2016 15" Touch Bar MBP — which option is better value?

[jk73]

I'll probably be upgrading my 2012 15" rMBP to one of the new 15" Touch Bar MBPs within the next few months.

In terms of value for the money, am I better off buying the base 15" model and upgrading to the 512 GB HD for $200 more, or simply buying the 512 GB model with its other minor included upgrades for $400 more?

(I know Apple upgrades are notoriously expensive, but I need the bigger HD.)

Thanks for all feedback.

 

[bethpapa74]

Hi this is my 15" silver MBP config. i choose 2.7GHz for its 8mb L3 cache, i travel and had tons of photos and video hence the 2TB ssd (since not upgradable at latter stage).
Radeon pro 460 becos i am doing 70% Lightroom and 30% video rendering

Touch Bar and Touch ID
2.7GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
16GB 2133MHz memory
2TB PCIe-based SSD
Radeon Pro 460 with 4GB memory

 

[maratus]

The best combo is 2.6Ghz, Pro 460 and 512/1TB SSD. Stick to Pro 450 if you feel like saving a bit and don't use gGPU. 2.7Ghz is actually worse than 2.6Ghz due to heat

 

[jk73]

Hi this is my 15" silver MBP config. i choose 2.7GHz for its 8mb L3 cache, i travel and had tons of photos and video hence the 2TB ssd (since not upgradable at latter stage).
Radeon pro 460 becos i am doing 70% Lightroom and 30% video rendering

Touch Bar and Touch ID
2.7GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
16GB 2133MHz memory
2TB PCIe-based SSD
Radeon Pro 460 with 4GB memory

Thanks for the feedback. That looks like a machine that should be future-proof for quite a while.

The best combo is 2.6Ghz, Pro 460 and 512/1TB SSD. Stick to Pro 450 if you feel like saving a bit and don't use gGPU. 2.7Ghz is actually worse than 2.6Ghz due to heat

Interesting. So you're saying the base 15" model plus the $200 256 GB HD upgrade and the $200 Radeon Pro 460 upgrade actually yields, for the same $2,799, a better machine than the base $2,799 15" model?

 

[Scott G.]

The best combo is 2.6Ghz, Pro 460 and 512/1TB SSD. Stick to Pro 450 if you feel like saving a bit and don't use gGPU. 2.7Ghz is actually worse than 2.6Ghz due to heat

That's not really true. All of the cpus are 45w. There isn't such a significant difference that would make the 2.7 heat up more. .1 ghz isn't going to do it. You're going to notice the benefit of the extra cache before you would notice any additional heat, which means yea, you won't be seeing higher temps..
[doublepost=1481354928][/doublepost]

Thanks for the feedback. That looks like a machine that should be future-proof for quite a while.



Interesting. So you're saying the base 15" model plus the $200 256 GB HD upgrade and the $200 Radeon Pro 460 upgrade actually yields, for the same $2,799, a better machine than the base $2,799 15" model?

The 2.6 with 512 and the 460 is a better buy than the 2.7/512/455. The upgraded gpu is more important than the upgraded cpu.

 

[jk73]

The 2.6 with 512 and the 460 is a better buy than the 2.7/512/455. The upgraded gpu is more important than the upgraded cpu.

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not a video editor, but I watch a lot of video on my MBP, including streaming MLB.TV and the new DirecTV Now. Would I really notice the upgraded GPU or would it be overkill for me? Thanks again.

 

[azntaiji]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not a video editor, but I watch a lot of video on my MBP, including streaming MLB.TV and the new DirecTV Now. Would I really notice the upgraded GPU or would it be overkill for me? Thanks again.

Highly doubt it. You'll only really notice the difference when editing video or playing games.

I have the base 15" w/ 455 and it has been great so far. Been able to play all sort of games on it at decent FPS with medium to high settings (although it gets hot). Was playing Slime Rancher on high earlier, through Bootcamp.

 

[MH01]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not a video editor, but I watch a lot of video on my MBP, including streaming MLB.TV and the new DirecTV Now. Would I really notice the upgraded GPU or would it be overkill for me? Thanks again.

It would be an overkill in your case. Always buy what you can afford

 

[jk73]

Highly doubt it. You'll only really notice the difference when editing video or playing games.

I have the base 15" w/ 455 and it has been great so far. Been able to play all sort of games on it at decent FPS with medium to high settings (although it gets hot). Was playing Slime Rancher on high earlier, through Bootcamp.

Thanks for the feedback. I don't play any games, so that aspect isn't a concern for me. I thought the better GPU might be better for someone who watches a lot of video, but I guess I was wrong about that.

If I won't notice the 460 GPU, the choice becomes: Do I order the base model plus the 512 GB upgrade for $2,599 and wait 2-3-4 weeks for delivery, or do I buy the 2.7/512 model for $2,799, which is in stock locally?

Decisions, decisions ...

(Not sure if this means anything, but I noticed that any Apple store that doesn't have the new MBPs in stock today is listed as having them "Jan. 9." I've never heard of Apple stores going a month between fresh stock, but that's what it says for all of the New York stores.)

 

[maratus]

That's not really true. All of the cpus are 45w. There isn't such a significant difference that would make the 2.7 heat up more. .1 ghz isn't going to do it. You're going to notice the benefit of the extra cache before you would notice any additional heat, which means yea, you won't be seeing higher temps.

Yes there is, at it's actually true. 45W is only the max TDP, not actual power consumption. And lower-end quads are known to consume less power than any of the "upgraded" ones. It was the case with previous generation and it's the case now. For example, 2.3Ghz and 2.4Ghz mid-12/early-13 models wouldn't go above 90C under 100% load, while any of the other models (2.6Ghz, 2.7Ghz, 2.8Ghz) were hitting 103C limit and started throttling under the same conditions.

While I agree that 2.6-2.7 difference this time doesn't look like a big deal, it's not about frequency, it's about voltages that Intel specifies for each chip. There were already reports about 2.7 or 2.9 being hotter compared to the base one.

 

[jk73]

Yes there is, at it's actually true. 45W is only the max TDP, not actual power consumption. And lower-end quads are known to consume less power than any of the "upgraded" ones. It was the case with previous generation and it's the case now. For example, 2.3Ghz and 2.4Ghz mid-12/early-13 models wouldn't go above 90C under 100% load, while any of the other models (2.6Ghz, 2.7Ghz, 2.8Ghz) were hitting 103C limit and started throttling under the same conditions.

While I agree that 2.6-2.7 difference this time doesn't look like a big deal, it's not about frequency, it's about voltages that Intel specifies for each chip. There were already reports about 2.7 or 2.9 being hotter compared to the base one.

Thanks. If it's true that the 2.7 will likely get hotter, I'll probably stick with the 2.6 and simply buy the 512 GB HD upgrade.

 

[azntaiji]

Thanks for the feedback. I don't play any games, so that aspect isn't a concern for me. I thought the better GPU might be better for someone who watches a lot of video, but I guess I was wrong about that.

If I won't notice the 460 GPU, the choice becomes: Do I order the base model plus the 512 GB upgrade for $2,599 and wait 2-3-4 weeks for delivery, or do I buy the 2.7/512 model for $2,799, which is in stock locally?

Decisions, decisions ...

(Not sure if this means anything, but I noticed that any Apple store that doesn't have the new MBPs in stock today is listed as having them "Jan. 9." I've never heard of Apple stores going a month between fresh stock, but that's what it says for all of the New York stores.)

FYI the online availability isn't very accurate to what's available in Apple stores. If you are close to some stores, I would suggest calling them beforehand or walk in and ask if they have anything. If calling, make sure you ask for "manager" at the prompt to get through to the local store. I was able to get mine locally.

 

[jk73]

FYI the online availability isn't very accurate to what's available in Apple stores. If you are close to some stores, I would suggest calling them beforehand or walk in and ask if they have anything. If calling, make sure you ask for "manager" at the prompt to get through to the local store. I was able to get mine locally.

Okay; thanks very much. I noticed the same local store that had "Jan. 9" availability a couple days ago now has both 15" MBPs in stock now. Not sure why they're using "Jan. 9" as the default if stock is still rolling in.

Do Apple stores ever have BTO options in stock — e.g., the base 15" but with a 512 GB HD — or do they only stock the base models as a rule? Thanks again.

 

[maratus]

Okay; thanks very much. I noticed the same local store that had "Jan. 9" availability a couple days ago now has both 15" MBPs in stock now. Not sure why they're using "Jan. 9" as the default if stock is still rolling in.

Do Apple stores ever have BTO options in stock — e.g., the base 15" but with a 512 GB HD — or do they only stock the base models as a rule? Thanks again.

Bigger stores used to have BTO options. 512GB upgrade is very popular, so why not? I wouldn't count of a fully maxed 2.6GHz though (460+1TB/2TB)

 

[jk73]

Bigger stores used to have BTO options. 512GB upgrade is very popular, so why not? I wouldn't count of a fully maxed 2.6GHz though (460+1TB/2TB)

Thanks. I go so long in between MBP upgrades that I forget a lot of the things I learned the last time I went through the process.

 

[aevan]

The best combo is 2.6Ghz, Pro 460 and 512/1TB SSD. Stick to Pro 450 if you feel like saving a bit and don't use gGPU. 2.7Ghz is actually worse than 2.6Ghz due to heat

I can't imagine it being worse. My 2.7 heats up less than the 2.3 I had on my previous MBP. Even if 2.6 is a bit cooler, the difference is negligible. People here are obsessed with heat and throttling almost as they are with maximizing GPU performance.

It is a faster CPU, more Mhz and more cache. It's not a ground shaking improvement, but it is better.

 

[maratus]

I can't imagine it being worse. My 2.7 heats up less than the 2.3 I had on my previous MBP. Even if 2.6 is a bit cooler, the difference is negligible. People here are obsessed with heat and throttling almost as they are with maximizing GPU performance.

Did you do any temp benchmarks under 100% load?

 

[aevan]

Did you do any temp benchmarks under 100% load?

I don't do benchmarks, I use it in real life and I monitored temperatures just because I was curious. Did Photoshop, Blender, Zbrush (and Zbrush is very CPU intensive) played a bit of Diablo, WoW and Tomb Raider, it was around 70 degrees. Perhaps if you stress test it you can get higher temperatures, but in real work it's was around 10 degrees less than doing the same things on my previous MBP.

I am not saying it doesn't get warmer than the 2.6 - it most certainly does, I'm just saying that it has a great temperature for a mobile CPU so there's no reason to avoid faster speeds because of temperature. Whether the upgrade is worth the cost is another thing.

 

[Marshall73]

74c with the 2.7ghz when gaming and converting video. CPU at 100%.

 

[maratus]

I don't do benchmarks, I use it in real life and I monitored temperatures just because I was curious. Did Photoshop, Blender, Zbrush (and Zbrush is very CPU intensive) played a bit of Diablo, WoW and Tomb Raider, it was around 70 degrees. Perhaps if you stress test it you can get higher temperatures, but in real work it's was around 10 degrees less than doing the same things on my previous MBP.

I am not saying it doesn't get warmer than the 2.6 - it most certainly does, I'm just saying that it has a great temperature for a mobile CPU so there's no reason to avoid faster speeds because of temperature. Whether the upgrade is worth the cost is another thing.

Oh well, for some users real work (sometimes) means 100% CPU load, you know...

And if you don't have the data to prove me wrong, what's the point of arguing? It's good to know that it's cooler than previous rMBP, sure. And it's ok to be condescending about benchmarks, but it's still the only way to make information objective and relevant. Got any ideas other than sharing feelings over the internet? I don't.

It's also ironic when someone questions whether thermals are important.... on the same forum where the majority whines about dGPU failures and MBPs running too hot......

 

[ZeDog]

The best combo is 2.6Ghz, Pro 460 and 512/1TB SSD. Stick to Pro 450 if you feel like saving a bit and don't use gGPU. 2.7Ghz is actually worse than 2.6Ghz due to heat

I disagree. The 2.7 has 33% more 2nd level cache and is quicker for some applications. With increase heat, the CPU speed will be reduced on both 2.7 and 2.6
[doublepost=1481782453][/doublepost]I myself went for the 2.7/512/460 because it was only 100€ More expensive than the 2.6/512/460 config

 

[maratus]

I disagree. The 2.7 has 33% more 2nd level cache and is quicker for some applications. With increase heat, the CPU speed will be reduced on both 2.7 and 2.6
[doublepost=1481782453][/doublepost]I myself went for the 2.7/512/460 because it was only 100€ More expensive than the 2.6/512/460 config

2.6 runs 10C cooler in high-load scenario and doesn't throttle at all, while 2.7 does. Why do I have to repeat the same thing over and over?

 

[aevan]

2.6 runs 10C cooler in high-load scenario and doesn't throttle at all, while 2.7 does. Why do I have to repeat the same thing over and over?

I don't know where you got the information that 2.6 doesn't throttle. But let's assume you're right - that only means that for sustained load the 2.7 will drop to 2.6 levels while it will be faster for burst performance - which is most of the time. It will also complete tasks faster and drop down temperature and energy spending faster, which means that it can be more energy efficient for everyday tasks. The 2.6 is not a better processor. I don't know, the idea that 2.7 is worse seems like sour grapes to me.
[doublepost=1481798317][/doublepost]

Oh well, for some users real work (sometimes) means 100% CPU load, you know...

When I work in Zbrush, the CPU is at 100% load whenever I'm sculpting. What you probably mean is having it at 100% for a sustained period of time, like rendering. For those tasks the 2.7 is maybe close to 2.6 - I don't have the benchmarks. But for sculpting, painting, using the CPU in continuous short bursts, there is no way 2.7 isn't faster.
[doublepost=1481798591][/doublepost]

It's also ironic when someone questions whether thermals are important.... on the same forum where the majority whines about dGPU failures and MBPs running too hot......

Majority of people whine about failures on every forum. And here, members take it to a new level. People here actually think SSDs can noticeably reduce the overall warmth of the iMac compared to Fusion Drives. A 10 degree C difference between CPUs in specific scenarios doesn't automatically make the cooler CPU better.

New MBPs have ample thermal headroom so why not add performance?

 

[jk73]

I still haven't decided, but thanks for all of the feedback.

Sounds like the base 15" plus the 512 GB HD is probably plenty for a non-gamer, non-video editor like myself.

 

[Ghostika]

Assuming that the i7 6700HQ definitly runs cooler than the i7 6820HQ/6920HQ because of its slower base clock speed is mostly wrong.
You have to know how a processor is made to fully understand that. You might get a sneak pick of that process here (old but still true) :
https://www.pugetsystems.com/blog/2009/02/26/intel-core-i7-temperatures/

The i7 6820HQ and 6920HQ are simply highers bins of the 6700HQ because of two things :
- The market demand
- It performs better during the control process
It explains the big cost increase for the 6920HQ wich is supposed to be the best performer of its class.
You just can't draw a generality from comparing heat generation between two cpus.

The 6820HQ and 6920HQ have more chance of running more efficiently at the same clock speed as the 6700HQ. Bear in mind it's definitly not a certainty.