Apple's ultra-thin 12-inch MacBook benchmarks on par with 2011 MacBook Air

Posted:
in Future Apple Hardware edited April 2015
Fresh benchmark statistics posted to the Web on Wednesday suggest Apple's upcoming 12-inch MacBook laptop will perform at levels commensurate of older MacBook Air models from 2011.




According to Primate Labs' Geekbench test suite, Apple's base model 2015 12-inch MacBook, designated MacBook 8,1, achieved a single core score of 1,924 points, while multi core operations came in at 4,038 points.

Apparently submitted online by Mashable journalist Christina Warren, the performance notches just below a recently tested 2011 11-inch MacBook Air sporting an Intel Core i7 CPU clocked at 1.80 GHz.

The new MacBook runs a power efficient dual-core Intel Core M processor clocked at 1.1 GHz. Requiring only 5 watts of power, Intel's mobile-minded Broadwell architecture sips energy at the expense of performance. Along with the 1.1 GHz chip, Apple is offering a 1.3 GHz version as a $300 add-on option.

For an ultralight laptop fitted with a high-resolution Retina display, however, raw processing power is not necessarily as important as squeezing out acceptable battery life. Apple says the MacBook's 39.7-watt-hour battery can handle up to nine hours of Web browsing activities or up to ten hours of movie playback.

While Apple's 12-inch MacBook is slated to hit store shelves on April 10, an unboxing video posted earlier today offered a first look at the hardware.
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 106
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 884member
    Great if you really [I]really[/I] need the thinness (maybe you have to slip the MacBook under people's doors daily in your job?), but "on a par" with a 4 year old machine is not really much to be proud of. Especially when the current MacBook Air is almost as thin, has better battery and a much beefier CPU.

    In fact, my 2008 Macbook scores 1500 single core, so a 20% single core improvement after 6 years really isn't great. Apples and oranges I know, but even so.
  • Reply 2 of 106
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    For an ultralight laptop, however, raw processing power is not necessarily as important as squeezing out battery life.

     

    Man, I don't know about you guys but I like an ultralight laptop because I'm a lazy bastard who likes to move his computer easily about the house while it's still plugged in to the power socket in whatever room it's in. I don't give a bugger about battery life.

     

    (Happy Birthday Apple)

  • Reply 3 of 106
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    elijahg wrote: »
    Great if you really really need the thinness (maybe you have to slip the MacBook under people's doors daily in your job?), but "on a par" with a 4 year old machine is not really much to be proud of. Especially when the current MacBook Air is almost as thin, has better battery and a much beefier CPU.

    In fact, my 2008 Macbook scores 1500 single core, so a 20% single core improvement after 6 years really isn't great. Apples and oranges I know, but even so.

    So I guess blame Intel? Are people complaining about the Windows PCs using this processor? And how many MBA owners actually need that beefier CPU?
  • Reply 4 of 106
    Seems acceptable. Remember, this is faster in every single subsystem than the 2011 Air. Better RAM, better GPU, better storage, etc. I think Joe Average will be very pleased with it, it's not as crippled as the original Air was.
  • Reply 5 of 106
    rogifan wrote: »
    So I guess blame Intel? Are people complaining about the Windows PCs using this processor? And how many MBA owners actually need that beefier CPU?

    Most don't need it. There are some using the Air as a poor-mans MBP, but that's probably going to end. Just like the quad core Mini's went away.

    The 2008 MacBook (which I use daily) isn't bad, but it's also slower than this 2015 in every aspect, and it also needs a considerable cooling system. Oh, and it gets 4 hours of battery life, roughly. So...comparing a 5W chip to whatever the 2.4GHz Penryn used is ridiculous.
  • Reply 6 of 106
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post



    Seems acceptable. Remember, this is faster in every single subsystem than the 2011 Air. Better RAM, better GPU, better storage, etc. I think Joe Average will be very pleased with it, it's not as crippled as the original Air was.

    I don't see this as a Joe Average machine at all, especially not the gold one. This is a machine for a President or CEO who has people to do the heavy lifting and just wants a nice sleek machine to email, text and browse with.

  • Reply 7 of 106
    How much slower than the 2013 Macbook Air? The new refreshed Macbook Air? I am a longtime supporter of low power (power is king) but I am concerned about CPU performance from the data from you so far...
  • Reply 8 of 106

    Not surprising. The original MBA when it came out was underpowered (if memory serves) compared to other laptops at the time and now it's a powerhouse that many have as their main machine.

     

    I fully expect the same to happen here.

  • Reply 9 of 106
    Top link on eBay for a 2011 MacBook Air: $218.50. 11.6", 128GB SSD.

    Or you could spend $1,299 on the 2015 MacBook.

    The choice is yours.
  • Reply 10 of 106
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    mstone wrote: »
    I don't see this as a Joe Average machine at all, especially not the gold one. This is a machine for a President or CEO who has people to do the heavy lifting and just wants a nice sleek machine to email, text and browse with.

    How do you define Joe Average?
  • Reply 11 of 106
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Top link on eBay for a 2011 MacBook Air: $218.50. 11.6", 128GB SSD.

    Or you could spend $1,299 on the 2015 MacBook.

    The choice is yours.

    A machine that is worse in nearly every considerable way. If price is your main or only concern buy a Windows PC.
  • Reply 12 of 106
    rogifan wrote: »
    Top link on eBay for a 2011 MacBook Air: $218.50. 11.6", 128GB SSD.

    Or you could spend $1,299 on the 2015 MacBook.

    The choice is yours.

    A machine that is worse in nearly every considerable way. If price is your main or only concern buy a Windows PC.

    Equivalent performance according to AI.

    Four years older, but you save yourself $1,100 in the process, and because it's SSD, you don't have to worry about the hard drive failing.
  • Reply 13 of 106
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Patrick Byars View Post



    How much slower than the 2013 Macbook Air? The new refreshed Macbook Air? I am a longtime supporter of low power (power is king) but I am concerned about CPU performance from the data from you so far...

     

    I always find this reasoning kind of funny, its GPU, memory, storage, network speed is all much faster, it has a better screen, longer battery life and its lighter but hey, I couldn't do anything with my 2011 I7, so I guess I'm screwed now... Yes, the "I7" at 1.8GZ... Totally useless in 2011 (and now) (sic).

    In modern machine, the CPU is becoming less and less important because lets face it, few things most people do are CPU bound.

    Apple is about balance to fit a design goal and this machine has that covered.

     

    If your editing 4K video, rendering or compiling millions of lines, it is not a good machine for you (and Apple has you covered), but for what it is designed to do, its just peachy.

  • Reply 14 of 106
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,119member

    "Apparently submitted online by Mashable journalist Christina Warren, the performance notches just below a recently tested 2011 11-inch MacBook Air sporting an Intel Core i7 CPU clocked at 1.80 GHz."

     

    Yeah, let's compare it to the ultra-souped up Air configuration, not the base model, cause that makes sense!

    Hell, if a laptop running Core-M is getting performance similar to an i7 chip, that's pretty damn impressive. It's not like Haswell and Broadwell brought massive performance gains. 

     

    Oh, and let's also ignore EVERY other component besides the CPU. You know, the stuff that make the BIGGEST difference like massively improved SSD speeds, more and faster RAM, 4X screen resolution, etc. We all knew the Core-M wasn't a screamer and does not compare to modern i5 or i7, so nothing new there. 

  • Reply 15 of 106
    To bad. I was considering a laptop for just web, email and video streaming but at speeds along the lines of a MacBook Air 2011 means it is a non starter. It gives off the perception you are getting less power for more money. Especially when the MacBook Pro offers better hardware at the same price and a larger screen to boot. Thinner and more colors is not worth more. It needs to be $300-$400 less for the base model. Too many better deals out there for the price.
  • Reply 16 of 106
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by applebjesus View Post



    To bad. I was considering a laptop for just web, email and video streaming but at speeds along the lines of a MacBook Air 2011 means it is a non starter. It gives off the perception you are getting less power for more money. Especially when the MacBook Pro offers better hardware at the same price and a larger screen to boot. Thinner and more colors is not worth more. It needs to be $300-$400 less for the base model. Too many better deals out there for the price.

     

    Did you read what 2011 Machbook they're talking about... And there is not just a CPU in a computer you know... There is not better deal in that format with the rest of the spec that machine has; that's the whole point of it.

  • Reply 17 of 106
    512ke512ke Posts: 782member

    Right before this new Macbook came out, I picked up an i7 MBA refurbished.

     

    Single Core/2894. Multi Core 5615.

  • Reply 18 of 106
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    How do you define Joe Average?

    Windows user. 

     

    Spec-wise it is a Joe Average machine but not price-wise. You are paying a lot for the elegance of the design and the Apple brand.

  • Reply 19 of 106
    idaveidave Posts: 1,283member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

     

    You know, the stuff that make the BIGGEST difference like massively improved SSD speeds, more and faster RAM, 4X screen resolution, etc.


    Agreed, for an ultra-portable machine the new MacBook will be excellent. It's extremely light, has great battery life, an awesome screen and adequate performance. It's a perfect on the go or on-your-lap computer, while not for those who need loads of power. I think that's what the MacBook Pro is for.

     

    This new MacBook will replace my iPad, which frustrates me each and every day.

  • Reply 20 of 106
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    edit: The trolls win. There is just too much jackassary around here these days. I think I've had it with this forum for awhile.
Sign In or Register to comment.