Early 2014 macbook pro 15
The headline sequential read speed of both models was around 785 MB/s, and write speed not far behind at around 730 MB/s. While the speeds look almost pedestrian compared to what’s now available from the 13-inch models of MacBook Pro and MacBook Air, make no mistake – the 2014 MacBook Pro with 15-inch Retina display is still incredibly quick in solid-state technology. With the same type of flash drive in each (both from Samsung in our particular samples), we weren’t too surprised to find that storage speed is effectively the same for the two models one with 512 GB, the other 256 GB. In Cinebench 15 the results dropped from 134 and 599 points, to 121 and 593 points, showing again that in multi-core mode especially the differences are almost trivially small – around 1-2 percent faster for the 2.5 GHz processor when compared to the 2.2 GHz processor. Geekbench 3 reported scores of 3447 and 13,238 points (single- and multi-core mode) for the 2.2 GHz Mac, against 3658 and 14,360 points for the 2.5 GHz machine that gives a percentage drop of 5.8 and 7.8 percent respectively if we set the latter machine as the reference.Ĭinebench 11.5 awarded the 2.2 GHz MacBook Pro with 1.41 and 6.60 points for its two modes, against 1.55 and 6.48 points for the 2.5 GHz MacBook Pro. But while the 2.5 GHz clock speed drops by 12 percent to arrive at 2.2 GHz, the performance delta is a little reduced so benchmark results of the 2.2 GHz model were somewhat closer to the 2.5 GHz model. With a 300 MHz difference between processor speeds, we would certainly expect a measurable change in performance. And at High detail the gap widened very slightly to 30.2 and 28.5 fps respectively. At 1280 x 800 and Medium detail, the Iris Pro averaged 35.9 fps against the Nvidia model’s 34.8 fps. But the more recent Cinebench 15 showed a clear gap, in Nvidia’s favour: 54 fps versus 32 fps.įinally, the synthetic gaming benchmark of Unigine Heaven also reported uncannily similar framerates. Turning to workstation benchmarks, we found that Cinebench 11.5 results were almost the same between MacBooks – Nvidia returning 48 fps and Iris Pro 49 fps. Stepping up to 1440 x 900 resolution, the Iris Pro model again pulled ahead with 66 and 60 fps at Medium and High detail respectively the Nvidia model returned slower results of 57 and 50 fps. In Batman: Arkham City, the Nvidia MacBook averaged 61 fps (High detail) but the Iris Pro graphics version pushed its average up to 68 fps.
(Restoring legacy OpenGL mode here did allow the Iris Pro MacBook Pro to reach back up to 40 fps.)
At 1440 x 900 resolution and Normal detail, the Nvidia model averaged 33 fps while Iris Pro graphics dropped to 17 fps. The default for Tomb Raider on OS X is a newer version of OpenGL, and here the Iris Pro graphics proved less capable. That’s with the game set to use legacy OpenGL. The entry MacBook with Iris Pro graphics played the same test at 59 fps, and could still sustain a 46 fps average after moving up to High detail. With the same storage performance from the small 256 GB, and usefully longer battery runtime, the case for choosing the cheaper MacBook Pro becomes stronger again.īut if you can hold out for the anticipated 2015 model, expect to find even further improved battery life, a Force Touch trackpad and quite probably significatnly improved graphics, should Apple select a discrete graphics processor from Nvidia’s lauded GTX 900 series.įaced with Tomb Raider 2013, the top model with its Nvidia GeForce GTX 750M graphics could average 56 fps when set to 1280 x 800 pixel resolution and Normal detail. We did note, however, that the fan ramped up to higher and noiser speeds with the Iris Pro graphics model perhaps thermal management is more challenging when all your processor eggs are concentrated in one rapidly heating basket. A welcome surprise is just how good the Iris Pro graphics chipset can prove to be when playing action games, with this integrated version even playing slightly faster in some titles.