Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Or buy a Windows Laptop with far better graphics performance in a 13” model if so they desire. Better specs all around.

Yup “better” specs until you turn on the windows machine and you get hit by how terrible Windows 10 is. Earlier this year, I made a sudden “comeback” to Windows and boy boy was I disappointed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: centauratlas
Yup “better” specs until you turn on the windows machine and you get hit by how terrible Windows 10 is. Earlier this year, I made a sudden “comeback” to Windows and boy boy was I disappointed.
What, specifically, disappointed you?
 
The only thing important for me is how fast I can transfer pics from my SD cards. Until I can my hands on a new MBP, only then will I be impressed or not.
 
These are the type of things Apple haters / Windows PC fanboys overlook when determining the true value of an Apple device.

Just at the comment section here!

And BTW, nice game they used to "test" the GPU's just to give the advantage to Windows machines and make the Mac look bad.

They chose a shoddy Mac port from 2011, that running DirectX emulated through OpenGL, versus updated native DirectX graphics, nice, such a crappy move, you can CLEARLY see in the bottom that they are sponsored by Huawei, so they had to make the Huawei win.

This is why Apple is moving to Metal, and not looking backwards.

And the "it's because APFS" thing? Last time I checked Windows doesn't have APFS, or something similar, it's not Apple's fault that Microsoft chose to save money and don't develop a modern file system and it's still using NTFS from the 90's. In fact, Microsoft was developing ReFS, and they stopped because... their costumers were not complaining about NTFS.

And not, it's not an APFS clone. Because if it were, it would be even faster, in fact, instant.

Apple's SSD's are that fast, and other guys SSDs are that slow, it's no surprise, the older generation already had a crazy fast SSD:

ssd.png

So, those benchmarks make sense, and it's "a win is a win".
 
"With the resolution set to 1650 x 1050 pixels and the settings on low, the MacBook Pro got only 38.8 frames per second. That’s a lot lower than what Windows systems turned in at the 1920 x 1080 pixels (the MacBook doesn’t offer this resolution)."

The MBP is in fact a Retina Display (native resolution of 2560-by-1600). Would it affect the score negatively? No matter what the answer, macOS relies so heavily on the GPU, I can't believe they still go with cheap implementations anymore.

-

And yes I believe the 4.9 GB file copy was done in 2s thanks to APFS which creates an alias only. You can't replicate this speed on Windows no matter what hardware you have. But even if the Mac clearly wins here, it doesn't make the test any more good.


Yep, it unfortunately does. It also doesn’t help that Apple seemingly has no clue how to handle full screen apps. That resolution is scaled on a 13 inch model, which is essentially more work. The 2x scaling used with the 1280x800 effective resolution provides better performance.

Everything should be solved by giving full control of the screen to the full screen app, but now, if you want to run something in 1440x900, but you set macOS to show as 1650x1050 (cause you want to see more things in Xcode for example), your game will be scaled to 1050 from the native resolution, and since that’s not 2x or 3x, it won’t be pixel perfect, then the game will scale to a 900p because you set the game at that.

It tanks performance. The best way is to use the non-default 1280x800 pixel perfect scaling, or the complete native res without scaling by some third party app.

It’s a ****ing mess, but I’m also pissed that Apple abandoned pixel perfect scaling with the iPhone pluses and the new MacBooks (at least by default).
 
-- snip --

SSD remains the most expensive storage option and what happens when the MacBook fails how do you go about getting your data off that soldered in SSD basically you are stuffed as Louis Rossmann sets it all out in front of you in plain language. Only Apple will sort it for an extortionate price

Ah, ok... I heard there were a few people who aren't aware that it's very important for a computer user to back up their disk from time to time; even regularly. Now I believe it.
 
I dont agree with you. It seems the person is using SATA/M.2 SSD on the Win laptops and Apple is using NVME SSD.

If the Win laptops use NVME SSD (these laptops should support it), the result should be the same.

SSD is a commondity not like Apple makes their own SSD you know.

The laptops support it, but don't come with an option to order it. You have to order and install yourself. From what I've seen, people get up to 1.8GB/s on the XPS 13 with a Samsung 960 Evo, there are some bottlenecks with how the lanes are set up.
 
There comes a time when SSD speed becomes unnoticeable the same as upgrading from a certain amount of RAM.
There is no denying the advantage of SSD that being said they are not the be and end all. Both Hybrid Drives and High End Performance Mechanical Drives have much to offer such as the Western Digital Black HDD
https://www.seagate.com/gb/en/solutions/solid-state-hybrid/
https://www.wdc.com/products/internal-storage/wd-black-desktop.html

SSD remains the most expensive storage option and what happens when that MacBook Pro fails how do you go about getting your data off that soldered in SSD basically you are stuffed as Louis Rossmann sets it all out in front of you in plain language. Only Apple will sort it for an extortionate price

Sponsored by iFixit.
[doublepost=1531528616][/doublepost]
SSD is a commondity not like Apple makes their own SSD you know.

FALSE!

SSD's are not a commodity and Apple makes their own SSD controllers.

NAND chips are a commodity like RAM.
 
Did you attempt to do the same for the MBP?

EDIT: Seems like it's readily available on their web site. From the website the different configurations are listed as:

128GB Solid State Drive (I assume SATA)
256GB PCIe Solid State Drive

Thanks.

I use two regularly.

And while I don't use the z, q, ^, and ` keys very often, I'm glad they are there.

That's a lot of bandwidth. I'm guessing eGPU or monitors? Maybe big storage arrays?

Their specs table will say PCIe, otherwise it is regular ol SATA. The base model is SATA.

Yeah, their website is pretty terrible.

Okay then. I'm going to go see if the Coffee Lake option has nVME.
 
Just at the comment section here!

And BTW, nice game they used to "test" the GPU's just to give the advantage to Windows machines and make the Mac look bad.

They chose a shoddy Mac port from 2011, that running DirectX emulated through OpenGL, versus updated native DirectX graphics, nice, such a crappy move, you can CLEARLY see in the bottom that they are sponsored by Huawei, so they had to make the Huawei win.

This is why Apple is moving to Metal, and not looking backwards.

And the "it's because APFS" thing? Last time I checked Windows doesn't have APFS, or something similar, it's not Apple's fault that Microsoft chose to save money and don't develop a modern file system and it's still using NTFS from the 90's. In fact, Microsoft was developing ReFS, and they stopped because... their costumers were not complaining about NTFS.

And not, it's not an APFS clone. Because if it were, it would be even faster, in fact, instant.

Apple's SSD's are that fast, and other guys SSDs are that slow, it's no surprise, the older generation already had a crazy fast SSD:

ssd.png

So, those benchmarks make sense, and it's "a win is a win".
No, they don't given the slowest benchmark in the chart you provided exceeds the fastest provided in the comparison.
 
Really? This if you best example of Windows disappointment?

Open paint, open PNG image, choose "Save As", select jpeg as the target format.

LOL, that awful quality, that awful workarround, no option to select JPEG quality...
[doublepost=1531529646][/doublepost]
Am I correct in assuming then that Apple can do no wrong?

No, you'll be correct assuming Apple can do SSD's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: centauratlas
With the file copy so much ridiculously faster, could that have something to do with the APFS file system? I kind of remember reading that it doesn't actually copy the file or something like that. Like there's just one file that appears to be in two places? Maybe someone knows more about it than I do.
APFS will do "copy on write". When you say "copy file A to B" ... traditionally an OS would (very roughly) do a loop of "copy file A block 1 to file B block 1, copy file A block 2 to file B block 2, ..." (repeating for every block). With copy on write, it can take the list of blocks that make up file A and copy just that block list to the structure for file B, so the two files are sharing the blocks. It also sets a flag for each of the blocks to show that it belongs to both files only until it gets rewritten. This can all happen very quickly, because suddenly your'e copying kilobytes of filesystem data instead of gigabytes of file data. When either file tries to change the contents of any of the shared blocks, the updated file gets a new replacement block, while the old file keeps the previously shared block. Copy on write is very good at saving both disk space and time.

Doing what is intended to be a generalized disk performance/throughput test, and letting this happen (copy on write's non-heavy-lifting version), and then throwing your hands in the air and saying, "a win is a win" is first-rate idiocy. Because making copies of large files isn't the ultimate goal, it's just a stand-in for other filesystem work that actually would change lots of blocks.

Likely the way to do this test properly would be to split the existing SSD into two partitions, and copy a large file from one partition to the other. I don't think APFS will share blocks between filesystems (but I haven't studied the details).
 
Hahaha ok. The SSD is faster. Now it is worth the 50% price increase over a pc with the same or better specs!

A 1799 computer without a dedicated GPU is ridiculous. But hey it’s got a faster SSD so that should make it up for the GPU.

Yup it is. I don't pay for specs per say. I pay for the operating system. I love Mac OS over windows, I love ios over android
 
OK...but those GPU specs are quite disappointing. My mac mini just chokes on Cities Skylines and was hoping to see something that can run it smoothly. Perhaps Vega cards in the upcoming mac mini then?
I suspect the issue or discrepancy in scores has more to do with software than hardware. Dirt 3 is probably running with directx on Windows while it probably runs with openGL on the mac. I’m pretty confident that with equal hardware, games run much worse with opengl than with directx. It would be nice to find titles that run on vulkan and do benchmarks accross platforms using a single api. Even a metal vs directx comparison would be more valuable.
 
Meh, this means Apple has an excuse for faulty keyboards.
they will claim the speed of the ssd is sooooooo fast, the keyboard can’t keep up!
 
The 13-inch 2018 MacBook Pro uses Intel's Iris Plus Graphics 655 with 128MB of embedded DRAM and was unable to compete in a Dirt 3 graphics test, getting only 38.8 frames per second

So dirt-cheap Apple gives you a GPU that's meant for browsing the web, but charges a starting price point that nets you a nice gaming PC and monitor.

I wonder how many FPS the Touchbar gets.
 
Last edited:
LOL, that awful quality, that awful workarround, no option to select JPEG quality...
You said it couldn't be done. It can. Obviously you're not very familiar with Windows.
[doublepost=1531531302][/doublepost]
I suspect the issue or discrepancy in scores has more to do with software than hardware. Dirt 3 is probably running with directx on Windows while it probably runs with openGL on the mac. I’m pretty confident that with equal hardware, games run much worse with opengl than with directx. It would be nice to find titles that run on vulkan and do benchmarks accross platforms using a single api. Even a metal vs directx comparison would be more valuable.
It would be nice if the testers would start by publishing the configurations, including OS versions, used in the comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AndyMacAndMic
You said it couldn't be done. It can. Obviously you're not very familiar with Windows.
[doublepost=1531531302][/doublepost]
It would be nice if the testers would start by publishing the configurations, including OS versions, used in the comparison.

But the point isn't to inform people, it's to inflame people to get those sweet sweet clicks.
 
Yeah RIGHT!!!

The GPU test is skewed beyond belief.

If anyone think the HD620 is 2x
better than the Iris Plus 655, is advise you to get your head checked.

These benchmarks reflect OSX vs Windows environments. Either the OSX drivers stink, or the app is poorly coded.

Install Windows on that MBP and check the GPU difference.

Nuff said!
 
  • Like
Reactions: kodos
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.