Following Apple’s shipments of the first 1.3GHz versions of the 12″ MacBook this week, benchmarks have started to appear online for the new Intel Core M-5Y71 machine. Geekbench 3 shows the following results for each model, which vary based on the testing mode (32/64-bit) and number of processor cores used (single or multiple cores).
- 32-Bit: Single-Core Average 2212, Multi-Core Average 4070
- 64-Bit: Single-Core Average 2428, Multi-Core Average 4592
- 32-Bit: Single-Core Average 2348, Multi-Core Average 4603
- 64-Bit: Single-Core Average 2579, Multi-Core Average 5185
- 32-Bit: Single-Core Average 2387, Multi-Core Average 4673
- 64-Bit: Single-Core Average 2816, Multi-Core Average 5596
The 1.3GHz MacBook’s 64-Bit scores represent 16%-22% improvements over the 1.1GHz model, and 8%-9% gains over the 1.2GHz model. On April 27, we updated the 32-Bit scores now that additional benchmarks have been posted; they show smaller gains over the lower-speed models. More details are below…
Combing through Geekbench 3 results, the 1.3GHz MacBook’s scores compare most directly to Apple’s 1.4GHz Macs, such as the entry-level 21.5″ iMac and early 2014 entry-level MacBook Air. The latter model achieved Single- and Multi-Core scores in the 2400/4700 range for 32-Bit tests, and 2700/5300 for 64-Bit tests.
Geekbench 3’s Single-Core scores reflect the machines’ relative speeds when performing non-demanding tasks such as basic web browsing and word processing. Multi-Core scores demonstrate the machine’s ability to perform more complex tasks demanding additional processing power, such as video rendering.
The 1.3GHz MacBook is available only as a custom build-to-order model, but authorized resellers are now offering it at discounted prices.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
I would be more interested to see how the system performs under sustained load. Without a fan, it’s going to have to throttle more to avoid overheating. Turbo boost really will only be for short boosts lest they cook the chip.
That’s for sure not true. The Apple unibody cases are designed to be massive heat radiators. It’s a Core M for a reason. Do you really think Apple hasn’t tested that scenario? lol
Leif is right in this case; I have the 1.2Ghz (shipped in 1 day) and my 1.3Ghz arrived today (haven’t had time to benchmark yet) but I’ve already put the 1.2 under quite a bit of stress. 1080p video, and long-running code compilation as well as *multiple* (2) headless VM’s.
It’s pretty obvious that the machine isn’t built for anything graphics intensive and the only cause of any issue in my experience is simply a high # of active window frames (or ‘apps’) running concurrently; in terms of sustained load which engages both cores I’ve actually been really surprised at how well the logic board is designed. Sure, it heats up occasionally and it’s absolutely noticeable, but it’s not going to burn anyone and it’s nowhere *near* hot enough to damage the chip. I’d call it “luke-warm” compared to my MBP i7’s somewhat scary temperature spikes at high load–although that probably has something to do w/ it being ~11W vs 57. Worth noting, it also survived a stint in the South American sun while performing these tasks, with no noticeable throttling besides the shell becoming disturbingly warm (space grey model…).
Bottom line, say what you will about the price of apple tech, their marketing, or the cult-ish following they seem to inspire… When it comes to hardware, it’s hard to say anyone goes to more lengths to account for the smallest details, and that quality is pretty apparent.
It’s not the fastest, nor is it right for anyone in need anything other than mobility (no ports obviously…) but it’s certainly well designed, and well constructed.
Hey Julian,
I’m thinking of replacing my Air 11″ (2010) with the new Macbook 12 1.2 or 1.3.
I use my Mac for office work and coding (not professional, just school or university level). Most of it in Java via Eclipse or BlueJ.
I also use Parallels with Win7 on it and record screen via Camtasia (OSX) when im on Win7 (mostly coding too).
Any experience if the 1.2 or 1.3 will be capable of it? Especially in comparison with my 4 1/2y old Air 11″ ?
I’m a bit irritated because of the many “way to slow” articles in the news. I would think it should do much better than my Air, cause in all benchmarks the new Macbook is 2.5 or even 3 times faster than mine.
How does it compete on the long run?
You said you use some VM. Does it get noticeable slower after a longer time of heavy usage?
Thx a lot.
Is the difference between the 1.3ghz and the 1.2ghz noticeable? How was the experience?
Dennis, your macbook is very very slow compared to this new machine. The benchmarks of this machine are 5x what you experience now on your 11″ 2010 model.
I have the 1.2Ghz model and it’s been great speed-wise. With day-to-day tasks, I can barely see any difference between the Macbook and my home (monster) workstation.
I went for the mid-range model because of storage space, but also because I thought a speedier processors would improve battery life (faster boost -> faster task completion -> more processor idle time -> more cores on sleep). Battery life is good w/ the 12Ghz model, although I suspect it’s due to other factors.
I’m fascinated to learn if this is true. Would battery life be best with the fastest machine? I was assuming it would be best with the slowest.
There are two main things that consume power in processors — switching and capacitance.
It takes almost no power to keep a transistor in an on state or and off state – it takes power in the short time between these states. A faster chip grade will have stronger transistors and spend less time in this power hungry state. They should take less energy per amount of work done.
Capacitance (and resistance) is the energy it takes to switch the voltage on a line. Faster processors can also be fast not just because they have fast transistors, but because this load that they have to move is less. Again, less energy per amount of work done.
So, yep, I would expect battery life. Of course, you’re going to use the processor more if its quicker :-) and the processor is just part of the whole power consumption (LCD, backlight, graphics, memory, etc. take significant power and are mostly the same on 1.1GHz and 1.3GHz machines)
That is obvious.
What I wonder is how video performs?
On the original Air, you couldn’t use Skype for longer than 5 minutes. Youtube was a pain (pre-html5) and forget about HD videos.
How does your machine handle Flash videos? Can you watch 4K videos (esp. on YouTube)? How does Facetime work (would be interesting to know what is the actual framerate, iStat could help here)? I think there is a reason why they put 480p webcam there…
My brain knows I need to stick with the MacBook Pro line for work-related apps, but my heart really really wants one of these. I could theoretically get by with this 1.3GHz, but I really shouldn’t push my luck. Maybe the next revision of these would cut it for me.
I have MacBook 15″ Retina but I can’t stop myself of having the New MacBook !omg!
I own a 2013 Macbook Air with a 1,3Ghz processor and let me tell you, I have edited video on Premiere Pro and use Photoshop often and I have never heard the fan or felt the computer get any hotter than normal! So I believe that the new Macbook will work just fine, plus not everyone should get a Macbook, if you really want a ton of performance get a Macbook Pro.
I personally love my Macbook Air because of how portable it is, I used to own a Macbook Pro as well and loved it but I didn’t feel a big perfomance difference when I made the switch to the Air, maybe because I’m not a power user.
At this point I’m not sure if I’ll buy another Macbook Air next time or a Macbook Pro. My opinion on the Macbook is: it is too expensive (almost the same as Macbook Pro) but a lot of people will certainly love its design and functionality (especially the trackpad and Retina display) over the Macbook Air and so I like it as product, but maybe not for me personally at this point.
But at the same time, if someone really values having an amazing screen/retina displas, and wants a lot of probability, this is great and maybe much better than the Macbook Air in that respect.
I chuckled when I read ‘if you want a ton of performance get a Macbook Pro’. Thanks :P
> never heard the fan
Every video on YouTube using Chrome and it’s native Flash player would spin up fans on my quad-core i7 rMBP.
Safari with html5 is much better though.
That’s Flash for you. It’s deprecated at best, but it is still a profitable ad-pushing vehicle.
Don’t expect improvements to Flash. Adobe stopped putting good resources into Flash the moment they bought it from Macromedia. The only reason Google inserted Flash into Chrome was to gain leverage over Adobe. And user tracking, of course.
Thank you, an article about an Apple product that is not the Apple Watch.
I second that. I’m a big fan of these personal experience articles with the MacBook. I’m considering a purchase and really appreciate the insight. Thanks!
I’m trying to Think Different.
Jeremy, any info on the video performance? I have a MBP and need a big screen to run multiple office apps. The performance of the Mac Book seems sufficient but what about the ability to run a big screen?
Would love to get one of these. Xcode would be the most demanding app I’d run on it. But I’m waiting until WWDC to see what if any updates to the MBP are announced.
I regularly compile what I would consider mid-sized iOS apps on a 2013 Air, and have never had reason to complain. My rMacBook gets here Thursday, and I expect it will perform fine.
I think revision 2 of this MacBook will be great. And revision 3 will be perfect :-)
What do you think needs improving, and why? Just interested.
If the 1.1GHz model rivals the 2011MBA and it only takes an upgrade to 1.3GHz to rival the 2014MBA, goes to say how little the MBA has improved in performance in the last few years. And that’s fine, because consumer machines are all about running the basics well and having especially great battery life.
I agree. The retina display and superior form factor were better ways to improve the MBA.
I guess I see this machine replacing both MBAs eventually with incremental performance gains every year or two. MBPs will take a different trajectory.
What kind of disk speeds is it capable of ?
I went to Apple Store today and played with 1.1 versus 1.2. Guess what, on most sites, both were same speed. On some, 1.2 was faster, but on others 1.1 was actually faster. So, if web browsing is your primary activity, save your money and buy the base version. Examples where 1.1 was faster included youtube, vevo and msn. Examples where 1.2 was faster included cnn and msnbc.
Just bought the 1.3ghz model from last year, so the one they’re referring to, refurbished. It was $1400 Canadian! It’s pretty much exactly as fast as a new entry level Macbook Air, and slightly slower than the new Skylake 1.2ghz version of 2016, but that’s literally $500 more expensive. So this was a no brainer. Of course if it has to throttle during sustained loads it will. But let’s be honest, this isn’t the computer you buy if you’re doing heavy video editing. But honestly for like the MAJORITY of people, this is really the best computer you can buy if you can score a discount. And for the times when you have to do something on sustained load such is life and you can think about just how small and portable it is. Oh, and the keyboard is weird at first, but after like two days, it’s great.