![]() No trackpad tapping or mouse wiggling needed.Ĭlick to expand.Yes, for my usage, which is admittedly not high performance, I agree. The different chips are close enough to each other that the differences aren't probably not that noticeable in most usage, but the added memory of 16 GB could make a huge difference.īTW, I had turned off screen dimming for my test. if you want more memory and want to save some money. In any case, the point here is it seems overall the best bang for the buck might be the m3, esp. I suspect if the table had retained more heat, my m3 will would have throttled more over the 10 runs. Maybe at some point I should try it on a wood table or something like that. Perhaps I did so well with the m3 was because my table is granite. It's not a huge surprise that the i5 isn't significantly faster though, as its top speed for Turbo is 3.2 GHz. The difference in performance vs the m3 (and i7) is just a couple of percent for the most part. It seems that the results of the i5 aren't significantly better than the m3, even on the first couple of runs. I'll add your results later when I have a chance, but it may take a while to upgrade the graph as my original file isn't with me and I'm currently out of the country. So you can just ignore the results after the 10th run. In the case of the m3 it was because I moved the machine (to a cooler part of the table), and in the case of the i7 it was because it received a phone call during the test. There is nothing subjective about not having enough storage, or about not having enough RAM if you are hitting memory pressure with VMs.Ĭlick to expand.The significant fluctuations for the m3 and i7 results only happened in the 11th run or later. (I didn't max out my MacBook as I got a rare deal to buy a nearly new M5). Personally I choose on Storage, RAM and CPU in that order, but often max out for the peace of mind, and because I know that, if I save a few hundred by not maxing out, once I had actually spent the money, the extra few hundred doesn't seem as much and I wish I had one it. I think like many things it is a diminishing returns thing, and probably hard to justify maxing out, and a buying choice is about your personal attititude. People who use pro apps on a MacBook occasionally in the field might still be well served by such methods.Īn interesting test would be to ask people to use each of the three for a week without their knowing which was which (and just using them normally, not benchmarking) and seeing if they could rank them correctly. I am sure there are similar for video and audio, although anyone doing regular heavy lifting will not be using a MacBook. When I was working and using Photoshop all day I used to use some of the Photoshop based benchmarks (Retouch Artists, Diglloyd) as I knew they were measuring what I mostly did with the machine (MacPro). ![]() Geekbench still shows a difference between the three, but there are long threads around about how that is flawed. But Benchmarking is interesting and fun so I do it anyway. This is only one of many benchmarks and there are plenty of folk around who say benchmarking is flawed and not representative of real work and activity. I didn't get anything like their weird results: More importantly, compare this to Notebookcheck's 2017 MacBook Core m3 results. I think it would have taken 12 runs to dip below a score of 250.) (Given that 25 runs is about 65 minutes, that means 10 runs is around 25 minutes of sustained load, and 12 runs is about half an hour. It may have dropped a bit below 250 had I not moved the computer, but extrapolating that would mean it would taken about half an hour of sustained load to go below 250, which is only 5-6% less than max speed. You'll note that not even once did the score drop below 250. So, right after run 22, I intentionally did the same thing again, and again the score went up.īelow are the raw scores for future reference in case someone wants to put it into an Excel spreadsheet, but the most valid scores are the first 10 (and then from 12-22) for the reasons stated above: ![]() I noticed the part of the table where the computer had been was a little bit warm (but not hot), so it seems moving the computer over to a cooler spot helped performance. ![]() Low and behold, the score went up, and continued to go up the next run too. Note that part way through the 11th run, I moved the computer over a bit because I was rearranging stuff on the counter. Out of all these things, it seems only the anti-virus has a real impact on performance. WiFi and Bluetooth were turned off, and Sophos anti-virus was deactivated. The MacBook was running off battery power, with screen dimming turned off. ![]() The table top was a granite breakfast bar. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |