Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

dan9700

Suspended
Original poster
May 28, 2015
3,347
4,824
right im angry as many know on this forum im not happy i spent £3000 which is insane for a macbook thats slower than my 2015 one, the lag is insane and my new mac is maxed out, i reinstalled sierra and same, i found this video its not me on youtube and it shows exact problems im having


how is this acceptable for such a expensive machine, i dont wanna take it back as love the macs but i cant belive ive spent so much and its a downgrade in real life time, is it true the new macbook pro uses half the graphics from 2015 igpu, this is not fair all i ask for is my mac to be speedy and it has mental ssd so shouldnt be lagging
 

maratus

macrumors 6502a
Jun 12, 2009
701
273
Canada
Do you have a true clean install or did you restore from a TM backup (sorry, but it's macrumors, so I had to double check)
 

Nik

macrumors 6502a
Jun 3, 2007
678
1,356
France
The HD530 is slower than the Iris Pro in the old one. Its as simple as that. Look at benchmarks. Thats also why the low-end 15" MBP comes with a dedicated GPU standard now.
 

dan9700

Suspended
Original poster
May 28, 2015
3,347
4,824
Do you have a true clean install or did you restore from a TM backup (sorry, but it's macrumors, so I had to double check)
mine was complete reinstall no back up set it as scratch i was on phone with apple for 2 hours and they dont understand why mines laggy
[doublepost=1480559057][/doublepost]
The HD530 is slower than the Iris Pro in the old one. Its as simple as that. Look at benchmarks. Thats also why the low-end 15" MBP comes with a dedicated GPU standard now.
does that mean theres a way to just use the amd all the time and forget igpu why would thay make it slower makes no sense
 
  • Like
Reactions: MareLuce

maratus

macrumors 6502a
Jun 12, 2009
701
273
Canada
Mine with Intel HD 4000 (more than twice as slow) doesn't lag on Sierra clean install. So it's really strange :( Maybe it's a driver issue?
[doublepost=1480559329][/doublepost]Although 2016 didn't seem to lag at all when I was trying it. And it's also ok according to many users here
[doublepost=1480559398][/doublepost]
Thats also why the low-end 15" MBP comes with a dedicated GPU standard now.
No, it's not. The reason why 15" MBP comes with a dedicated GPU is to support 2x 5K and 4x 4K external screen setup
 
  • Like
Reactions: MotionxxUSxx

dan9700

Suspended
Original poster
May 28, 2015
3,347
4,824
the video this guy made shows the lag when scolling thru apps in folder, its so slow
 

powerocool

macrumors 6502
Jun 5, 2007
437
408
The default rendering resolution / scale was increased for 2016 model. Pushing more pixels on display. That's why it's slower.

Screen Shot 2016-11-30 at 6.32.51 PM.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhiteWhaleHolyGrail

dk808

macrumors 6502a
May 13, 2015
616
364
Why did you even upgrade if you already have a 2015 model? Seems like a waste of $3000
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hook87

dan9700

Suspended
Original poster
May 28, 2015
3,347
4,824
i sold my 2015 for £1800 and thought hell yeah i always like apple stuff but just understandn why its lower could the resaslotion change help
 
  • Like
Reactions: UnclePaulie

dan9700

Suspended
Original poster
May 28, 2015
3,347
4,824
The amount of pixels is the same. That's an interface scaling option.

Quartz is intensive and has never been fully optimised. We lived with it since 2001. Should have seen how bad it was back then.
Will changing it back to lower make the spees faster
 
Jul 4, 2015
4,487
2,551
Paris
Will changing it back to lower make the spees faster
The amount of pixels is still the same and icon assets won't change. You should instead ask yourself if you are using the computer in a practical way. Scrolling through the app folder isn't something people usually do. It's preferable to use folder list view from the Dock or command+space to launch apps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: T5BRICK

dan9700

Suspended
Original poster
May 28, 2015
3,347
4,824
The amount of pixels is still the same and icon assets won't change. You should instead ask yourself if you are using the computer in a practical way. Scrolling through the app folder isn't something people usually do. It's preferable to use folder list view from the Dock or command+space to launch apps.
Just opening folders is laggy and opening videos in vlc jutters going full screen my 2015 never had this
 

Scott G.

macrumors regular
Nov 23, 2016
153
43
Amsterdam, NY
Tested this on mine just a little while ago. 15 inch with 455 and 2.7. No lag like that in the app drawer or in mission control. I made sure to test it while on the battery and not plugged in.
 

Mobster1983

macrumors 6502a
Sep 8, 2011
653
476
My maxed MBP is faster than my maxed 2013 iMac. I was pretty impressed that it beat (albeit slightly) one of the fastest desktops.

No issues whatsoever with the MBP. Love it.
 

dan9700

Suspended
Original poster
May 28, 2015
3,347
4,824
My maxed MBP is faster than my maxed 2013 iMac. I was pretty impressed that it beat (albeit slightly) one of the fastest desktops.

No issues whatsoever with the MBP. Love it.
My 2015 mbp with amd was fast and this 2016 maxed out with 460 is slower overall in ui stuff and even switching to dgpu it still does same, serirra is messed up
 

Mbp15buyer

macrumors newbie
Nov 19, 2016
10
0
Same issues here - noticeable frame skipping with 450. Consider a return. This is too much for me
 

Fl0r!an

macrumors 6502a
Aug 14, 2007
909
530
The amount of pixels is the same. That's an interface scaling option.
That's not true. 1440x900 (HiDPI) renders at 2880x1800 internally (= 5.2 MPixels).
1650x1050 (HiDPI) renders at 3300x2100 internally, which equals to 6.93 MPixels.

Both gets scaled down to the same native display resolution (= 2880x1800) in the end, but internally the GPU has to push 37.5% more pixels.
 
Jul 4, 2015
4,487
2,551
Paris
That's not true. 1440x900 (HiDPI) renders at 2880x1800 internally (= 5.2 MPixels).
1650x1050 (HiDPI) renders at 3300x2100 internally, which equals to 6.93 MPixels.

Both gets scaled down to the same native display resolution (= 2880x1800) in the end, but internally the GPU has to push 37.5% more pixels.

In the case of rendering beyond the screens native resolution yes there is a performance penalty.
 

runner77

macrumors member
Nov 9, 2016
91
68
Berlin
this is not fair

Why this victim mentality? Make an appointment at an Apple store, show them device or get yours exchanged right away. Discussing this issue on the phone is pointless. It is very likely that this will be fixed with a software update. Scrolling through a folder is not that intense in graphic calculations.

But whining in a forum.. that will not bring you any further in life. Promised.
 

Blackrock83

macrumors newbie
Dec 2, 2016
2
3
Brand new maxed out MBP was graphically very glitchy the first day I got it. Last night it crashed while our VM was updating windows. It goes back to apple monday. Fired up my late 2013 MBP and it actually felt faster. Maybe just a few lemons in the early runs but I am going to wait a bit before I look at upgrading my 2013 now : (
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.