LOL! Yeah, its right around the corner, or so I hear! Wait, that was last year...and the year before that...and the year before that.
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
13-Inch MacBook Pro Benchmarks: $1,799 Model Up to 16.5% Faster Than $1,299 Model
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed. That is the route I went. Spec'd my 13 inch the way that fit my workflow for a few years, and added an eGPU for my more GPU compute-heavier projects - times when I would not be portable in the first place.
I am on a 2012 Mac Mini, for regular things like browsing, mail, office and the like it's still fast enough(With a Ram and SSD upgrade)...so there's more/truth into your post without you even realising.
See above
Browsing, reading mail, Office and other light programs don't run much slower than new Macs, example, my 2012 Mini loads a webpage in less than a second (1Gb internet), a 2020 mac won't do that much faster, same goes for many other Apps.
Last edited:
People who want a Mac mostly don’t give a crap about power, they care for build quality, software and, in this case, a keyboard that will last more than a couple years. They are willing to grab a brand new Mac with less powerful or slightly older components because that’s not what will define their experience. Apple knows that and will try to give the cheapest possible hardware to regular users and charge a lot for those who really need more power, mostly professionals. They are a company, they’d be a crappy company if they didn’t do that. That’s how the market works. Raw power and price don’t go together.
I find you people who still haven’t understood this and pretend to be experts really hilarious. And insulting people who buy something you believe to be not good enough make you feel so smart. Pretty pathetic.
I find you people who still haven’t understood this and pretend to be experts really hilarious. And insulting people who buy something you believe to be not good enough make you feel so smart. Pretty pathetic.
If that was all you got for the extra $500, yeah, I’d agree. But the $1,799 version comes with 2x the storage space and 16GB more RAM. Maybe still too much for the upgrade for some, but it’s not just the CPU upgrade.
That’s a good point. I bought a base mid 2017 MacBook Pro 13 non-Touch Bar. The only upgrade was hard drive. It was an expensive laptop for the specs given what else I could buy, but it’s more than powerful enough, and it’s in the ecosystem so my iPad Pros, iPhone, AirPods, and Watch all talk to it seamlessly, which I am happy to pay for.
the headline is WRONG and MISLEADING
base model single core score: 927
Upgrade model single core score: 1236
This is more than 33% faster!
Do you guys know math?
[automerge]1588887786[/automerge]
Look at the single core score:
basic model 927, upgrade model 1236.
That’s a 33% difference!
Don’t forget you get twice the storage and twice the RAM, which is also much faster DDR4 than the DDR3 in base model
[automerge]1588887863[/automerge]
Look at the single core score:
basic model 927, upgrade model 1236.
That’s a 33% difference!
base model single core score: 927
Upgrade model single core score: 1236
This is more than 33% faster!
Do you guys know math?
[automerge]1588887786[/automerge]
The article is WRONG, it’s actually 33% faster!
Look at the single core score:
basic model 927, upgrade model 1236.
That’s a 33% difference!
Don’t forget you get twice the storage and twice the RAM, which is also much faster DDR4 than the DDR3 in base model
[automerge]1588887863[/automerge]
The article is WRONG, it’s actually 33% faster!
Look at the single core score:
basic model 927, upgrade model 1236.
That’s a 33% difference!
I mean Apple are obviously going to be down a bit the next quarter as all their stores are closed - which rake in millions every day in impulse purchases. But in terms of Macs and iOS devices they'll largely be unaffected by it - the iPhone will be more affected than Macs. We're well past the "buying stuff to work from home" phase at the minute and we're still seeing 3x the sales of normal. Even if it dips towards the end of the year it'd have to be 3x worse than normal to even out. People's who's jobs are at risk were not really buying £2000-£6000 laptops any way, which makes that business fairly recession independent. I see the viral situation as a very unique thing which will damage some industries beyond repair (see travel), cause some to have a pause (fashion) and give others a boost, especially as a large portion of the world are still earning the same money but now have more spare time (hello universal basic income?) and so can spend it on things they actually want and are being more creative (sales of streaming gear, audio tech, musicians stuff, art supplies, etc are through the roof) and spending more time relaxing (the games industry is doing massive figures at the moment)
It's more of a shift then a recession in my opinion. It'd be no bad thing if people stopped spending their money on alcohol and going out and moved it into other things instead.
Whether you're bashing apple or trying to staunchly defend them no matter what, (as many on here normally do, and I don't know why). It's alright to like their products... But damn near licking their boots thinking they can do no wrong is a different story, from many of the posts i have read.
I think we can all agree this was a disappointing release. Even for those that defend apple all the time. I feel sorry for those of you who were looking forward to pulling the trigger knowing the refresh was coming. Many years go by in this fashion as an apple fan, you all know it. They have a terrible habit of regurgitating products with marginal improvement (Latest iPad Pro ::cough:
.
I thought they knocked it out of the park with the iPhone SE release. Picked one up for the wife on launch day. Tremendous value for the price, and for the first time in YEARS, thought they were FINALLY deciding to be somewhat more reasonable by offering more value to their customers. Maybe they were shifting gears realizing that $1250 phones were not doing as well as they thought, IDK.
As disappointing as this release is, I give them a pass on this one for the most part, as I am usually the first to blame Apple. Intel shoulders much of the blame here. They charge quite a bit more for 10th gen over 8th with basically little performance increase in CPU.. I understand that the graphics performance is the main draw for the 10th gen here. Blame Intel as their architecture is old and they are charging more. (A move taken from the Apple playbook.)
No WiFi 6 is sad, but at least Apple doubled storage and RAM to atleast not be 3-5 years behind everyone else like they usually are.
Was flirting with the idea of getting one if it was worth it. This machine is definitely is not worth it. I would not bite. It's like a 3 year old machine on launch day. LOL!!! Apple fans - "Yay our 5+ year old keyboard is back"
I think we can all agree this was a disappointing release. Even for those that defend apple all the time. I feel sorry for those of you who were looking forward to pulling the trigger knowing the refresh was coming. Many years go by in this fashion as an apple fan, you all know it. They have a terrible habit of regurgitating products with marginal improvement (Latest iPad Pro ::cough:
.I thought they knocked it out of the park with the iPhone SE release. Picked one up for the wife on launch day. Tremendous value for the price, and for the first time in YEARS, thought they were FINALLY deciding to be somewhat more reasonable by offering more value to their customers. Maybe they were shifting gears realizing that $1250 phones were not doing as well as they thought, IDK.
As disappointing as this release is, I give them a pass on this one for the most part, as I am usually the first to blame Apple. Intel shoulders much of the blame here. They charge quite a bit more for 10th gen over 8th with basically little performance increase in CPU.. I understand that the graphics performance is the main draw for the 10th gen here. Blame Intel as their architecture is old and they are charging more. (A move taken from the Apple playbook.)
No WiFi 6 is sad, but at least Apple doubled storage and RAM to atleast not be 3-5 years behind everyone else like they usually are.
Was flirting with the idea of getting one if it was worth it. This machine is definitely is not worth it. I would not bite. It's like a 3 year old machine on launch day. LOL!!! Apple fans - "Yay our 5+ year old keyboard is back"
Last edited:
Makes the criticism surrounding Apple's decision to use older processors seem quite ignorant and short-sighted in comparison. You aren't getting much of a performance boost either way, and using the older chips is likely what allows Apple to sell the entry level MBPs at the prices that they do.
You upgrade if you want more USB-C ports and better specs, but either way, looks like users don't miss much by sticking with the entry-level models, save the bragging rights of their devices sporting the latest paper specs.
You upgrade if you want more USB-C ports and better specs, but either way, looks like users don't miss much by sticking with the entry-level models, save the bragging rights of their devices sporting the latest paper specs.
Actually agree with you here. And not often do i see eye to eye with many of your posts
I would wait until more benchmark numbers come out. In my opinion, if you are going to use the MBP for video intensive tasks, then why are you even looking at the MBP 13. and if if you did upgrade from 8th gen to 10th, are you going to truly feel that difference.
I think the only significant thing I see here is that I can upgrade my MBP to 32Gb of ram.
I think the only significant thing I see here is that I can upgrade my MBP to 32Gb of ram.
Resale prices of macbooks are always really high. Just buy what SSD and RAM you actually need now, and then when you need more, the new upgrades will be cheaper and you can buy a new one and sell your old one without too much of a price difference. Upgrade pretty much every year and you can keep on top of the newest features, always have it under warranty (important these days due to everything being soldered together, and thus out of warranty repairs will sting), and not pay too much premium after selling the older one. Don't choose upgrade options based on resale value, you will never get your money back on that.
HWUB is testing 10750H and 9750H there which is Comet Lake and Coffee Lake which are both based off Skylake cores
The 10th gen in Apple laptops are Ice Lake U (13" MBP) and Ice Lake Y (MBA) and these are using a new Sunny Cove core with actual IPC improvements.
Bear in mind that there are also 10th gen laptop SKUs (the H SKUs that just launched) based on Comet Lake H which is also using the old Skylake cores but this will probably be used for MBP 16" for higher core big laptops
I would be wary of getting 16" i9 MBP now because they are most likely going to be refreshed with the 10th Gen Comet Lake H parts soon (these just launched last month!): https://www.anandtech.com/show/1568...-comet-lake-h-for-45-w-notebooks-up-to-53-ghz
I would also be against buying i7 on these MBP as the extra money is better spent on Storage or RAM if you need them as the difference between i5-1038NG7 and i7-1068NG7 is minimal at best (maybe ~10% on average? for $200 more)
That said, the biggest difference between 16" i9 MBP and 13" i5 (or i7) MBP are the core count. These 16" i9 MBPs will have more cores (starting at 6 vs topped out at 4 for the 13") so if your workload need them, you should sprung for it!
[automerge]1588904741[/automerge]
There's no i3 in the MBP lineup. It starts at i5 4/8 CPU
Last edited:
But it also comes with 2x the RAM and 2x the SSD.
[automerge]1588904927[/automerge]
It also includes twice the RAM and twice the SSD. It’s a $200 upgrade with those set equal.
I mean, it's not just that. Double the base RAM, double the base storage, double the base GPU performance, and double the Thunderbolt ports. So you get more than a 16.5% faster CPU for $500. That all being said, it's kinda ridiculous how slow this thing is for the price. Macs have always been more expensive, but generally not more expensive and also a lot slower. At least not since the PPC days, which fuels the rumors of Apple moving away from Intel. And 16GB should be the bare minimum for RAM in a professional laptop of this price range. It doesn't even cost much nowadays. My 2019 iMac uses laptop RAM modules and I bought 2x16GB modules several months back for a little over $100 and now I'm rocking 64GB.
I'd be happy if they just moved to AMD. ARM could be cool but in the interim they could at least drop some AMD on us. I don't think it's all that different as far as the OS goes. Apple wants to seem premium so they go with Intel but Intel isn't what it used to be and is now becoming the overpriced garbage-tier CPU option that nobody wants. Even AMD is starting to kill them on the super low end entry level with quad core CPUs (the 3100 is 3.6GHz boosting to 3.9GHz), 8 threads (Intel doesn't even do hyper threading on the low end), and supports PCI-E gen 4 that Intel's high-end chips don't even support yet and these things cost $99 to start.
I think the TouchBar is quite a piece of engineering not explored to its fullest yet, plus the fact that it replaced the top keys... that was nasty. But have you seen this?
GitHub - pock/pock: Widgets manager for MacBook Touch Bar
Widgets manager for MacBook Touch Bar. Contribute to pock/pock development by creating an account on GitHub.
github.com
Really? For the next 5-8 years to come, I would feel more at peace with 32GB. I mean, photoshop, after effects or similar can and will use all that ram.
Last edited:
I think what many people are frustrated by in regards to Apple's technological trajectory (rather technology in general) isn't exactly that we have diminishing returns like that (looking at the complete picture this isn't even exceptional), but that beyond the numbers the spec bump just doesn't matter. The people who are eyeing these devices grew up in the 90s, a time when the technological gradient wasn't just a numbers game, but you actually felt it, because you were constantly bottlenecked. When you bought a new computer that was 16% faster than your old one, that pretty much meant that you spent 16% less time waiting. Those times are long gone. Today you simply don't notice an "up to 16%" spec bump any longer (at least most people won't). People are doing mostly pretty much trivial things on their MacBooks, web browsing, watching YouTube, a bit of Photoshop, maybe some coding, writing. Sure these things all benefit from a generic spec upgrade, but it just doesn't compare to what people experienced back in the days.
Remember the first time you used an SSD? When I put my first SSD into my MacBook Pro I couldn't believe how much time I had wasted waiting for my hard drive to get done. It was absolutely eye opening, a game changer. A similar thing is happening to smartphones. All these devices were meant to perform certain tasks, now they are performing them without complaints and the pressure to improve on that is mostly artificial.
Anyways, I think that explains a lot of the nagging that especially this MBP refresh received. People kinda know that the CPU is likely the last thing bottlenecking the experiences with their devices so of course it feels disappointing when Apple appears to believe that it'll be enough to appease their user base like this for the next year or so.
Undoubtedly correct, it is supposed to become the better price point as a new entry LPDDR4X model.
Tim Cook is complicating the product line with unnecessary models and overpriced the entry model specifications to become $1799.
Isn’t that the point of the pros? Better performance, but that has to come from somewhere. So you get extra heat and faster battery usage as a trade off.
