 2:38pm
post #16 of 27
After waiting 7 months, I placed my order for a 2.6 GHz 15" rMBP with a 1TB Drive %u2026. can't wait to get my hands on it.
post #17 of 27

Thanks, MJ! 

post #18 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJones View Post
 

It's faster for OpenCL tasks. For games it's still around 20-40% slower than even the 650M of last years rMBP. The 750M should be around 10-15% faster than the 650M from most estimates I've seen.

 

Yah, I'd have preferred a mid range BTO option to the 750M.  At the current price it's above my company's max for a new notebook purchase and I'd have get additional approval.  I'd trade the i7 for an i5 to get the 750M for less than $2500.  Kinda sucks given that $2500 is a reasonable budget for a laptop.  But I need 16GB, a GPU and applecare.

 

Even with the corporate discount the lowest end MBP with a GPU is now well over $2600.

post #19 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by capasicum View Post
 

The main problem with my last-year rMBP is that too many applications (such as the iPhone/iPad simulator) switch to the discrete graphics card. In that mode the battery only lasts for about four hours. 

 

Since the Iris Pro is much more powerful, it will be nice if most applications didn't resort to the GT 750M. That would significantly increase  battery life under higher (and actually more meaningful) loads.

 

I'm waiting for some real-world tests ... :)

What's needed is a change in the Energy Saver panel to allow users to specify: Automatic switching, Only use Discrete, Only use Integrated. It should never have been implemented as a check box.

 

I was surprised that Apple went with the Haswell chips they did. I was expecting to see Apple use the direct replacements for the Ivy Bridge chips they previously used. Prices for the chips are virtually identical too.

 

Below are the actual chips used in the early 2013 Ivy Bridge 15" rMBP, the Haswell replacement for that chip (same clock speed, same price) and the lower clocked and more expensive chips actually used in the late 2013 machines.

 

Ivy: 3630QM (2.4GHz with HD 4000 graphics)

Has: 4700MQ (2.4GHz with HD 4600 graphics)

2013: 4750HQ (2.0GHz with Iris Pro 5200 graphics)

 

Ivy: 3740QM (2.7GHz with HD 4000 graphics)

Has: 4800MQ (2.7GHz with HD 4600 graphics)

2013: 4850HQ (2.3GHz with Iris Pro 5200 graphics)

 

Build to order CPU:

Ivy: 3840QM (2.8GHz with HD 4000)

Has: 4900MQ (2.8GHz with HD 4600)

2013: 4960HQ (2.6GHz with Iris Pro)

 

At first glance it's shocking that Apple deliberately chose to pay more for slower CPUs to go in machines already equipped with high performance graphics.

 

I have a theory that explains their decision. During the unveiling it was mentioned several times that Apple is optimizing OS X to use OpenCL on integrated GPUs. If they had gone with the replacement models the CPU component would have been marginally faster, but the GPU would have been significantly slower. If Apple is going to make extensive use of OpenCL they will want the chip that provides the best combined CPU/GPU processing power.

 

Handing a computing task to a Haswell chip and telling it to get the job done by any means necessary could be incredibly efficient if the GPU takes most of the parallel tasks while the CPU keeps the sequential ones. It could provide faster computation and lower energy use at the same time. Bringing another GPU into the mix could be even more efficient by handing the big number crunching job to the nVidia GPU while letting the energy efficient Iris Pro handle drawing the results on the screen.

post #20 of 27

I'm fed up with Apple trying to remove dedicated graphics chip and not improving graphics compute performance across all Macs. A pro notebook costing $2000 has performance similar to an nVidia 650M (which is again just a mid-range notebook GPU)? That is honestly not good considering it has gargantuan screen resolution. I actually own a 2012 15" rMBP and I keep wishing it had more graphics performance and video memory for video, photo editing and 3D animations. Not impressed with the new 15" rMBP (though the price drop is always a welcome). Guess I'll wait for another year.

post #21 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by crysisftw View Post
 

I'm fed up with Apple trying to remove dedicated graphics chip and not improving graphics compute performance across all Macs. A pro notebook costing $2000 has performance similar to an nVidia 650M (which is again just a mid-range notebook GPU)? That is honestly not good considering it has gargantuan screen resolution. I actually own a 2012 15" rMBP and I keep wishing it had more graphics performance and video memory for video, photo editing and 3D animations. Not impressed with the new 15" rMBP (though the price drop is always a welcome). Guess I'll wait for another year.

The high-end rMBP is equipped with GT 750M and 2GB of GDDR5. The 760M and 780M are way too power-hungry to put in a laptop.

 

Other than that, I remember a demo by the Adobe Premiere team made on the 15" rMBP last year. They've real-time video editing of a project containing no less than seven 5K streams, each one having a large set of effects applied (different for each stream).

 

I can't really imagine what your expectations for a laptop are, but it is quite possible current high-end rMBP to be the last one having a discrete graphics card.

post #22 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by capasicum View Post
 

The high-end rMBP is equipped with GT 750M and 2GB of GDDR5. The 760M and 780M are way too power-hungry to put in a laptop.

 

Other than that, I remember a demo by the Adobe Premiere team made on the 15" rMBP last year. They've real-time video editing of a project containing no less than seven 5K streams, each one having a large set of effects applied (different for each stream).

 

I can't really imagine what your expectations for a laptop are, but it is quite possible current high-end rMBP to be the last one having a discrete graphics card.

 

You aren't seriously implying that laptops are more powerful than we really need are you?  Especially given that for many folks our laptops are our desktops because we work everywhere (work, home, during ballet class, coffee shop).

 

And you notice the 'M' at the end of the 760M and 780M?  That denotes a mobile part so nVidia doesn't believe they are "way too power-hungry to put in a laptop".

 

The 780M has an estimated TDP at 122W which is a bit much but the 760M has an estimated TDP of 55W compared to the estimated TDP of the 750M of 50W.  The 770M has an estimated TDP of 75W.

 

Estimated because nVidia doesn't actually publicly publish the TDP of their mobile parts and these are from reference MXM boards.

 

http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/index.php?mfgr%5B%5D=nvidia&mobile=1&released%5B%5D=y11_c&generation=&chipname=&interface=&ushaders=&tmus=&rops=&memsize=&memtype=&buswidth=&slots=&sort=released&q=or+type+to+Search...

post #23 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
 

 

You aren't seriously implying that laptops are more powerful than we really need are you?  Especially given that for many folks our laptops are our desktops because we work everywhere (work, home, during ballet class, coffee shop).

 

And you notice the 'M' at the end of the 760M and 780M?  That denotes a mobile part so nVidia doesn't believe they are "way too power-hungry to put in a laptop".

 

The 780M has an estimated TDP at 122W which is a bit much but the 760M has an estimated TDP of 55W compared to the estimated TDP of the 750M of 50W.  The 770M has an estimated TDP of 75W.

 

Estimated because nVidia doesn't actually publicly publish the TDP of their mobile parts and these are from reference MXM boards.

 

http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/index.php?mfgr%5B%5D=nvidia&mobile=1&released%5B%5D=y11_c&generation=&chipname=&interface=&ushaders=&tmus=&rops=&memsize=&memtype=&buswidth=&slots=&sort=released&q=or+type+to+Search...

 

Are you seriously implying that rMBP is not powerful the way it isI wonder how you managed to do your job 3-5 years ago ...

 

Apple engineers have their reasons for going with the 750M. Maybe they've reached the heat dissipation limit of the rMBP chassis. Maybe something else is in the way. I seriously doubt it is the price. $100 more for the highest-end laptop is of no concern to buyers (at least not to me). Or they could have given the option for an upgrade, say +$200.

 

Whatever the reasons, it is what it is.

post #24 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by capasicum View Post
 

Are you seriously implying that rMBP is not powerful the way it isI wonder how you managed to do your job 3-5 years ago ...

 

Yes, it is powerful but it is relative.  The top end could use a better GPU BTO just like the 27" iMac does that bumps the 775M to a full up 780M.  Going up to either the 760M or the 770M is a reasonable desire.

 

As far as performance from 3-5 years ago my current laptop is a 3 year old MBP.  I expect to use my next MBP for 3 years since that's our replacement cycle like many shops.  No, it's never powerful enough three years later.  And yes, our work demands do increase over time.

post #25 of 27

I was so excited for the past few months, as my plan was to buy one of these bad boys as soon as they came out, to replace my 2011 iMac (the last one with a DVD/CD drive). Finally Tuesday came and the new models were released; everything looked really good at first.

They announced a price drop, TB2, USB3, faster SSDs and Wifi and better battery life (barely). Everyone knew that they were getting Iris Pro, and the most conservative estimates had it get the 750M too, but some of us were hoping for something a little more 'Pro' in the dedicated graphics card aspect. What also seemed like a reasonable 'dream' was a Fusion Drive, because let's face it, 256GB is 'nothing', even 512gb is just barely enough for any serious system, and external storage is all well and fine for a desktop machine, but this is a laptop that moves around, typically without large peripherals.
Since I was aiming to get the top of the line model, I started pricing the purchase and trying to figure out what would be best. Then reality started to sink in.

-The price drop only applied to the very bottom of the line model, the top of the line configuration came in at exactly the same price as it used to be, so... no 'real' price drop in my case.

-This top model also just happens to have a processor that is clocked lower than the model it was replacing, even the processor you can upgrade to is clocked lower. I know that gigahertz aren't everything, but they are something, and here specs had actually gotten worse.

-Everyone knew the Haswell chip was all about efficiency, but I didn't realize just how modest the performance difference was, essentially there isn't any. Early benchmarks are reporting 2-4% better scores. Not impressed and hardly worth the wait.
My bubble was burst but it gets worse.
-Apple has always charged a premium for their products, but what is just plain unacceptable is that a 3000$ machine comes with only 512gb of storage, bump that to 1TB (the maximum) (which I can only assume is actually 960GB) if you want to doll out 500$ more (I know, it's 450$, add tax... yeah.) So now we're at 3500$ for a nice looking laptop with cutting edge technology, but all around somewhat disappointing specs.
-Thunderbolt 2 : Nice in theory, almost useless in practice. I give it points for future-proofness though, and if it had NOT received this spec bump, double ouch. :|

-USB3.0: Welcome to the party, you are 3 years late, the first laptop with usb 3 came out in October 2010. So much for cutting edge...
-Retina Display: second iteration of these. Are they nice? No doubt? Are they useful? I doubt it. Unless you are editing HD video on a 15 inch screen (what is wrong with you?) this is just an expensive component with no real benefit. Macbook Pros are not toys, we need performance. If all someone wanted was a pretty case and screen, they can buy an iPad (ok now I'm getting bitter, sorry about that)
-HDMI port : See USB3.0 above, and I'll add: Who needs/wants this? wouldn't an Ethernet port see more real world use than this? Besides you can get an adapter for Thunderbolt for this, no? Seems redundant, I hope the component doesn't cost them anything, because it sure isn't worth anything.

A big factor for me was that this machine would replace my 2011 iMac. I even bought a thunderbolt display to use as an awesome dock. Heck, I figured I'd pretty much an iMac when at home (docked rmbp) and a sweet laptop on the go. Then it became apparent that the 750M wasn't as powerful as the two and half year old 6970M. Almost three years pass and they can't put a better dedicated GPU in their flagship pro-portable? Everyone knows that iMac components are in fact laptop components anyway, "wtf!?" I thought.
Then there's the processor, I have a quad core i7 at 3.4ghz, the rMBP comes in at 2.6GHZ with turboboost to 3.8ghz... I'm not entirely sure that it's really any better. Is it fair for me to be comparing a laptop against a desktop? I think so, iMacs are basically laptops with big screens and there's a 2.5 year difference here... Moore's law my ass...

So it comes down to dropping almost 4000$ for a not-really-faster-or-better machine. Finally, I think I'll pass.
What could have made the difference you ask? Decent storage and better than average graphics, neither of which are offered, regardless of price.

Last thing! The 750M is actually a free upgrade... at one point I thought I might save some money by forgoing the dedicated GPU, but when you configure the entry model of the 15$ to spec the same as the top one, it costs exactly the same, minus the dedicated GPU, go figure, it appears that Apple knows the 750M is in fact worthless.

post #26 of 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by alienzed View Post
 

-This top model also just happens to have a processor that is clocked lower than the model it was replacing, even the processor you can upgrade to is clocked lower. I know that gigahertz aren't everything, but they are something, and here specs had actually gotten worse.

-Everyone knew the Haswell chip was all about efficiency, but I didn't realize just how modest the performance difference was, essentially there isn't any. Early benchmarks are reporting 2-4% better scores. Not impressed and hardly worth the wait.

 

Clocked slower and 9-10% faster performance for the top end MBP in both single and multi-core performance.

 

"There are some significant performance gains for the high-end model as it's 10% faster than the previous generation."

 

http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2013/10/retina-macbook-pro-benchmarks/

 

Since this is the model you claim to be interested in yes, it is actually pretty impressive.

Quote:
 

My bubble was burst but it gets worse.
-Apple has always charged a premium for their products, but what is just plain unacceptable is that a 3000$ machine comes with only 512gb of storage, bump that to 1TB (the maximum) (which I can only assume is actually 960GB) if you want to doll out 500$ more (I know, it's 450$, add tax... yeah.) 

 

http://www.dell.com/us/business/p/laptops.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&~ck=mn#!facets=226292~0~14720666&p=1

 

A $3500 laptop that comes with a 512GB SSD.  There isn't a 1TB SSD upgrade option.  Which part of SSD confuses you?

Quote:
 So now we're at 3500$ for a nice looking laptop with cutting edge technology, but all around somewhat disappointing specs.

 

$2600 + 500 = $3100.  $3,300 if you also bump the CPU to 2.6 Ghz.  I guess addition is not your strong suit.

 

Quote:
 -Thunderbolt 2 : Nice in theory, almost useless in practice. I give it points for future-proofness though, and if it had NOT received this spec bump, double ouch. :|

 

Useless only if you don't care about I/O speeds.

 

Quote:
 -USB3.0: Welcome to the party, you are 3 years late, the first laptop with usb 3 came out in October 2010. So much for cutting edge...

 

Except that they've had USB3 for the last three models now (2012, early 2013 and now late 2013).  So much for you having a clue.

Quote:
Then it became apparent that the 750M wasn't as powerful as the two and half year old 6970M. Almost three years pass and they can't put a better dedicated GPU in their flagship pro-portable? 

 

The GDDR5 750M is faster than the GTX 660M.

 

I'd have preferred the GTX 760M as a BTO option but the GDDR5 750M in the MBP is faster than last year's MBP.  The iMac has always been faster than the MBP.  This hasn't changed in years.  And it takes a few years before the mid-tier GPUs overtake the very top end GPUs.

 

Quote:
Everyone knows that iMac components are in fact laptop components anyway, "wtf!?" I thought.

 

27" iMac 75W TDP GPU

15" MBP 50W TDP GPU

 

You thought?  I find that hard to believe.

 

Quote:
Then there's the processor, I have a quad core i7 at 3.4ghz, the rMBP comes in at 2.6GHZ with turboboost to 3.8ghz... I'm not entirely sure that it's really any better

 

You aren't "entirely sure" because you can't look at geekbench.

 

The fastest mac currently on the single core 32bit benchmark is the 2013 MBP

The fastest non-mac pro on the multi core 32bit benchmark is the 2013 MBP

The 2013 MBP trails the 2013 iMac by 127 in the single core 64 bit benchmark and 481 in the multi core 64 bit benchmark.

 

In comparison the 2011 3.4 Ghz iMac trails the 2013 MBP by 1628 or 14% on the multi-core 64 bit benchmark and 12% on the single core 64 bit benchmark.

 

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

 

Quote:
Is it fair for me to be comparing a laptop against a desktop?

 

No.  But even when you do the MBP does very well except for the GPU.

 

Quote:

So it comes down to dropping almost 4000$ for a not-really-faster-or-better machine.

 

Not content with inflating $3300 to $3500 you now call it "almost $4000".

 

Quote:
Finally, I think I'll pass.

 

Imagine the surprise.

post #27 of 27

Taxes in it comes to 3852.5, and that's without Applecare, which anybody buying a 4000$ apple product would most likely buy. My addition seems fine thank you.

You say that usually apple laptops catch up to the iMac after a few years, well its been a few years, and they haven't caught up, if anything they are more crippled than ever.
As for "not caring about I/O speeds", nothing, I repeat, nothing most people have access to can make good use of Thunderbolt, let alone TB2, except maybe 4k screens, and then it takes 3 of them and one hell of a graphics card. I wasn't complaining about TB2, just mentioning that it's high potential but low utility port.

I'm not your typical troll, just trying to understand the logic behind the world's most expensive laptop. :)

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Benchmarks show modest performance gains with Apple's new Retina MacBook Pros