Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Geekbench scores showing up for i5 + i7

D

derlockere

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 16, 2009
66
0
Here are some Geekbench scores I found:

Model numbers seem like: Macbook Air 4,1 = 11" / Macbook Air 4,2 = 13"

11":
i7:http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/441499 (32-bit)
5767

i5:http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/441114 (64-bit)
5032

13":
i7: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/441437 (32-bit)
5835

i7: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/441556 (64-bit)
6316

i7 via user scottlu13: https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/12992496/ (32-bit)
5814

i5:http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/441093 (64-bit)
5879

I didn't find more results.
Does anybody know what's the difference between the 32-bit and the 64-bit test? edit: It seems about 10% --> that could be a rather steep margin in CPU speed regarding i5 vs. i7 in the 11"
 
Last edited:
O

OSMac

macrumors 65816
Jun 14, 2010
1,455
7
The 13" i5 looks interesting so far, hope it runs silent most of the time.
 
Oppressed

Oppressed

macrumors 65816
Aug 15, 2010
1,265
10
Why is the i5 on the 11 inch doing to poorly? Not nearly as big of a gap as the i5 and i7 on the 13 inch model.
 
T

trondah

macrumors 6502
Dec 1, 2008
344
0
The i5 on the 13" turbo boosts to 2.7 GHz while the 11" boosts to 2.3 GHz.

I wouldn't call the score poor though, I seem to remember my previous 2.4 GHz C2D MBP got like 3700 in geekbench.
 
KnightWRX

KnightWRX

macrumors Pentium
Jan 28, 2009
15,046
4
Quebec, Canada
Guys, Geekbench scores are worthless. You can get the same information by looking up where the part number fits in Intel's part list.

It's simply a measure of pure CPU+memory performance.
 
arctic

arctic

macrumors 6502a
Jun 18, 2008
632
1
KnightWRX said:
Guys, Geekbench scores are worthless. You can get the same information by looking up where the part number fits in Intel's part list.
Click to expand...

So true. Geekbench is hogwash. I recall, just a few hours after the 2010 MBA's were out, a front page article also boasting the Airs to equal or better the MBPs. Yet we didnt see all MBA owners boasting their MBAs kicking butts against MBP performances. What I'd love to see though is for the new MBA's to be included in practical tests just like these:

http://www.macworld.com/article/157893/2011/02/2011macbookpro_benchmarks.html#lsrc.mod_rel
 
MattZani

MattZani

macrumors 68030
Apr 20, 2008
2,554
104
UK
Still waiting for a 13" i5 32bit test, so I can see how it really matches up to my MBP!
 
M

MBABuyer

macrumors regular
May 4, 2011
153
0
VA
Will I notice the difference in the i5 vs i7?

I am going to get 256gb no matter what, but I am either going to the store to get the 256gb i5...or waiting till next week for 256gb i7.

I am going to use this for email, internet, school work, projects, no heavy gaming, light imovie occasionally, and videos online.

What difference will the i7 make compared to the i5?

Thanks,
Swayne
 
ghsDUDE

ghsDUDE

macrumors 68030
May 25, 2010
2,948
763
I've been reading that the i5 in the 11" is worse than the i5 in the 13"

*Score Wise*

Can anyone confirm or deny this?
 
J

jimboutilier

macrumors 6502a
Nov 10, 2008
647
42
Denver
fotuwe said:
What about some Xbench results?
Click to expand...

I'm with you. Looking forward to XBENCH results.

No benchmark is completely valid for all users but Geekbench is pretty much meaningless for a feel for a systems overall speed. Xbench isn't perfect but a lot better. Enough real user reports in combination with a variety of benchmarks are best.

I know if I bought a 2011 MBA it wouldn't seem twice as fast even though the CPU may be twice as fast. Lots of other components and thee way they interact are just as important. I'll be impressed if XBENCH scores go up 20% over what I'm currently getting (score=140).
 
B

bp1000

macrumors 65832
Jul 7, 2011
1,502
249
I got my new mba earlier today and ran geekbench

13" i5 1.7ghz

32bit
5470

64bit
5853
 
D

drewyboy

macrumors 65816
Jan 27, 2005
1,385
1,467
Looks like on xbench base 13" airs are beating base 13" pro's. That's good news. I can't afford anything more than the base 13". It's just too much to justify going for the 256 for $300 more. $300 buys a lot of external :)
 
nebulos

nebulos

macrumors 6502a
Aug 27, 2010
555
0
arctic said:
So true. Geekbench is hogwash. I recall, just a few hours after the 2010 MBA's were out, a front page article also boasting the Airs to equal or better the MBPs. Yet we didnt see all MBA owners boasting their MBAs kicking butts against MBP performances. What I'd love to see though is for the new MBA's to be included in practical tests just like these:

http://www.macworld.com/article/157893/2011/02/2011macbookpro_benchmarks.html#lsrc.mod_rel
Click to expand...


2010 MBA as fast as 2010 MBP? NO.

this is an extremely common mistake, one that was very convenient for 2010 MBA marketing:

the test you're referring to is not geekbench, it's a test 'suite', called speedmark (i believe), which involves several different tests, including file transfer speeds and other operations that are disk-bound, which is why the SSD on the Air helped it score comparably, when averaging over all tests, to the MBP.

geekbench is purely CPU and RAM (has nothing to do with disk speed).

***************

EDIT: Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your post. I don't know what article you first referred to. It reported comparable geekbench scores for the 2010 MBA and MBP? the Macworld article is the one I was referring to, which seemed to me to be the one that planted the idea that "2010 MBA ~ 2010 MBP" for 13" models.

***************

EDIT 2: In fact, I guess the Macworld article does show that for the 2010 13" models, MBA was, overall, or, on average, about as 'fast' as MBP. The crux of the issue is the meaning of 'fast'. Some tasks are disk bound, some are CPU bound. We just have to be careful when reporting/interpreting test results.

If we perform a new test on Macs where we take each computer and toss it out the window of a moving van, I think the first gen MBA may easily be 'faster' than the upcoming Mac Pros.
 
Last edited:
nebulos

nebulos

macrumors 6502a
Aug 27, 2010
555
0
somehow i was smart enough to miss/forget that this is the first post in the thread! ... i got caught up looking up scores and started organizing them, then i looked back up and struck myself on the forehead. anyways, for what it's worth:


13" Samsung Series 9

1.4GHz i5-2537M, Hyperthreading, Turboboost 2.3GHz

32-bit Geekbench: ~3800

64-bit Geekbench: 4500 (only one score)


base 11" 2011 MBA

1.6GHz i5-2467M, Hyperthreading, Turboboost 2.3GHz

32-bit Geekbench: ~4600

64-bit Geekbench: ~5000


11" 2011 MBA with CPU upgrade

1.8GHz, i7-2677M, Hyperthreading, Turboboost 2.9GHz

32-bit Geekbench: ~5800

64-bit Geekbench: 6200 (only one score)


base 13" 2011 MBA

1.7GHz i5-2557M, Hyperthreading, Turboboost 2.7GHz

32-bit Geekbench: ~ 5400

64-bit Geekbench: ~5900


13" 2011 MBA with CPU upgrade

1.8GHz, i7-2677M, Hyperthreading, Turboboost 2.9GHz

32-bit Geekbench: ~5800

64-bit Geekbench: ~6300


... some outlier scores were ignored. we'll see how the averages settle over time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom