Unreleased 2012 MacBook Pro and iMac Models appear in online benchmarks

“Two new benchmark results appearing in Geekbench’s database within the past few days are sparking discussion about imminent upgrades to Apple’s MacBook Pro and iMac lines,” Eric Slivka reports for MacRumors.

“The first item of interest is a MacBookPro9,1 entry, which would correspond to an unreleased MacBook Pro model of unknown size coming as a successor to the current MacBookPro8,x line,” Slivka reports. “While such results can be faked, the result in question is consistent with what is known or assumed about the forthcoming models. This new MacBook Pro is listed as carrying an Intel Ivy Bridge Core i7-3820QM quad-core processor running at 2.7 GHz.”

Slivka reports, “On the iMac side is a new iMac13,2 entry, which would appear to correspond to a new 27-inch iMac model. The machine is listed as running an Intel Ivy Bridge Core i7-3770 quad-core processor running at 3.4 GHz, which would correspond to a relatively high-end option in a new model.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Anybody waiting for new Macs?

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Lynn Weiler” for the heads up.]

Related articles:
Shipments of new MacBooks to surge starting June, sources say – May 14, 2012
Best Buy cuts prices up to $280 on all Apple Macs – May 14, 2012
Unreleased 2012 MacBook Pro and iMac Models appear in online benchmarks – May 14, 2012


    1. Agreed – been waiting to upgrade my PC at work to a Mac Pro for 6 months now. Would maybe consider an iMac if they are going to discontinue the Mac Pro line (as has been rumored). However, I would prefer the ability to swap out or add hard drives myself as well as memory. Taking an iMac in for a repair would leave me without a computer for at least a week (based on the time it took to get my personal iMac’s hard drive replaced.).

  1. Yes, MDN, I be a-waiting for the new iMac to replace my aging Mac Pro tower/heat plant. The i7 quad core will be a nice replacement for the Xeon’s. But my office iMac has 8 cores: for why did Apple drop that configuration?

      1. It’s an iMac 12,2 with an 8 core i7 at 3.4 GHz with 12 GB ram. At least my software CPU checker reports 8 cores (I don’t think it’s reporting 8 threads on 4 cores).

        1. This model has 4 physical cores (8 logical cores as each core can operate a two cores with “hyperthreading”). Thus, in theory, it could handle up through 8 processes concurrently.

          However, it only has 4 physical cores in a single CPU.

          As far as I know, Apple has not yet shipped any iMac systems with 8 physical cores.

  2. Yes I am. Trying to save cash for the past year to afford it is quite a challenge, but well worth it. Can’t afford to go in debt on anything anymore.

  3. I am waiting for both iMacs and iMacBook Pros. I’m impatient with Apple chasing iPad butterflies, nice as they are.

    However, I have a gripe against every Mac web site and every Mac magazine. When a new iWhatsit comes out, they publish extensive articles comparing the new one with the previous version. WHICH IS NOT USEFUL INFORMATION. Am I the only one whose eyes glaze over as I stop reading and turn to an interesting article?

    Macs last longer than Kleenex, just in case the reviewers haven’t noticed. No one needs to know how much better the 6,5 iWhatsit is compared to the 6,4 iWhatsit. We’re thinking about updating the iWhatsit that we bought three years ago; the one we dropped on the floor five times but it still works. Why can’t see see information we can actually use to decide whether to get out the car keys and drive to the Apple Store? Why not a more useful and realistic comparison between the new iWhatsit with a three-year old iWhatsit?

    Okay, now everyone shout me down.

      1. It’s about this. I want to buy a new Mac. Of the two replies so far, both counted my words but ignored what I said. I guess the level of interest in real-world comparisons is very low.

      1. I agree. No shouting. That’s why I was typing! But I’m also frustrated. I’ve been a Mac user since 2005 and I haven’t seen a single comparison that I can actually use.

      2. Okay, maybe you’re right. I should think about cutting to the chase. I never thought of canceling MacWorld and reading Geekbench instead. Thanks for the suggestion.

      3. I didn’t know about Geekbench. Maybe I should cancel my subscription to MacWorld and read Geekbench instead. I could use the money toward a new Mac. Thanks for the suggestion.

    1. You probably won’t have to wait long for a retina display on a Mac. The icns files were updated in 10.7.4 so that the largest ones are 1024×1024 instead of 512×512. You can see that for yourself. Open an icns file for iCal, for example.

  4. Waiting for Apple to improve HFS+ filesystem so that if the external drive gets unplugged before I eject it, it won’t corrupt the whole fricken drive. Now saving my money for a copy of Disk Warrior to repair my disk … that Disk Utility can’t repair. At least include a free copy of Disk Warrior with all Macs until you fix your lousy file system Apple!

    1. That isn’t really a filesystem feature. It’s a matter of flushing the buffer. On Windows systems for example you can disable the buffer on external drives. It’s probably possible right now to disable the buffer on a Mac but the loss performance isn’t worth it..

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.