“The first-ever publicly displayed new MacBook Geekbench 3 test results reveal the new 2lb. laptop to be amazingly fast,” Mark Reschke writes for T-GAAP. “The MacBook tested used the upgraded processor — 1.2 GHz — capable of running up to 2.6 GHz with Intel’s Turbo Boost technology. The single-core showcased an impressive 2831 result, while the dual-core results came in at stunning fast 5567, running Mac OS X 10.10.2.”
“Primate Labs Geekbench 3 tests revealed only 1 out of 67 Windows laptops running the Core M-Y571 processor could beat the MacBook’s multi-core score,” Reschke writes. “The ASUSTeK T300CHI beat the MacBook’s multi-core score by a mere 2%, and 4% in the single-core testing. However, ASUSTeK also accomplishes this feat by running a 1.4 GHz baseline M-Y571 processor speed, 200 MHz faster than the MacBook. At this point, no PC comes to matching the new MacBook’s performance with a 1.2 GHz M-5Y71 processor.”
“This initial testing showcases just how effectively Apple can integrate any given component into their holistic design of hardware and software,” Reschke writes. “Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of these test results is how closely the Geekbench scores run against the refreshed MacBook Air products. The updated 13-inch MacBook Air, equipped with a default 1.6 GHz – 2.7 GHz Turbo Boost Intel Core i5 processor, beats the new MacBook by only 3% in an average combined Geekbench score.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Once again, Apple proves that vertical integration yields significantly better products.
Related articles:
New MacBook destroys competitors’ battery life – March 30, 2015
Why Apple is banking on USB-C for its new 12-inch MacBook and beyond – March 25, 2015
Ports? We don’t need no stinkin’ ports! Why Apple’s MacBook will be a hit – March 16, 2015
Gruber: Apple invented USB-C reversible-plug connector – March 14, 2015
The new one-port Apple MacBook? No problem for those living in 2015 – March 12, 2015
AnandTech hands on Apple’s new 12-inch MacBook: ‘By far the most portable Mac Apple has ever created’ – March 12, 2015
Apple’s revolutionary new 12-inch MacBook heralds world without wires and cables – March 11, 2015
PC Mag hands on Apple’s all-new 12-Inch MacBook: ‘You’ll want to carry it with you everywhere’ – March 10, 2015
Hands-on with Apple’s One-port wonder, the amazing MacBook with 12-inch Retina display – March 9, 2015
Apple unveils all-new MacBook, the thinnest and lightest Mac ever made – March 9, 2015
Now to see how the graphics scores compare. Pushing a retina display with a 5300 Intel graphics vs a non-retina MBA display with a 6100 GPU should be telling.
What will be far more telling is to see how well the MacBook does running the Geekbench stress test. Without active cooling the only way the processor will keep from overheating is by throttling the clock speed on an already slow processor.
Exactly. My son is looking to buy a Mac for college this fall, and he’s debating between the MacBook and 13″ MacBook Pro (he wants Retina display, so MBA is out). Been waiting for some full MacBook testing to see how it stacks up against the MBP 13.
What does the MacBook offer? Low weight and long battery life. For a college student who will use his machine for practically everything, including work that he can’t even predict today, choosing aesthetics over performance is not a great tradeoff compared to a MacBook Pro.
If he’s young and healthy, he can lift a MacBook Pro. On a college campus, there is no shortage of places to charge up.
There is no practical reason to go with an inferior performing MacBook.
I want 1, make that 2, no 3, no 4…
🙂
Imagine how fast the iPad Pro will be 😉
just convinced my company to buy me the gold 1.3
I hate you! LOL 😛
Apple iPad Air 2 is also super fact — it reached 4800 in this test.
This is why I wrote that if Apple really wanted, it only had to tweak A8X a little bit to make its frequency higher and it would match or top Intel’s offer.
In half year from now, iPad Air 3 will already top Macbook in performance with its A9X SoC.
However, Apple has no use for ARM architecture for Macintoshes now. There is no significant benefit to switch even low power products like Macbook.
One of the reason is because Intel is still leading in manufacturing: their 14 nm is the only honest 14 nm production. Samsung, Global Foundries and TSMC half cheap by keeping interconnects made on older 20 nm dimensions — so their 14/16 nm processes are half way to fully 14 nm process Intel has.
I thought I read the other day that it was about as fast as the 2011 Air?
That’s about right. You know, everyone with a MBA describes their travel laptop as “blazing”.
I have a 2011 MBA with the 1.8 GHz i7. It’s not blazing. It was fine until Yosemite, then the 4GB RAM just became too little. Now I have to be careful not to have too many apps open or too many tabs open in Safari. Mavericks was much better at memory management.
I completely agree that Yosemite has some serious memory management issues. Having more memory just means it’ll take a little longer before you run into those problems.
That’s kind of sad, slower than Apple’s slowest laptop of 4 years ago.
Speed of the computer is just about the least of my priorities.
3% slower!!!! Epic Fail…
Are you effing kidding me? That’s about the speed of a 2010 MacBook Air or a 2007 MacBook Pro!
Blazing fast? Don’t be ridiculous.
On the same geekbench 3.3.2 test the 13″ MacBook Air 2010 scored 840 single core and 1436 multi core that is about 3.5-4 times slower than the new MacBook – not really “about the speed”…
Exactly the problem with the early MBAs: not powerful enough. It was not a sales success until Apple gave it more ports and more horsepower, and still it isn’t Apple’s best selling laptop.
Fast forward to today, and you have 5 years more bloat in OS X and all the applications that run on it. Offering a new MacBook that has no more power than a 2011 MBA just makes no sense whatsoever if you do anything more than email and web surfing. But if all you do is email and websurfing, then save yourself $1000 and get an iPad.
Yeah cuz iPads have 12″ screen, full-size real keyboard, Force Touch, and 500GB of storage.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/2273760
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
64 bit multiprocessor:
best Mac desktop score:
32062
Mac Pro (Late 2013), Intel Xeon E5-2697 v2 2700 MHz (12 cores)
best Mac laptop score:
14718
MacBook Pro (15-inch Retina Mid 2014), Intel Core i7-4980HQ 2800 MHz (4 cores)
best ultraportable laptop:
6863
MacBook Air (11-inch Early 2015), Intel Core i7-5650U 2200 MHz (2 cores)
5567
The new 2015 MacBook (12-inch, Intel M-5Y71 processor, 1.2 GHz)
any questions?
It gets thy score running a Retina display, FWIW. 😀
Every user has to figure out WIW for themselves. Hard to say whether a Retina screen will trump lack of processing power. Maybe.
But in a larger sense, I think the new MacBook will be disappointing to entry-level buyers who just want to get a decent value Mac laptop. There is no low-cost, high-CPU-power MacBook model anymore. The new MacBook is just another MacBook Air with fewer ports, sized for people who do their workouts in the gym and never want to pick up a device that looks like it weighs any more than the ridiculously overpriced coffee in their other hand.
Why the New MacBook Benchmark Scores Don’t Matter. 😀
http://www.applegazette.com/macbook/new-macbook-benchmark-scores/
The article proposes that performance doesn’t matter because now computer buyers only want fashion, and someday the 2015 MacBook will eventually be considered a decent value?
What complete BS.
Anyone who is willing to settle for poor CPU performance is also willing to settle for poor graphics, and there are many netbooks that will give them what they want for a quarter of the price. Other Macs offer vastly more performance for about the same price.
A Retina display is just not a huge selling point for a machine that cannot realistically edit high resolution video or images, nor play high resolution games. A used 2011 MacBook Air is an infinitely better value. Watch Apple drop the price on this fancy netbook if Cook can’t move hardly any units by the 2015 holiday season.
Not impressed, actually. The processor score is only good for short duration bursts. Remember, this thing is fanless, so no quick way to cool a hot processor. When you dig into anything that requires some processing, then watch as the MacBook CPU speed drops like a rock.
As others have said, this is a fashion oriented netbook. I don’t believe that its processor score reflects accurately how limited this machine will be in the real world.
Limited for what? Photoshop? Yeah I’m sure (because PS is bloatware), but that is obviously not the target market. I doubt this MacBook will be limited to the “real world” it was designed for (probably not you or me).
No surprise to me that this computer is actually fast, despite apparently low level hardware specs.
The class of hardware in the Macbook is similar to what PC netbooks had about 5 years ago, when Apple was refusing to make netbook computer (to many critics dismay). Of course a major difference is that the Macbook is using 2015 versions of this type of hardware – Intel’s low-level mini CPU’s, integrated graphics, SSD’s, and even USB have all made very significant advances recently, that make for a faster computer experience.
I think Apple was simply waiting for these hardware advances to cross a tipping point, where Apple could make a computer using these low power components that doesn’t suck, before making the Netbook style Macbook.
No, netbooks did not have 12″ screens (retina at that) and full size keyboards, and were very cheap in many ways. Not comparable.
OMG! Netbooks just sucked!!
Yes, please, let’s finally put away any comparisons to netbooks, which did indeed fill an unprofitable low cost/power market. These aren’t even in the same realm. If you think so then you are either fearing the unknown or wish it so.
If the new Mac Book doesn’t have the same processors at the Mac Pro, I ain’t gonna touch it.
Yeah, but imagine how great the MacBook could have been if it had the new screen as well as the CPU performance of a 2011 MBA, and not one but 3 ports: Thunderbolt, USB-C, and Magsafe. That would be an unstoppable sales hurricane.
Unfortunately, Ive decided to squash more usability out of the MacBook. Sad!
Target consumers do not need all of those ports. The lighter, thinner, and overall diminutive package will be clearer to you in a couple years.
MDN, iCal it!
You do not sound like a target consumer, but rather someone in a long line of people who have failed to comprehend Apple’s vision until it is too late.
You sound like an insufferable prat.
No need to iCal.
Who is the target consumer? All it has over the far more powerful, far more expandable 11″ MBA is 8 oz and a retina display for more money.
Jony Ive has become a detriment to Apple since he doesn’t have Jobs to rein him in any longer and Cook is unwilling to do so.
I guess you forgot about the original MacBook Air? This device is better than the first Air in every way.
I remember the original MacBook Air very clearly. Very low on power and ports and remained a niche machine until it gained power and ports. After that it started becoming a more mainstream machine. Originally though it mostly appealed to travelers because it was 2 pounds lighter then the next lightest Mac. It did however have the distinction of filling a niche previously occupied by mostly miserable netbooks and was the first ultra book.
Now we have the new MacBook which seems to be a computer in search of a niche. It’s only 8 oz lighter then the less expensive more powerful and more expendable11″ MBA. It’s single USB-C port is interesting but being a first-generation version Is limited to USB 3.0 speeds and just having one makes it very inconvenient. It has a nice retina display but only a passively cooled low-end processor that would likely have problems running software that could make the best use of the retina display.
It’s basically a very expensive netbook with a very nice screen.
This is not the same “low on power and ports” situation of the first MBA, over 7 years ago. It’s designed to be unplugged completely and has more than enough power for most people.
It’s been compared to a 2011 MBA, I have a 2011 MBA and it’s not a fast machine but it can accommodate all my external drives with the exception of my second Thunderbolt drive. One hub and not a dongle in sight. You can’t even charge the MB and make a bootable backup at the same time without purchasing a dongle.
I can edit photos and movies taken on my iPhone, often done on trips and vacations. That taxes my dual core i7 but it works because the MBA has a 6500 rpm fan for active cooling. The MB is passively cooled which means the M processor will throttle the already slow processor’s clock speed even more to prevent overheating.
The weight of the original MBA was 2 pounds lighter than the weight of the next lightest Mac Laptop, the new MB is 8 oz lighter than the weight of the next lightest Mac Laptop. You’re paying more to save ¼ lb and get a retina display that will bog down the processor when used for many common tasks. If all you want to do is browse the internet, use mail and social media then you’ll be paying a premium just to look cool while doing it.
The jury is still out on real-world performance.
It’s about making something that was thin, light, and very portable even more thin, light, and portable while retaining a full-size screen, keyboard, and trackpad. Furthermore, the screen, keyboard, and trackpad were all improved. Quite an accomplishment that comes with a price.
I don’t dispute that the MB has some interesting technologies, however I do question the wisdom of using a low power processor with no active cooling and limiting it to a single first generation USB-C port. There is nothing wrong with MagSafe and no one knows about the mechanical strength of the USB-C connector which will certainly be put through a lot of mechanical stress being both the charging port and the only I/O port. I see the MacBook as a testbed for new technologies but also as a monument to Jony Ive’s hubris.
An 11″ MBA with 8GB RAM is still tiny, cheaper and far more practical.
Played with one yesterday at the Apple store. It’s a beautiful machine, but clearly a gazelle, not a workhorse.
BTW, anyone see Charlie Rose wearing his white-banded Apple Watch on PBS last night?