2016 Base Macbook Pro No Touchbar vs 2015 Base Macbook Pro

[Jker]

Hi all,

I'm just wondering whats everyone's opinions on this? I've currently got the latter since release, and whilst it's only a year and a half old, it's certainly not what it used to be. So I'm wondering, is it even a slight upgrade or not? I'm not very tech-savvy, but from a glance 2.0ghz is surely inferior to the 2.7ghz I currently have. That means it would run slower than what I already have right? The portability however is something I'd value greatly so I'm not sure whether to make the jump or not. Not too interested in the touchbar coming out in a few weeks.

Thanks in advance for all the help!

 

[mattopotamus]

I believe early benchmarks are showing the performance is nearly identical. If you upgrade it would be purely for aesthetics, speakers, portability, and battery. Performance should be the same

 

[Jker]

I believe early benchmarks are showing the performance is nearly identical. If you upgrade it would be purely for aesthetics, speakers, portability, and battery. Performance should be the same

Ahh thanks for letting me know. That actually doesn't sound too bad, my current battery is pretty worn so that in itself might not be a bad upgrade.

Curious too because I occasionally game (LOL, CS-GO), and was wondering would I be able to get 60FPS too. Should be ok with the 3.1Ghz turbo booster I guess which is the same as current, and that does the job minimally. Splashing out £300 for the 2.4Ghz is probably not worth it I guess.

 

[Cryates]

To say there is no performance difference is not true. There are several factors that would make performance on the 2016 version better. Better GPU, slightly faster CPU (per benchmarks), faster RAM and much faster SSD means better overall performance.

 

[YMark]

I'm in the same boat and going with a refurbished 2015. I have an iMac for horsepower.

 

[Jker]

To say there is no performance difference is not true. There are several factors that would make performance on the 2016 version better. Better GPU, slightly faster CPU (per benchmarks), faster RAM and much faster SSD means better overall performance.

If the performance is better in most aspects, I'm still confused as to why the processor base drop is so much? I understand this is replacing the Air, but still 2.7 >>> 2.0 surely? Yet the 2.0 is faster?

 

[Cryates]

If the performance is better in most aspects, I'm still confused as to why the processor base drop is so much? I understand this is replacing the Air, but still 2.7 >>> 2.0 surely? Yet the 2.0 is faster?

It's a new processor that's more efficient. Look at the clock speeds of old MacBook processors, and they perform much slower than new processors of the same clock speed.

 

[mellofello]

I expect there to be a pretty sizeable jump in battery life with the new processor.

 

[Jker]

It's a new processor that's more efficient. Look at the clock speeds of old MacBook processors, and they perform much slower than new processors of the same clock speed.

Ahh I sort of get you. Is there anywhere where we can see the comparisons of all the models? Still feels kind of dumb though a technically smaller processor outperforms a supposedly larger one but hey, I'm glad! More tempted to get this base.

 

[Cryates]

Ahh I sort of get you. Is there anywhere where we can see the comparisons of all the models? Still feels kind of dumb though a technically smaller processor outperforms a supposedly larger one but hey, I'm glad! More tempted to get this base.

This video, at 3:29, shows the comparison of the 2016 base MBP (2.0 Ghz) vs the 2015 base MBP (2.7 Ghz) and it benchmarks higher. This really speaks volumes on the difference between the more efficient Skylake CPU in the 2016 vs the old Broadwell CPU in the 2015.

 

[mattopotamus]

This video, at 3:29, shows the comparison of the 2016 base MBP (2.0 Ghz) vs the 2015 base MBP (2.7 Ghz) and it benchmarks higher. This really speaks volumes on the difference between the more efficient Skylake CPU in the 2016 vs the old Broadwell CPU in the 2015.

Thanks! IMO, that makes it the most logical upgrade. The power is perfect for pretty much everyone.

 

[Jker]

This video, at 3:29, shows the comparison of the 2016 base MBP (2.0 Ghz) vs the 2015 base MBP (2.7 Ghz) and it benchmarks higher. This really speaks volumes on the difference between the more efficient Skylake CPU in the 2016 vs the old Broadwell CPU in the 2015.

Thanks a bunch for the help! Albeit, I would argue as the 2015 machine has been used likely for a year - a year and a half, it's had it's performance diminish to a degree.

 

[john g.]

Same boat here. I ordered the 2016 simply because of the screen.

I was in an accident that mildly affected my eyesight so I need the best screen I can afford.
I have been on a 2012 non retina MBP and it is very fatiguing.

Might not be a huge difference but reviews are saying it a noticeable one, guess I will find out in a week.

Edit: Just compared a 2016 demo at a store with the 2015.
Screen-wise, to me, the difference is not subtle. The 2016 is nicer, maybe not worth it to most folks though.

Also, I don't hate the new keyboard.