Comments Off on Forthcoming Samsung Galaxy S7 Benchmarks Leak
Over the past few months AMD has been focusing its efforts on the high-end GPU fight with its āFijiā line up. The Radeon R9 Fury X lead the charge armed with 4096 stream processors and AMDās cutting-edge high-bandwidth memory technology (HBM).
Comments Off on Radeon R9 Nano Review: Mini 4K Gaming
Apple’s new 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display is here and available in a few different configurations. We’re take a closer look at the 2.5 GHz model with 16GB of RAM, and 512 GB of internal storage today, but also comparing some benchmarks to Apple’s two other 15-inch configurations for this year.
This MacBook features slight improvements in the battery department, makes the switch from NVIDIA to AMD for discrete graphics, faster internal storage, and also includes Apple’s new Force Touch trackpad as we’ve seen with other MacBook releases this year….
You won’t find any surprises inside of the box. Included is a quick start guide, Apple stickers, microfiber cleaning cloth, 85W MagSafe power adapter, and a power cord. The MacBook Pro’s design has remained the same as last years model, but I decided to spice things up a bit with a smooth matte black skin to keep it scratch free and add a little personality.
As mentioned, Apple has moved away from NVIDIA this year and the 2015 MacBook Pro now includes an AMD Radeon R9 M370X with 2GB of RAM. There may not be a huge performance difference between the two, but the AMD card seems to work better for my needs when it comes to video editing and motion graphics.
Check out our unboxing, benchmarks, and comparison video below:
In the above video, we take a look at benchmarks from this MacBook Pro using GeekBench 3, BlackMagic Disk Speed Test, and CineBench R15. We’ll also compare this MacBook’s benchmark scores to the 2.2 GHz and 2.8 GHz models that Apple offers for the 15-inch model. Keep in mind though, the 2.2 GHz model does not include discrete graphics and only features Intel’s Iris Pro.
In Geekbench 3, we got a single-core score of 3678 and a multi-core score of 14372. With BlackMagic Disk Speed test, Apple’s faster storage is lightning fast coming in with a write speed over 700 MB/s and read speeds between 1200 and 1800 MB/s. Finally in CineBench R15, we got an OpenGL score of 62.58 fps and a 600cb CPU score. Nice performance all around, but should you upgrade?
These may be the latest and greatest from Apple, but are any of them worth upgrading to? That’s really going to depend on your needs, but there are only slight differences here when compared to last year’s models. Technically, you’re getting more for your money, but as far as performance goes there aren’t any huge gains to look forward to. For pricing and availability, check out Amazon or Apple’s Online Store.
Filed under: Reviews Tagged: 2015 macbook pro, Apple, benchmarks, comparison, MacBook Pro, unboxing, video
Comments Off on New 15-inch 2.5 GHz MacBook Pro unboxed and compared to other 2015 configurations (Video)
Following Apple’s shipments of the first 1.3GHz versionsĀ of the 12″ MacBook this week, benchmarks have started to appear online for the new Intel Core M-5Y71 machine.Ā 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* 2271, Multi-Core* 4841
- 64-Bit: Single-Core Average 2816, Multi-Core Average 5596
The 1.3GHz MacBook’s 64-bit scores represent 16%-22% improvementsĀ over the 1.1GHz model, and 8%-9% gains over the 1.2GHz model. Note thatĀ only one test result has been published so far for the 1.3GHz MacBook in 32-bit mode, which is why its single-core numbers look lower than expected compared with the other models’ averages. More detailsĀ are below…
Combing throughĀ 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 scoresĀ in the 2400/4700 range for 32-Bit tests, and 2700/5300 for 64-Bit tests.
Geekbench 3’sĀ Single-Core scores reflect the machines’ relative speeds when performing non-demandingĀ 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.
Filed under: AAPL Company, General, Mac Tagged: 12" MacBook, benchmarks, MacBook, Retina MacBook
Comments Off on First 12ā³ MacBook 1.3GHz benchmarks: top model rivals 1.4GHz iMac, 2014 MacBook Air
At Apple’s Spring Forward event on March 9, the MacBook Air and 13-inch MacBook Pro lineup was refreshed along with the announcement of the new 12-inch MacBook. Today, we’re taking a closer look at one of the refreshed MacBook Pro model to see what has changed…
Along with some minor bumps in specifications, Apple’s 13-inch MacBook Pro now features a new Force Touch trackpad that adds functionality to certain apps within OS X. You’re correct in assuming that the Force Touch trackpad is the highlight of the refresh here, but the updated internals do make for some decent performance improvements as well.
In the video below, we take a look at the refreshed 13-inch MacBook Pro. This isn’t the base model though. As far as internal specifications go, this is one of the best 13-inch MacBooks your money can buy (coming in at $2,199). Inside it features a 3.1GHz dual-core Intel i7 processor, 16GB of RAM, 512GB of PCI-e based flash storage, Intel Iris 6100 graphics, and the new Force Touch trackpad.
Check out our unboxing, overview, and benchmarks video below:
If you’d like to find out more about Apple’s new Force Touch trackpad and Force Click features, we’ve put together a new video to highlight the top 15 hidden Force Click features. This will walk you through all of the need-to-know features that come along with this new trackpad on Apple’s 2015 MacBook and 13-inch MacBook Pro. Also, you can find the Geekbench score from our video here and the Novabench score here.
Other than the slight bump in performance and the new trackpad, there’s not much else to see here. Keep in mind, that these benchmarks are the best you’ll get Apple’s 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display. That being said, this is still a speedy little MacBook. I was able to edit the entire video above in UHD resolution with no issues, but it took a massive performance hit during the video export. Though that was expected due to the lack of dedicated graphics and quad-core processing power within the 13-inch models.
Overall, if you’re looking for power and portability, the top spec 13-inch MacBook Pro is about as good as it gets. Unfortunately, the new 12-inch MacBook won’t be able to handle any power/performance hungry tasks. If you really want a no-compromise experience, it may be best to look towards the top end 15-inch model or a desktop computer. Those looking for everyday use from a MacBook, will benefit from any of the 13-inch models Apple has to offer.
Filed under: Mac Tagged: 2015 macbook, Apple, benchmarks, features, force click, force touch, MacBook, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, unboxing, video
Comments Off on 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display (2015) unboxing, overview, and benchmarks (Video)
Triple-core iPad Air 2 pegged as 55% faster than any other iOS device, Retina 5K iMac top score beats low-end Pro
Geekbench results for the iMac with Retina 5K Display have hit the web and show that when it comes to 64-bit processing, the 4.0 GHz model of the new all-in-one comes out ahead of the lowest-end (3.7 GHz) Mac Pro. Of course, the rest of the Mac Pro family handily beats the iMac in the same category.
The extra power is almost certainly dedicating to keeping things running smoothly on the impressive new 5K display.
Meanwhile, on the mobile side, new benchmarks for the iPad Air 2 have revealed some very interesting data regarding the new A8X system-on-a-chip. According to Geekbench, the new tablet actually feature a triple-core processor (versus dual-core chips inĀ A8 chip inside the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus) and a hefty 2 GB of RAM.
That increase in processor power makes the iPad Air 2 one formidable machine, coming in at about 55% fasterĀ thanĀ the brand new iPhone 6 and 6 Plus. The difference is even more impressive when you compare the new tablet to its predecessor, providing a massive 68% jump in multi-core performance.
Filed under: AAPL Company Tagged: benchmarks, Geekbench, iPad Air 2, iPhone 6, iphone 6 plus, Retina iMac
Comments Off on Triple-core iPad Air 2 pegged as 55% faster than any other iOS device, Retina 5K iMac top score beats low-end Pro
If you want to see how those impressive benchmark scores translate into real-life usage, this brief MashableĀ video compares start-up, shut-down, web-browsing and video on all five generations of iPad.
Comments Off on Want to see how the iPad Air benchmarks translate to real-life use? Hereās the video
After pulling the same dirty trick with the Galaxy S4, Samsung has been caught rigging the Galaxy Note 3 to perform better in benchmark tests than it does anywhere else. It’s like all Samsung phones are on performance enhancing drugs or something.
Comments Off on Ugh, Samsung Rigged the Note 3 to Perform Better in Benchmark Tests
Comments Off on Galaxy Note 3 Benchmark Boosts Miss The Point That No One Cares About Benchmarks
Samsung is being called out by the highly respected and thorough Ars Technica for apparently “artificially” boosting the Galaxy Note 3′s performance specifically when it comes to benchmark testing. Ā The blog found that while under normal testing the Note 3 vastly outperformed the LG G2, which has the same processor, after stripping away some fancy benchmark-specific code, the phone scored about the same as its LG competitor.
Ars has a very good, very long explanation of how they arrived at their findings, and the end result is an artificial benchmark bump of between 20 and 50 percent in all areas depending on which benchmarking tools you use, including industry standards like Antutu and Geekbench. It’s a good read if you’re interested in that sort of thing, but the upshot is, you probably aren’t. Which is why Samsung has even more egg on its face.
Artificially enhancing performance benchmarks for a smartphone these days is like artificially enhancing the smoothness of your elbows via plastic surgery: it may mean that overall, you technically present a more attractive package on the surface, but no one’s really going to know or care that you’ve had any work done.
Apple’s iPhone 5s reportedly benchmarks up in the same ranks as some fairly recent Mac computers, for instance, but that’s not something your average iPhone 5s buyer is likely to know. Also, it doesn’t mean anything; benchmark scores doesn’t mean one device will be able to handle the same tasks as the other, like running a professional video editing software suite for example.
Long ago, Apple realized that a specs race wasn’t the same as the race for market dominance. Actual buyers cared about the phone experience, not abstract numbers which may or may not be borne out by really using software and apps. It’s true that Apple still talks about performance when it touts new devices ā but it does so relatively, explaining only how much faster or more efficient something is compared to previous generations. That frames the discussion in terms that everyday users can understand, making it genuinely useful information.
The end result is that Samsung looks like it’s grasping when it takes an abstract (essentially meaningless, for all intents and purposes) number and artificially builds that up to win praise from some whitecoats who test these things for a living. It seems to be doing this as a matter of course now, as Ars says it’s seeing similar behaviour in testing the new Galaxy Note 10 Android tablet from Samsung as well. And, in the end, its unadjusted numbers were actually faster than competitors like the G2 anyway; if for some reason as an OEM you’re still concerned with winning a specs race on paper at this point (which you shouldn’t be), you don’t need to win by a wide margin, especially at the risk of looking foolish.
Unadjusted numbers would’ve won faint praise from the crowd that likes them, and gone unnoticed by most. Artificially altered ones attract a whole lot of negative attention and result in a net bad look for Samsung. The Note 3, like most high-end Samsung hardware, is probably a great phone, but now it’s embroiled in a doping scandal, over a number nobody really cares about.
Comments Off on Galaxy Note 3 Benchmark Boosts Miss The Point That No One Cares About Benchmarks