2015 Macbook is insane

[drnebulous]

It costs £1000 for a 1.1ghz intel M cpu, while for the same money you can get a 2.2Ghz i7 Macbook Air. What is the point in the macbook? It is only slightly thinner than the macbook air but way slower. a 2.4Ghz 2009 Macbook doesn't run yosemite super smooth, so how bad is this new one going to be? It is slower than the previous macbook. 1.1Ghz is just not acceptable in 2015. That tim cook is insane and needs heavily sedating.

 

[mutsaers-vr.nl]

I have a 2009 24 inch iMac (C2D, 3.06 GHz, 8MB Ram 1066 MHZ, normale HD) and Yosemite runs fine even better than maverick ! So the rMB will do fine I think.

It costs £1000 for a 1.1ghz intel M cpu, while for the same money you can get a 2.2Ghz i7 Macbook Air. What is the point in the macbook? It is only slightly thinner than the macbook air but way slower. a 2.4Ghz 2009 Macbook doesn't run yosemite super smooth, so how bad is this new one going to be? It is slower than the previous macbook. 1.1Ghz is just not acceptable in 2015. That tim cook is insane and needs heavily sedating.

 

[drnebulous]

I have a 2009 24 inch iMac (C2D, 3.06 GHz, 8MB Ram 1066 MHZ, normale HD) and Yosemite runs fine even better than maverick !

My 2012 3.46GHz 6-Core Mac Pro runs yosemite fine too, but I was on about the macbook. I think Tim Cook is smoking more crystal meth than he can handle.

 

[mutsaers-vr.nl]

yes but that is not a honest comparison a 6 core versus an core m while my iMac is fairly comparible with the core m also taking into account that the rMB has an SSD and faster RAM.

My 2012 3.46GHz 6-Core Mac Pro runs yosemite fine too, but I was on about the macbook. I think Tim Cook is smoking more crystal meth than he can handle.

 

[MagicBoy]

It costs £1000 for a 1.1ghz intel M cpu, while for the same money you can get a 2.2Ghz i7 Macbook Air. What is the point in the macbook?

The Core-M 1.1GHz turbos to 2.4GHz where thermal performance allows. 1.1GHz is the worst case scenario.

If you don't like it speak to Intel. They make the CPU. It's a 5W fanless processor. The laws of physics have to kick in sometime.

 

[drnebulous]

yes but that is not a honest comparison a 6 core versus an core m while my iMac is fairly comparible with the core m also taking into account that the rMB has an SSD and faster RAM.

Your iMac is not even remotely comparable to the new macbook. Your iMac is 3Ghz, not 1Ghz. Even when it clocks to 2.4Ghz, it will still be stupidly slow. I never even knew a 1Ghz CPU existed after the G4. I wouldn't even like to think about the GPU! And hard drives and ram are all replaceable parts. Your iMac can take way more ram than this macbook, and you could also put an SSD inside.

----------

The Core-M 1.1GHz turbos to 2.4GHz where thermal performance allows. 1.1GHz is the worst case scenario.

If you don't like it speak to Intel. They make the CPU. It's a 5W fanless processor. The laws of physics have to kick in sometime.

It isn't that I don't like the computer. It's a nice computer for £380, but not £1000.

 

[Nee412]

It costs £1000 for a 1.1ghz intel M cpu, while for the same money you can get a 2.2Ghz i7 Macbook Air. What is the point in the macbook? It is only slightly thinner than the macbook air but way slower. a 2.4Ghz 2009 Macbook doesn't run yosemite super smooth, so how bad is this new one going to be? It is slower than the previous macbook. 1.1Ghz is just not acceptable in 2015. That tim cook is insane and needs heavily sedating.

It'll run the OS fine. It's built to run the OS. Duh.

It's actually price reasonably well when matched in specification to the other MacBooks Apple sells. It sits between the 11" and 13" MBAs on price, with seemingly no extra charge for the retina display. Basically those who want a Mac more portable than a rMBP now have two options instead of one.

This is a computer meant for those that need portability and have standard computer power needs. If you want/need something more powerful look to the rMBP range, they were designed for heavier tasks.

 

[MagicBoy]

Your iMac is not even remotely comparable to the new macbook. Your iMac is 3Ghz, not 1Ghz. Even when it clocks to 2.4Ghz, it will still be stupidly slow. I never even knew a 1Ghz CPU existed after the G4. I wouldn't even like to think about the GPU! And hard drives and ram are all replaceable parts. Your iMac can take way more ram than this macbook, and you could also put an SSD inside.

Comparing computers using clock frequency doesn't work - it's comparing (ahem) Apples to Oranges. Newer CPUs tend to process more instructions per clock cycle.

Case in point - the aforementioned iMac 3.06GHz vs the MacBook Core-M : http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-M-5Y70-vs-Intel-Core-2-Duo-E8435

Core M has better benchmark performance.

 

[Cloudsurfer]

yes but that is not a honest comparison a 6 core versus an core m while my iMac is fairly comparible with the core m also taking into account that the rMB has an SSD and faster RAM.

Core M runs circles around your Core 2 Duo.

 

[Meister]

The nMB has a weak processor, but you cannot compare cpus soley based on their clockspeed.

 

[lowendlinux]

Your iMac is not even remotely comparable to the new macbook. Your iMac is 3Ghz, not 1Ghz. Even when it clocks to 2.4Ghz, it will still be stupidly slow. I never even knew a 1Ghz CPU existed after the G4. I wouldn't even like to think about the GPU! And hard drives and ram are all replaceable parts. Your iMac can take way more ram than this macbook, and you could also put an SSD inside.

----------




It isn't that I don't like the computer. It's a nice computer for £380, but not £1000.

I have a feeling the the core m is probably faster than his C2D which is what he's getting at. The graphics is also likely faster than his computer too. Ghz is not a measure of speed unless you're comparing processors of the same generation.

 

[mutsaers-vr.nl]

No maximum RAM is 8 GB (i once replaced the 2 *2GB by 2*4 GB the max possible). Yes it has higher tact frequency but very old architecture (not 14 nm) compared to the rMB. Also the graphics GT130 is old.

Your iMac is not even remotely comparable to the new macbook. Your iMac is 3Ghz, not 1Ghz. Even when it clocks to 2.4Ghz, it will still be stupidly slow. I never even knew a 1Ghz CPU existed after the G4. I wouldn't even like to think about the GPU! And hard drives and ram are all replaceable parts. Your iMac can take way more ram than this macbook, and you could also put an SSD inside.

----------




It isn't that I don't like the computer. It's a nice computer for £380, but not £1000.

 

[PotatoAir]

The fact is that this CPU is only (not noticably) faster than a 6 year old T9600 and 240M.

Comparing it to this day its just a i3-4xxxU + HD4200.

And there is also a consideration about heat throtling in summer...

 

[mutsaers-vr.nl]

thanks, so the core m is slightly better according to the benchmarks but taking into account it has a SSD, probably better GPU and faster RAM the rMB will be much faster than my old iMac ?

Comparing computers using clock frequency doesn't work - it's comparing (ahem) Apples to Oranges. Newer CPUs tend to process more instructions per clock cycle.

Case in point - the aforementioned iMac 3.06GHz vs the MacBook Core-M : http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-M-5Y70-vs-Intel-Core-2-Duo-E8435

Core M has better benchmark performance.

 

[PotatoAir]

I will put a SSD in my Sony Vaio Pro, which was 1200€ 2 years ago and it will be 3x faster that this.

iTabletLapTop

Apple is just testing the limist of their customers stupidity

 

[MagicBoy]

thanks, so the core m is slightly better according to the benchmarks but taking into account it has a SSD, probably better GPU and faster RAM the rMB will be much faster than my old iMac ?

It will certainly feel a lot more responsive because of the SSD.

----------

I will put a SSD in my Sony Vaio Pro, which was 1200€ 2 years ago and it will be 3x faster that this.

iTabletLapTop

Apple is just testing the limist of their customers stupidity

Your Sony (model unspecified, obviously) offers better performance in something the same dimensions as the rMB and weighing well under a 1Kg?

Thought not.

 

[mutsaers-vr.nl]

If i do the comparison Intel Core M 5Y71 vs Intel Core M 5Y70 on that website theCore M 5Y70 is better which seems odd to me !!!

Comparing computers using clock frequency doesn't work - it's comparing (ahem) Apples to Oranges. Newer CPUs tend to process more instructions per clock cycle.

Case in point - the aforementioned iMac 3.06GHz vs the MacBook Core-M : http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-M-5Y70-vs-Intel-Core-2-Duo-E8435

Core M has better benchmark performance.

 

[MagicBoy]

If i do the comparison Intel Core M 5Y71 vs Intel Core M 5Y70 on that website theCore M 5Y70 is better which seems odd to me !!!

Take the CPUBoss results with a pinch of salt. With mobile devices there will be minor variations between different designs.

 

[pmau]

I would guess that if you run a benchmark with computational loops designed to utilise the complete CPU it will throttle pretty quickly.
I cannot imagine that these continuous high loads are any indication for real use patterns.

 

[jmazzamj]

a 2.4Ghz 2009 Macbook doesn't run yosemite super smooth, so how bad is this new one going to be? It is slower than the previous macbook. 1.1Ghz is just not acceptable in 2015. That tim cook is insane and needs heavily sedating.

No offence but based on your assumption, I think you know very little about CPU technology and frequency.

My old MacBook Pro from April 2010 (2.4 GHz C2D) has an average Geekbench 3 score of 1300/2200 (32 bit), 2009 is a bit slower. In comparison Yoga 3 Pro with a 1.1 GHz core M scores 2450/4260, which is comparable to a 2014 MacBook Air.

 

[ByteTheBooty]

I can't wait for it to come out to prove people like you wrong...

 

[drnebulous]

Your all missing the big point. It costs £1050. For that you can get an i7 MBA. The performance sacrifice of the macbook isn't worth it - it's only slightly thinner than the MBA. A retina display isn't a major priority.

 

[MisterPunchy]

Your all missing the big point. It costs £1050. For that you can get an i7 MBA. The performance sacrifice of the macbook isn't worth it - it's only slightly thinner than the MBA. A retina display isn't a major priority.

Ok then. Don't buy one. Nuff said? Please?

For you (and a VERY vocal contingent with you), the smaller form factor and retina display aren't worth the trade off in power and connectivity. We GET IT!

For some of us, the retina and portability ARE worth it. Stop with the arrogant attitude that suggests that other people are dumb because their values don't align with your own.

 

[Elise]

It's great that you started this thread OP the performance issues hasn't been mentioned at all yet ...

 

[GGJstudios]

Your all missing the big point. It costs £1050. For that you can get an i7 MBA. The performance sacrifice of the macbook isn't worth it - it's only slightly thinner than the MBA. A retina display isn't a major priority.

Actually, it's you that's missing the point. If the product doesn't do what you want for the price you want, it's obviously not the product for you. You value performance and don't value a retina display. For others, the opposite may be true. No computer is designed to meet the needs and pocketbook of everyone.

"This isn't the Mac you're looking for. Move along."