While the better processor will be a bonus I'd be worried about the redesign - with current Apple trends it'll end up being 2mm thick, have all external connections removed and be so light that a gentle breeze caused by someone opening a door will blow it from your desk...
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro Lives Up to Apple's Claims, Reaches SSD Throughput Speeds of 2GB/s
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
While the better processor will be a bonus I'd be worried about the redesign - with current Apple trends it'll end up being 2mm thick, have all external connections removed and be so light that a gentle breeze caused by someone opening a door will blow it from your desk...
If you can't tell the difference then you are not the one to ask. That is seriously insane to say that you can't tell a difference between a 2009 Macbook and a 2013 rMBP. 250 -> 1300. Is a HUGE noticeable difference.
But I guess you did say watching movies...... which has nothing to do with anything ssd related.
Same.
Had to jump on last year with the last updated Haswell. Really did not want it but could not be helped. Broadwell may be end of this year but Skylake is the dream right now. But even if nextyear I have to justify £1800 for a Mac then only 12-18 months use. =/
Would you guys consider waiting for SKYLAKE or just buy IT NOW? ALSO, anyone know how good is AMD Radeon R9 M370X with 2GB GDDR5 memory? I can't seem to find any specs.
I wouldn't touch a >$2000 notebook with AMD graphics. Ever.
That's amazing! In terms of internal components, the SSD is where Macs tend to shine the best (compared to competition). People often forget to consider the SSD when weighing the cost/performance of a PC.
High Five!
I feel the same, I've been tempted to upgrade since they announced retina but I too think I'll wait for Skylake in the hope of a redesign. I'm still using my 15" 2009 C2D too and it's still surprisingly zippy. With an SSD even older machines are very fast, so I'm more than able to wait until next year.
If you absolutely need it, buy it now.
If you want it but can wait, wait until Skylake is released in September 2015.
Respect other people's opinions, of course.
Until next year than...
There is always "new" around the corner and waiting for it, you're living permanently in the past...
RAM disk. That's not a term I've heard since oh, a long time ago.
Is it still a thing? I'm sure I last tried it on a rainbow-Apple Mac.
I recall how the instructions were very keen to point out that the disk's contents would be wiped on restart.
Well, let's face it: most of Mac users don't saturate their SSD speeds either for prolonged times. I mean, copying GB worth of data is business for the "pro" users, but most people sitting in Starbucks sipping their Cappuccino and browsing the web won't.
On the other hand, if you are the kind of guy who saturates his CPU then you are also likely to saturate the transfer speed of your storage devices.
So we need both... I mean all! Faster SSD, faster CPU, faster GPU, faster everything!
(But yeah, I totally agree: in our all day lives a faster SSD is way more noticeable than a faster CPU
)
And knowing Apple, that major redesign will be considerably gimped in many ways, like having the horrible new ultra-flat keyboard, lacking ports and a dedicated GPU, and probably will be plagued with general problems until the second or third revision will be released.
Actually, most pro won't saturate the SSD either. It's a pretty rare use case needing to move GB of data around without doing anything with or to it. As soon as the data is used for something, the CPU and possibly RAM will be involved and they will limit transfer speed.
The exception might be video if the transformation is simple and is handle at high speed by the GPU. Other than that, you will be CPU/RAM bound. For instance, if you're compressing files, the algorithm will limit you (is it able to use all cores ?) and then the CPU will most probably limit you.
For instance, when I download stuff with a protocol that demands some processing (CRC check, package reassembling, uncompressing) over FTTH, I'm limited by my HDD (the program needs to pause for the HDD to catch up). Now, if I used my SSD, it's the CPU that is stuck at 100%.
(But yeah, I totally agree: in our all day lives a faster SSD is way more noticeable than a faster CPU
Not always. I do development. My environment stays stable for days, I don't launch applications once it's setup.
The most annoying thing on my rMBP currently is the GPU (or the lack of optimisation of OSX) : animations tend to stutter and switching from one space to another is not fluid and is a bit slow. And I switch hundreds of times a day. Then it's the RAM. The only time I'm CPU bound is when some glitch in OSX makes a process eat up 100%. And I would not notice a faster SSD.
If a user considers such new features as gimped, they have probably bought their last Mac...further revisions won't bring back old ports or old keyboards.
The laptop range is a mess right now. The new MacBook clearly shows the future direction for Apple. The Airs (if they survive) and MBPs are ready to adopt MacBook design and technology advances, but are waiting for the next generation of processors.
I think the new 15" MBPs are mightily impressive machines, but they have fundamentally ageing processors. If leaks showing Skylake H processors coming in September 2015 are right, the 15" MBPs will skip Broadwell and get a radical overhaul in terms of form factor and technology later this year.
I bought a 2007 MBP a few months before Apple released the first unibody machines. Love my MBP, but wish I had held on for a few months and bought into the design ethic and technology that unibody brought. My 2007 MBP has lasted really well in isolation, but it aged very quickly and belonged to a design ethic that later models didn't share.
I, for one, want the new design, new keyboard, new processors, new ports, new controllers, etc that Skylake will usher in. I don't want a machine in 2015 that is wedded to technology predominantly from 2012. I might have a few more months living in the past with my old MBP (I have other Macs as well), but by waiting, I won't be living in the past for years with an old Haswell machine when I have a Skylake machine in the future. People buying Haswell machines now will have years in the past in comparison with my few months.
But completely accept other people have different opinions and needs, and I totally respect them.
Okay, So I understand that there has something to do with saving battery life and all... but how come Apple do not use Nvidia GTX 970m or 980m???? I mean it's the best graphic card that is out here in 2015. Razer Blade 14 does not seem to have problem with it. They did not even sacrifice the thinness. I don't understand why Apple can't go with better graphic card so people can actually play games; edit videos, photoshopping and all other stuff. Shouldn't Nvidia GTX 970M graphic card make it better for all the things I've mentioned earlier?? Let me your opinions guys...
Editing videos and photoshopping don't require that or even benefit sufficiently to sway purchases toward another brand. Outside of gaming, you're not very knowledgeable about any of that and merely going on preconceived notions rather than real world results. Benchmarks often exaggerate these things, because they just run a computationally expensive sequence that makes use of whatever specific piece of hardware (such as a gpu) yet would never come up in actual use. Actually I just thought of a couple things. Premiere and Resolve have some nice playback features that are gpu accelerated, but would still be better options (and it's a small number of users for the latter).
You honestly think having only a single port and a keyboard utterly unfit for serious typing are "advances"? May I ask if you actually work with your Macs or do you just have them sitting on a pedestal to admire how nicely designed and "advanced" they are?
Yes, they did. It has an AMD Radeon R9 M370X with 2GB GDDR5, but you can only get a discrete graphics card on the $2500 15" MacBook Pro.
Why so snarky?
The new MacBook works very well for people on the move, or for people who don't need to attach external devices regularly. Yes, it is, IMO, a good advance. Usefulness is in the experience of the user. Each user is different. Fine for people to have different opinions, yes?
The new MBPs will have multiple ports. People need to buy the device or devices that suit their needs.
I prefer the new keyboard. I find the keys to be more consistent. Obviously, different people have different preferences.
No, I don't work with my Macs. I make them work for me.
MPB, MacBook, iMac, Air...they are all reliable and efficient workhorses. I mainly attach peripherals to the iMac or Time Capsule for all the machines to share. Rarely attach anything to a laptop...once every few months, maybe. With data, so much stuff is wireless and in the cloud these days.
My new MacBook meets my needs, and it's so much faster than my old 2008 MacBook that I was running before. I can only imagine what these kind of speeds mean to those that use/need them though.
And people say Apple has forgotten about the 'power user' or 'pro'. Seems to me that's simply not the case where their hardware is concerned. Just improvements behind the scenes that make for a better all round usage experience for those that need that much power in a portable machine.
And people say Apple has forgotten about the 'power user' or 'pro'. Seems to me that's simply not the case where their hardware is concerned. Just improvements behind the scenes that make for a better all round usage experience for those that need that much power in a portable machine.
Yeah, you saturate I/O pretty much every time you load anything, unlike with the CPU. Actually, the CPU performance depends on I/O performance in a way because blocking I/O operations (RAM or disk) are what hold back processes from fully utilizing the CPU. So SSD and RAM speeds matter more than people think.