Face Off: Apple MacBook 12 Core m3, Core m5, and Core m7

We can see that there are not many differences. Except for the processor, users can only influence the storage capacity of the NVMe-SSD (256 or 512 GB), although the smaller Core m3 is only available in combination with the 256 GB SSD. Every MacBook 12 is shipped with 8 GB DDR3L-RAM, Intel's HD Graphics 515 as well as the 12-inch display with a resolution of 2304x1440 pixels.

A pretty interesting aspect is the current pricing, because the notebooks are much cheaper in online stores compared to Apple’s stores. The small price difference between the two more powerful SKUs (Core m5/512 GB and Core m7/256 GB) is also interesting.

As we have already mentioned in the review of the MacBook 12 with the Core m3  the performance is easily sufficient for everyday tasks and subjectively, you always have a responsive system thanks to the fast SSD. Only more demanding tasks such as video editing will result in performance drops. The reason is the passive cooling of the system and therefore, the temperature is a limiting factor.

Another limiting factor is usually the consumption, which is typically specified at 4.5 watts for the Core m chips and can be increased up to 7.5 watts by the manufacturer. Apple ignores these values though and lets the chips consume as much as they want, which can result in up to 13 watts for the Core m7 (2x 2.7 GHz). The question is how long this performance level can be maintained.

All three available processors are dual-cores with Hyperthreading and can therefore execute up to four threads simultaneously. The chips differ only in terms of clocks, but the features are identical. As with the faster ULV chips, however, the vPro support is reserved for the Core m7.

All three processors cannot utilize their maximum potential in the single-core tests. However, this problem is not surprising for passively cooled devices. The Core m7 is only slightly ahead of the Core m5 (+7%). A ULV chip such as the Core i5-6200U in the Acer Aspire Switch 12 Alpha is a few percent faster than the Core m7, even though the difference should become bigger under sustained loads.

The MacBook 12 is only available with NVMe-SSDs. Even the smallest model already comes with a decent storage capacity of 256 GB, but faster processors are also available with 512 GB drives. The performance is slightly better for the 512 GB drive according to CrystalDiskMark, where it is around 15% ahead of the 256 GB drive. You will have a hard to time to notice the difference in practice, though.

The transfer rates of the NVMe-SSD surpass the typical SATA-III limit at 500 to 550 MB/s, but other competitors show that there is still a lot of headroom. Samsung's SM951 in the HP EliteBook Folio G1 in particular is much faster in terms of the sequential transfer rates.

The SSD in particular ensures a responsive system in practice. Subjectively, we could not notice any disadvantages compared to a much more powerful device like the MacBook Pro 13 in everyday tasks such as web browsing, writing mails or edit reviews in our web interface. The situation changes slightly when you use Windows via Boot Camp, where we occasionally noticed some stutters or short delays, respectively. This is probably caused by the BootCamp driver, which is just not perfectly optimized. The EliteBook Folio G1 with similar hardware equipment did not have these problems with Windows 10. This assumption is also supported in the two PCMark 8 tests, where the EliteBook Folio G1 is ahead of the three MacBooks.

The graphics output of all three models is handled by the integrated Intel HD Graphics 515. Its performance is at the lower end of the performance ranking and the GPU will only manage smooth frame rates in simple games such as “World of Warships” or “FIFA 16” with low details. The GPU is still more than sufficient for normal multimedia tasks (also 4K videos) thanks to the integrated video decoder. Depending on the processor, the maximum core clocks of the GPU will differ slightly (Core m3: 850 MHz, Core m5: 900 MHz, Core m7: 1000 MHz), although they are also affected by the temperatures. This ranking is also supported by the two Graphics sub-scores of the current 3DMark. The Core m5 is, however, closer to the Core m7 than the m3, which suggests a suboptimal Turbo utilization of the m7. All three devices are still on a really low level to begin with, so the small differences will not have a big impact in practice.

As expected, the temperature development is very similar for all three MacBooks. All three models stay conveniently cool while idling and we cannot measure more than 45 °C (~113 °F) even under extreme load. The warming is also focused on the upper central area where the processor is located. The temperatures were never an issue in practice and you can also use the devices on the lap without any restrictions.

Once again, the  three MacBooks are very similar in our consumption measurements. The only noticeable aspect is the idle measurements, where the m3 model needs slightly more power. We reviewed this model shortly after its launch in April. The two Core m5 and m7 models, on the other hand have already received several software updates, which most probably have an effect on the energy management as well.

The consumption of all three models will jump to 30 watts under load for a short time before the clocks and therefore the consumption is reduced. Both the m5 as well as the m7 model drop to an average value of 24 to 25 watts at the end of the stress test. The compact 29-watt power adapter does not have a lot of headroom.

When we look at the battery runtimes, we can notice a rather big discrepancy in the video test. While the Core m3 model played our sample video for around 8.5 hours, both the m5 as well as the m7 model have much more stamina with 10:57 h and 10:19 h, respectively. We suspect the hardware video acceleration did not work properly in our initial review, because the m3 should last even longer in this scenario.

The faster components are noticeable in the load test. With minimum runtimes of 3:28 h (m7) and 3:36 h (m5), the two models do not last as long as the Core m3 MacBook (3:51 h).

Our practical WLAN test simulates web browsing at an adjusted luminance of around 150 nits (level 11/16) produces more interesting results. The m7 model (9:14 h) has a small advantage over the m5 model (8:57 h), while the m3-MacBook falls behind even further. This might be rather surprising at first, but the faster processor can handle short peak load better and therefore reduce the clock sooner ("Race to idle"). The keyboard illumination costs around 20 to 30 minutes at the brightest setting in this scenario.

The three compact MacBooks also leave a good impression compared to the rivals. The m3 model should perform better with all the current software updates, especially in the video test.