Geekbench Review for Late 2013 Retina Macbook Pro
Compare the Speed of New M1 MacBook Pros to 2013 and 2017 Macs
[ Product review disclosure: All these computers and software were purchased by me for my ain utilise. ]
Similar many, I've spent the last couple of weeks reading popular website reviews of the latest M1 MacBook Pro laptops and comparing them to 2020 Intel systems. Just, dissimilar popular websites and individuals of high-net-worth, I can't afford to buy a new computer every year. My gear is much older.
Then, since I only plunked down the bucks for a new 16″ MacBook Pro (which arrived final week), I wondered just how much faster – particularly with a focus on media editing – a new M1 MacBook Pro would be compared to, say, the 2013 MacBook Pro or a 2017 27″ iMac; both of which I ain. What I discovered is that "performance" is much more than nuanced than I expected.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Yes, the new M1 MacBook Pro is very, very fast. But, the M1 did not win every race in these tests. In that location were some surprising winners.
I discovered that benchmarks don't necessarily reverberate the real-world. I also learned that RAM doesn't actually bear upon the operation of private apps, the CPU in your computer makes a huge difference in functioning, and Apple and Adobe leverage the M1 SoC in significantly different ways.
These twelve tests provide a good comparison between benchmarks and real-world media processing. They besides provide a sense of the performance improvements you can expect if you upgrade to a new M1 system.
NOTE: If you are thinking of buying a new MacBook Pro, here's an article that can assistance you decide how to configure it.
THE CONTESTANTS
Of the five computers I have in my function, I decided to use three for this examination, because they would, hopefully, best illustrate the growth in performance over the years.
A 2013 MacBook Pro, with an i7 CPU containing 8 cores, along with sixteen GB of RAM, running macOS Mojave. Information technology uses an NVIDIA GPU.
A 2017 27″ iMac, with an i5 CPU containing 4 cores, along with 40 GB of RAM, running macOS Big Sur. It uses an AMD GPU.
NOTE: This is my main reckoner and, no, I haven't upgraded it to Monterey yet.
And a 2021 16″ MacBook Pro, with an M1 Pro CPU with 10 cores, and 32 GB of RAM, running macOS Monterey. The M1 Pro also has 16 GPU cores, congenital into the M1 SoC. I don't know how many cores the other GPUs take.
THE Challenge
I wanted to observe out how big a performance boost I'd get with the new gear. So, I ran twelve tests on each estimator:
- All variations of GeekBench 5 to examination the CPU and GPU
- All variations of Cinebench 23 to test the GPU and render speed
- Compressing ProRes media files using both Apple Compressor and Adobe Media Encoder
- Exporting a ProRes media file with identical effects applied using Apple tree Terminal Cut Pro and Adobe Premiere Pro
A SIDE NOTE ON TESTING Complexity
In that location are an infinite number of variables that could exist tested: variations in CPU, RAM size, storage speed, pinch settings, number and type of background processes… the list is truly endless. I don't own that many different systems. And so I decided to keep things uncomplicated.
I used the current version of GeekBench 5 (5.iv.two) and Cinebench (23.200) to test all three systems. Testing spanned two days. All applications were kept in the foreground while a exam was running.
Pinch settings were the defaults for each app. Test results between machines are directly comparable. Test results betwixt software are not, except in general terms, due to different default setting values and using two unlike principal files because, for some reason, Adobe Premiere and Media Encoder were unable to read a ProRes 4444 file.
Notation: My 2021 MacBook Pro uses an M1 Pro CPU, mainly because when I bought information technology I needed to balance getting skilful performance while yet staying on budget. The GPU results from the additional cores in the M1 Max will exist even better than the M1 Pro. All the same, the results of the CPU tests volition match closely between the ii M1 processors because both incorporate the aforementioned number and type of CPU cores.
Similar I said, there are lots of options when testing systems.
GEEKBENCH 5 RESULTS
This is how GeekBench describes its ii tests: CPU and Compute:
- The CPU Benchmark "measures the performance of CPUs at performing everyday tasks using tests designed to simulate existent-globe applications."
- The Compute Benchmark "measures the operation of GPUs at performing common compute tasks (e.g. paradigm processing)." There are 2 different tests: ane using Metal and the other using OpenCL. Metallic is the preferred architecture for Macs today. I tested both.
Note: A table with numerical results for all tests is located at the end of this article.
In unmarried-cadre CPU tests, the 2013 and 2017 systems provided one-half the operation of the M1. The two Intel systems provided roughly the same single core performance, even though the clock speed of the i5 on the iMac was 46% faster than the i7. This is the first indication that there are big functioning differences between an i5 and an i7.
Annotation: In all half dozen of these criterion tests, longer bars are meliorate.
In multi-core tests, the M1 won once again, this time by most 4X. What surprised me was that the 2013 laptop performed amend than the 2017 iMac. Why? Because the 2013 i7 has 8 cores, while the 2017 i5 only has four; even though the cores on the i5 run faster. We'll encounter the ability of the i7 surface multiple times during these tests.
This ways that your performance gains will exist greater if you are upgrading from an i3 or i5 CPU from any year in the past. The i7 volition still get beat by the M1, merely non as badly as the i5.
Switching to GPU performance, the 2013 system is totally humiliated past continuing improvements in the GPU and Apple'southward shift from NVIDIA to an Bone optimized for AMD. This chart shows OpenCL performance.
Notation: For the the tape, the 2013 scored 815. The M1? 38,212. But, in a surprise, the iMac scored 39,044. This is the first of three times the M1 will get vanquish!
The results of new vs. old are the aforementioned, well, ah, actually they are much worse, when we shift to Metal. The 2013 system was optimized for OpenCL. Information technology'south Metallic score is 540. The others? The M1 scored 41,739, while the iMac scored 42,888, again beating the M1!
However, as we shall see in existent-world tests, even though the iMac beat the M1 in some GPU benchmarks, information technology won't fifty-fifty come close to chirapsia it in real-life. Just, ah, don't write off that scrappy 2013 laptop… even so.
CINEBENCH
Maxon's Cinebench benchmark measures both a single GPU cadre and the combined ability of the entire GPU arrangement. Focusing on GPU and rendering ability, the test is based on Maxon'southward Cinema4D 3D software.
Again, the ii earlier systems are dwarfed by the GPU ability of the M1. A unmarried M1 GPU core is nearly 3.5X faster than either of the ii older systems.
In multi-core performance, that same three.5X ratio holds true, though the total operation numbers are much greater.
MEDIA Pinch
Now, let's shift from benchmarks to the real-globe. Here, while the M1 still wins, I discovered even more surprising results.
NOTE: In all these awarding tests, shorter bars are better. All tests are measured in minutes and seconds.
Test measured in minutes and seconds.
When using Apple Compressor to compress a 50 minute ProRes 4444 file into H.264 using the default 720p YouTube settings, the 2013 reckoner was faster than the iMac. Why? The power of the i7 CPU. The i5 was almost twice as tedious as a system four years older!
The M1 MacBook was faster, but not stunningly so. And so, again, Compressor has never been particularly fast at H.264 compression.
Compare those results to Adobe Media Encoder compressing a different l minute ProRes 4444 file into H.264, over again using the default 720p YouTube setting.
The M1 was 3X faster than the 2013 laptop, while the iMac was about ii.5X slower! I never expected the iMac to lose, much less lose this desperately. This, again, shows the power of the CPU, which is used for H.264 compression.
The M1 benefits from onboard hardware acceleration of H.264 encoding, which Media Encoder seems to be using.
Note: When compressing media using the H.264 codec, AME and the M1 are twice as fast as Compressor.
The results of compressing a ProRes 4444 file into ProRes 422 shows the stunning benefit of hardware dispatch of ProRes files in the M1. The M1 is almost 9X faster than an i7 and near 18X faster than the i5! And, again, the i5 loses to the older i7.
Annotation: Even though the i5 scored extremely loftier in the GeekBench five Compute tests, that did not translate into high-speed compression of ProRes files. In fact, the i5 is dead last. A criterion, by itself, does non necessarily predict real-world behavior.
The aforementioned test using Adobe Media Encoder delivered this astonishing event: the 2013 laptop compressed faster running AME 2020, than the M1 running AME 2022! Why? I think it's because Adobe has not however fully optimized Media Encoder to take reward of ProRes hardware acceleration.
Notation: Again, the i5 came in dead last.
While the source files (two of my webinars) were not exactly the same, they were essentially the aforementioned elapsing, frame size, frame rate, file size and content. So I experience comfortable saying that AME is VASTLY slower in compressing ProRes than Compressor.
MEDIA EXPORT
My terminal two tests took one of my webinars (a ProRes 4444 720p/thirty file) and exported it from both Last Cut and Premiere equally ProRes 422, while scaling the image 50%, rotating it 45°, and applying a heavy Gaussian Blur to the unabridged file.
I made a indicate NOT to render the file before consign in either NLE.
Scale and rotation uses the CPU, while the blur requires the GPU. It seemed a reasonable test of consign performance.
Using Premiere, over again, the 2013 i7 CPU trounce, the i5 in the iMac. However, the M1 did conspicuously better than both.
Switching to Terminal Cut, again, the 2013 machine beat the iMac. (The i5 is conspicuously getting stomped on a regular basis in these tests.) Just, the M1 totally blew the doors off both computers, handily beating the export speed of Premiere.
NOTE: At the get-go I said we can't directly compare results between applications, which is why I'1000 not maxim the M1 was X% faster in FCP than Premiere. Only I Can say that FCP exported its l-minute file in two:06, while Premiere took 21:24 to export its fifty-minute file. That's a substantial divergence, given the similarity of the two source files. This illustrates that developers need to stay focused on taking full advantage of these new chips.
SUMMARY
The M1 MacBook Pro won most races, but it didn't win every race. This surprised me. I was too surprised by the express performance of the i5 CPU; and I was NOT expecting the bear upon of an i7 CPU on operation.
Based on these tests, if you own an i3 or i5 CPU of any vintage, you'll be amazed at the functioning do good of the M1 laptop. If yous ain an i7, yous may not be "amazed," but you will even so be very happy. Fifty-fifty though the M1 MacBook Pro did not win every race, I'k still delighted that I purchased it.
It is likewise interesting to encounter that, in these tests, varying the RAM did non seem to make a divergence. Yes, more RAM is good for handling larger projects or running multiple apps at the aforementioned time, but it does not inherently make your system faster when running a single app.
NOTE: That being said, I withal recommend 32 GB for video editing in any reckoner organization simply due to the complication of the projects we edit. Here'south an commodity that goes into configuring an M1 MacBook Pro for video editing.
And, if you are interested in the details, here's a tabular array with all my results. Every bit always, I'm interested in your comments.
Bookmark the permalink.
Source: https://larryjordan.com/articles/comparing-the-speed-of-m1-macbook-pros-with-2013-and-2017-macs-for-media/comment-page-1/