OS X Performance

Now that we’ve had a chance to take a look at the construction and component selection of the MacBook, it’s time to get down the business end of the review: performance.

For the sake of brevity I’m not going to completely rehash how Core M works, especially since we just did an in-depth look at the CPU last week. But briefly, from a performance standpoint Core M behaves a lot more like a modern tablet processor than it does a traditional Intel x86 processor. Which is to say that its performance is heavily tuned around performance bursting and racing back to idle, as opposed to more traditional Intel processors which turbo as well, but overall are also designed to hold at relatively high clockspeeds under sustained workloads. Of course all of this is in part dependent on how OEMs go and design their laptops – go stuff a Core i5 in a Surface Pro 3 and watch it throttle – but at the end of the day the point is that Core M is not designed to offer the same kind of high performance under sustained workloads that Intel’s more powerful processors do.

Core M is at its heart still a power optimized Intel Broadwell design, so despite the different Core M branding it’s not all that far removed from the dual-core Broadwell-U processors in the MacBook Air and 13” Retina MacBook Pro. What sets it apart along with its package and power optimizations are its much lower power threshold – the official TDP is just 4.5W, while it can burst higher for short periods of time – and the fact that it’s designed for systems with less cooling than Broadwell-U. Case in point of course is the MacBook, which utilizes a simple aluminum case without any kind of fans (active cooling). The end result is that for workloads that go longer than a short burst, Core M’s performance is tightly coupled to the cooling capabilities of the laptop it’s in.

Ultimately what this means is that we expect that the MacBook should be able to compete with its larger brothers in those short, bursty workloads that Core M is optimized for, while in sustained workloads it’s going to fall behind MacBook Air and other laptops using Intel’s larger 15W processors.

Boot Time

We’ll kick things off quickly with a look at boot time. On an absolute basis the MacBook doesn’t do too poorly, but on a relative basis it’s behind a lot of our other MacBooks. To be clear here this is a historical chart – each machine is running the version of OS X it launched with – so the only Yosemite MacBook here is the 2015 MacBook. Still, whether it’s Core M or Yosemite, it shows that Apple’s boot times here aren’t quite as good as they have been in the past.

Mozilla Kraken 1.1

WebXPRT

Switching gears, we have an example of a semi-bursty workload with a couple of our web benchmarks. These benchmarks run a number of sub-tests, and as a result the MacBook gets a brief respite between benchmarks. Plus this gives us a chance to compare the MacBook to tablets, including of course the iPad Air 2. Meanwhile since we’ve also just recently looked at several Core M devices, I’ve also included those to provide a point of comparison to other Core M devices.

Truth be told these results are a bit surprising, though not for good reasons. The MacBook ends up being a laggard against both of our other Core M devices. Since each platform is running a high performance browser (either Safari or Chrome) and from hardware capabilities standpoint these Core M devices are all relatively close, I suspect what we’re seeing here is that OS X Safari as not as well tuned as iOS Safari is.

Compared to the tablets on the other hand the MacBook is still well ahead of any of the tablets – as it should be with Core M’s greater power consumption and the larger chassis – but there’s no denying that by scaling down the MacBook so far, the performance gap between tablet and laptop has shrunk significantly. The MacBook is less than 2x faster than the iPad Air 2 in both benchmarks, which means that within a couple of generations it’s likely that the iPad will exceed the current MacBook’s scores. If my earlier hunch about Safari optimizations is correct and OS X needs some more tuning, then the MacBook is farther ahead than what these benchmarks show. Still, it goes to show that although the MacBook is well ahead of tablets, it’s not leaps and bounds ahead like more powerful laptops would be.

3D Rendering - Cinebench 11.5 (1 thread)

3D Rendering - Cinebench 11.5 (multithreaded)

Meanwhile our large collection of Cinebench 11.5 results helps put Core M’s sustained performance in perspective. In both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads it’s well behind the pack, though in different ways. Single-threaded performance is essentially on par with the 2012 11” MacBook Air (Ivy Bridge), and even as recent as the Core i5-equipped 2014 13” MacBook Air the 2015 MacBook is within 10%. In this case what we’re seeing is a case where a lighter workload allows one of Core M’s CPU cores to stay highly clocked (remember, it turbos up to 2.4GHz), which means it’s actually rather competitive with recent Ultrabooks. Unless forced to throttle, Core M is still Broadwell, and Broadwell flies.

Which means that when Core M is forced to throttle under the multi-threaded workloads, the performance gap widens. Ignoring the rMBP and its 4 cores, where exactly the MacBook places depends in part on the generation of the MacBook it’s compared against, followed by the CPU configuration. The base Core i5s in the MBAs and 13” rMBP are quite capable, with the most powerful of these surpassing the MacBook by upwards of 20%. In that respect the new MacBook is offering multi-threaded performance between the 2011 and 2012 MacBook Airs. On the other hand though we’re talking about the MacBook coming within 20% of larger laptops with much more powerful (15W+ CPUs), so while the MacBook can’t keep up, it’s also delivering quite a bit of performance for its size and power consumption.

3D Rendering - Cinebench 15 (1 thread)

3D Rendering - Cinebench 15 (multithreaded)

Our more recent Cinebench 15 results on the other hand find the MacBook at the bottom. Though this is in part due to a much smaller dataset we have (and mostly composed of rMBPs), it does drive home the point of just how wide the gap is between the rMBP and the new MacBook. If you want a powerful Mac capable of fast sustained performance, you’re going to want a MacBook Pro. That said, compared to the 2014 13” MBA, we once again see the MacBook holding up well in the single-threaded benchmark, outright tying last year’s larger MBA. This once again handily illustrates how Core M is no slouch with lightly threaded workloads, and how it’s heavily threaded workloads where it’s really going to need to pull back.

Adobe Photoshop Performance

Moving on, we have a look at Photoshop performance with the Retouch Artists Speed Test. This being another multi-threaded test, the MacBook throttles harder and this leaves it towards the rear of the pack. Performance is roughly on par with many of the Core i5 MacBook Airs, but it becomes a more significant gap once we step up to the i7, and I’d expect something similar if compared to a 2015 MacBook Air.

From a throttling standpoint, at just 28 seconds long I don’t believe we’re seeing any kind of significant thermal throttling in this benchmark. Rather the MacBook is falling behind on the basis of maximum clockspeeds and power limits, having to pull back because sustaining 2.4GHz for 28 seconds puts it outside of its power envelope for too long. Meanwhile on a conceptual basis I don’t see such a small laptop as the MacBook being used too much for Photoshop, but out of all of Apple’s ultra-portables, the MacBook does end up being the best fit due to its excellent screen.

Geekbench 3 Scores (64-bit)
  Single-Threaded Multi-Threaded
12" MacBook (2015) 2358 4604
11" MacBook Air (2015) 2866 5723

For our last benchmark we have Geekbench 3. Though a rather synthetic benchmark overall, it’s as close to a standard OS X benchmark as there can be. Pulling the standardized score for the 2015 Core i5 11” MacBook Air, what we find is that the MBA is ahead of the MacBook by a bit over 20% in both the single-threaded and multi-threaded tests. In terms of workloads I’d consider the single-threaded test to be a moderate workload and the multi-threaded test a heavy workload, so these results are generally what I’d expect to find. As neither workload is particularly light, it forces the MacBook to slow down a bit more, putting a bit more of a gap in between it and its Ultrabook-sized sibling.

Meanwhile I also ran the Geekbench 3 stress test for a couple of dozen loops on the MacBook to see how much performance degrades over the long term. The MacBook reaches equilibrium at around 4200, which is a 9% performance regression over a fresh run of the multi-threaded benchmark. Given the MacBook's low thermal limits it actually reaches this point rather quickly, and other sustained workloads should reach equilibrium at a similarly quick pace.

12" MacBook Skin Temperatures
  Top Bottom
Cinebench R15 38C 42C
DOTA 2 39.5C 43C

Finally, while looking at performance under OS X I also took some temperature readings while running Cinebench R15 and DOTA, to get an idea of how hot the MacBook gets under full load. Of the two benchmarks DOTA is the more intensive, pushing the GPU as well as the CPU. Consequently it also ends up being the warmest.

Taken from the top of the MacBook, along the top speaker grill and roughly above where the MacBook’s CPU is, the MacBook heats up to 38C when running Cinebench, and 39.5C when running DOTA 2. These temperatures are similar to the skin temperatures found on most mobile devices, and even then, with the hot spot being in the grill above the keyboard, users shouldn’t be coming in contact with this hot spot.

Meanwhile flipping the MacBook over and measuring the equivalent hot spot on the bottom finds that it’s appreciably warmer. We still haven’t seen a complete teardown of the MacBook, but we expect that the bottom casing is the closest to the CPU and consequently conducts the most heat. In any case we’re looking at 42C when running Cinebench and 43C when running DOTA 2. These temperatures are at the upper end of the comfort spectrum, but shouldn’t be an issue even with long-term use. More importantly, unless actually used in a lap, the MacBook’s rubber feet will keep the laptop propped up and avoiding contact with any surfaces, skin or otherwise.

The MacBook’s SSD: NVMe & an Apple Developed SSD Controller? Windows Performance
POST A COMMENT

354 Comments

View All Comments

  • BittenRottenApple - Wednesday, April 15, 2015 - link

    Edit, please forgive the double post, thank you very much. Reply
  • sbuk - Thursday, April 23, 2015 - link

    No. Not with rampant idiocy like yours. Reply
  • ppi - Wednesday, April 15, 2015 - link

    While I am no lover of Apple (in fact, Apple products can't cross my door), you need to give credit where its due.

    1) That single port can serve (yes with dongle, but still) as single cable to plug you to power, ethernet, external display, keyboard and mouse. Now this is mucho better than my current Lenovo T-series, where I need to plug all those cables individually every time I change location.

    2) 8 GB RAM and 256 GB SSD is insufficient? You came here back in time from 2045 or what? Show me notebook with better BASE specification.

    3) If you are processing spreadsheets, that Core-M cannot handle, it must be quite a chore to do it on standard notebook as well. I would suggest optimizing the spreadsheet (less dynamic formulas where it is not necessary) or if it does not help, considering moving your work to SQL server.
    Reply
  • smorebuds - Tuesday, April 14, 2015 - link

    Name one Core M device that's in the netbook price range. The UX305 is probably the cheapest decent Core M laptop and it's $699 base price with 8gb ram and 256gb ssd. How does that equate to a netbook exactly?

    The logical successor to netbooks are the sub-$300 Windows/Chromebook Atom laptops. While they are certainly snappier than the old Atom netbooks, they are also unmistakably budget devices.

    I have an HP Stream 13 and an UX305, and while I appreciate the $200 Stream for what it can do, it's nowhere near as responsive as the UX305 - aka NOT A NETBOOK.
    Reply
  • smorebuds - Tuesday, April 14, 2015 - link

    Ok do you consider every small laptop to be a netbook? I guess I assumed we were taking performance into account as well... Reply
  • MykeM - Tuesday, April 14, 2015 - link

    Is a netbook equipped with a SSD that read/write in the 800/400 MB/s range? Not even the Dell XPS13 comes with such SSD. Reply
  • bobhays - Wednesday, April 15, 2015 - link

    These arguments are so ignorant that I had to create an account so I could reply. The new MacBook IS a netbook. A netbook is a small, portable laptop that has enough processing power to do basic office tasks and browse the internet. EXACTLY what this laptop is designed for. A netbook is not defined by it's price range or quality, it is defined by it's purpose. If someone made a cheap, but exteremely well performing sports coupe, you are not going to say no that is not a sports car because it doesn't have the same quality as a ferrari. Just because the new MacBook is more expensive and has better specs (not necessarily performance) does not mean it serves another purpose. It does the same thing as a netbook (because it is one) for a different market. The only reason people are arguing right now over whether this is a netbook or not is because there were no premium netbooks before so everyone assumed a netbook means weak computers that lag behind. A netbook is essentially a low performance (and previously low priced) ultrabook and that is the perfect description for the new MacBook. Thanks for reading and if you disagree please make a point and not an ad hominem. Reply
  • zhenya00 - Wednesday, April 15, 2015 - link

    I think you blur the lines too much. A netbook is exactly as its name implies - a device primarily designed to browse the Internet. The netbook has always been defined by a gimped operating system and/or (nearly always and) cheap construction in order to make it as affordable as possible.

    The MacBook is not a netbook.

    - It has a full operating system, exactly the same as every other Mac computer.
    - It has premium parts befitting the most expensive laptops on the market.

    The ONLY thing you seem to be focusing on is the processor - there is nothing else in the MacBook design that could even remotely say 'netbook.' Is the 11" MBA a netbook? It's smaller and cheaper? Is a 2010 MBP a netbook? Because it has a slower processor than this MacBook.

    The new MacBook is a laptop built on the premise that much modern computing does not need cutting edge CPU power, and can instead be built to prioritize things like battery life, silence, device size and weight. That doesn't make it a netbook.
    Reply
  • BomC - Saturday, February 06, 2016 - link

    Because of market saturation but also in acknowledgment of a widely diverse market, the industry is moving steadily away from default one-for-all solutions towards a far more diversified picture. In that sense, you might see this Macbook as an equivalent of the Galaxy View 18" tablet: purposely niche-oriented, experimental products in search of markets sectors for which they are suited. This is true for software as well. As a writer, I had to make do with a MS-Word-alike application for years; everyone's word processor was essentially the same Swiss army knife of an app. Nowadays I can use iA Write for distraction-free, concentrated writing, Mellel for academic pieces, Scrivener for writing setups and a whole host of apps for screenwriting. Can't speak for other people but I've never had it so good. Reply
  • Onionart - Wednesday, April 15, 2015 - link

    Lenovo Yoga 3 Pro is also using Core M processor and as is many other ultrabooks in the market. This is the trend. Netbook is a name created for calling a specific class of computers. It is like calling all printers and scanners as xerox machines..... Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now