Well it sort of depends on what you use it for. The GPU and CPU increase might lift it from "almost unplayable" to "almost acceptable " in stuff like Starcraft 2 (I don't game on my MacBook, but this game might be the only one I could see myself play on a laptop)
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Are you satisfied with this morning's spec bump?
- Thread starter emilioestevez
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would push back a little on this in that there are a lot of business people, executive types and folks that just do writing oriented workflows that simply love "retina"…as we all do... They don't need a super powerful computer, in fact sexy thin light and portable is right up their alley.
But not including 4K@60 Hz means they can't use a docking station/monitor situation and still get retina class graphics (at the smooth frame rate) in that scenario (in the office vs on the go).
Is it a complete dealbreaker? Not even close...absolutely not.
But it is frustrating because there are some thin & sexy windows laptops that are ahead of this curve on the tech that's included right now. It would be nice to have the MacBook keeping pace a little bit better.
That's a fair statement. The 4K@60Hz is a miss and does exclude a portion of the potential market who deem it a must-have. Its applicability with vary by organization of course; those I work with are all Windows based with the occasional mac, so I've not seen it, but I'm sure it's an issue in some of those instances.
It'd be interesting to see the analysis of the design/cost impacts to support 4K@60HZ. Presumably it'd have either cost more for every unit (and/or required design changes), so Apple makes more money by not including it. In contrast some people don't buy a rMB due to that inability, and of those people some buy a different Mac and some either buy something else or buy nothing and wait for another generation. How would the reduced profits from the lost sales compare to the increased profits from the presumably less expensive design?
It'd be interesting to see the analysis of the design/cost impacts to support 4K@60HZ. Presumably it'd have either cost more for every unit (and/or required design changes), so Apple makes more money by not including it. In contrast some people don't buy a rMB due to that inability, and of those people some buy a different Mac and some either buy something else or buy nothing and wait for another generation. How would the reduced profits from the lost sales compare to the increased profits from the presumably less expensive design?
Again, in order to support 4k@60hz they would have needed to include a daughter-board capable of usb 3.1 gen 2. This would have gone against the ethos of this device. I am someone who would like to connect it to a 4k monitor, so I was hoping for this update, but my suspicion is I'm still one of only a tiny minority whom this affects.
Count me in, I work & travel internationally, 12" Retina MacBook superb for my needs. I would like to have seen TB3, would I like a little more performance? Definitively yes and now we have it, will I upgrade my 1.2 512, initially no, although I am coming around to the premise, as I can see tangible benefit. Much will depend on the 13" rMBP update, as it may well not be too far behind the rMB in portability with a good deal more performance & ports.
Also agree that the Windows OEM`s have very much caught up with Apple and in some cases exceeded, with Apple being too locked into delivering to the shareholder, than being at the front of the pack for creativity & innovation, in short IOS sells...
Q-6
Lots of people coding these days. Not knocking it, but the days of Macs and design have moved on.
I beg to differ.
[doublepost=1461271618][/doublepost]
I doubt it, the m7 is a build to order option with a week to delivery when I checked on Tuesday.
Maybe someone in China or Hong Kong might have better luck but I doubt it.
Thanks, maybe before the weekend.
Am curious about the perf, PCs may give an idea : http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?page=1&q=6y75&utf8=✓
Getting close to 7000 would be great (same level than the Pro 13 i5 2.7)
Am curious about the perf, PCs may give an idea : http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?page=1&q=6y75&utf8=✓
Getting close to 7000 would be great (same level than the Pro 13 i5 2.7)
Not sure if I care about the CPU bump, that's probably not what's holding my 1.2/512 2015 rMB back. I AM, however, really excited about the 40% faster graphics processor. I feel like my computer is really struggling to push those retina-level pixels whenever I do anything remotely complicated (like play a YouTube video...) so we'll see. If the refresh makes this computer usable for me, then I'm going to be super happy with it.
[doublepost=1461300800][/doublepost]
Did you just say that Safari "launches" Facebook? I'm sorry, sir, but this is the internet and you can't not get called out on that.
[doublepost=1461300915][/doublepost]
Spring for the 2016. I feel like a broken record, but it's not the CPU bump that's going to save you, it's the GPU bump. The 2015 Macbook's GPU simply can't push retina-class pixels to keep up with everything else.
I can't guarantee you that the 2016 model will be better (haven't received mine yet), but I can tell you the GPU is a huge limiting resource in my 1.2 2015 rMB, and I'm just talking about simple things like, YouTube, and iTunes.
[doublepost=1461301092][/doublepost]
I rushed to buy the new one... Whether or not I keep it though fully depends on whether Skylake/515 is actually faster from my 2015 rMB...
[doublepost=1461301216][/doublepost]
So h4x0rs can grab nudes from you via webcam viruses... I learned this from television.
[doublepost=1461301257][/doublepost]
That was what they said about the first iPhone...
[doublepost=1461300800][/doublepost]
Did you just say that Safari "launches" Facebook? I'm sorry, sir, but this is the internet and you can't not get called out on that.
[doublepost=1461300915][/doublepost]
Spring for the 2016. I feel like a broken record, but it's not the CPU bump that's going to save you, it's the GPU bump. The 2015 Macbook's GPU simply can't push retina-class pixels to keep up with everything else.
I can't guarantee you that the 2016 model will be better (haven't received mine yet), but I can tell you the GPU is a huge limiting resource in my 1.2 2015 rMB, and I'm just talking about simple things like, YouTube, and iTunes.
[doublepost=1461301092][/doublepost]
I rushed to buy the new one... Whether or not I keep it though fully depends on whether Skylake/515 is actually faster from my 2015 rMB...
[doublepost=1461301216][/doublepost]
So h4x0rs can grab nudes from you via webcam viruses... I learned this from television.
[doublepost=1461301257][/doublepost]
That was what they said about the first iPhone...
Last edited:
I don't feel it as limited as you mention GPU wise, but no doubt it's the most urgent factor to update for me as well. Haven't seen any comparisons or benchmarks yet
I just got confirmation that one of my relatives is buying my current 1.2/512 rMB so I am going to get one of the upgraded ones. Had I not had a buyer, I would have waited. But new toys are always fun. I don't care at all about the camera and I think one USB-C port is plenty for my needs--has been for the last year--and I have never used and external monitor, 4K or otherwise, so no big deal there. The only change I may make is getting the 1.3 instead of the 1.2. Also maybe I'll go back to silver.
Probably more to do with the fact you have you plug things in to achieve certain tasks in today's world - 'wasting your life plugging things in' is pure melodrama.
You admit the Macbook is a product for those who want an iPad with increased functionality, a niche market - those utilising OS X professionally within creative environments still rely on physical connections. Whilst these people wouldn't be looking into the rMB as their driver, it still stands as an example of ports being a necessity for many people - nothing to do with being 'deluded' or not 'working hard enough'.
In a Utopian wireless world I'd agree, but as it stands Airplay, Airdrop, Bluetooth technology etc. aren't to a standard that makes wired connections redundant. Until that day comes I'll continue to be part of the 'deluded few' wasting our lives away not working hard enough to get wireless peripherals.
There's far too many 'my usage represents the masses' opinions thrown around the Macbook threads.
But the iPad Pro is better than this piece of ****. Its cheaper. It has a larger display with 264 ppi vs the rMB 226 ppi. A9X beats Core m on all levels of perfomance.
If youre going to talk about OS X vs iOS - the MacBooks specs actually make OS X a worse experience than iOS...its was lagging to the point that i had to return it.
It will be a great computer (3, 4 gen)...but it isnt one now.
...and the iPad is worthless for anyone that wants to do some serious productive work, period.
Touch screens just don't cut it in most serious work oriented applications.
The 2016 MacBook isn't a great computer it's an excellent computer and well up to the tasks most users need it for.
If you require it for anything more hardcore you need to look at your needs and purchase the correct machine for it.
Don't blame a machine if you can't do your own homework and figure out it's intended purpose.
Not one bit of lag here and works like a dream.......couldn't be happier with my MacBook.
Of course, I don't call my Corvette a POS when it can't pull out tree stumps.
Hey...I can browse the web, do email, write up reports, watch multimedia on an iPad. Same goes for the MacBook. I cant perform stress analyses on beams using any of the mentioned devices. I KNOW I need a MB Pro for that. My question is if the iPad Pro can do what the MacBook can and more, whats the point of a MacBook if it cant offer a true OS X experience. My iPad Pro does not lag when I have multiple, menial, applications open...the MacBook does though.
Maybe you didnt read the last few lines of my post..I know itll be great computer, it just isnt one now.
Apple should have waited for chips sizes to get smaller and more efficient.
Also the MB doesnt cut it for " serious work oriented applications" either...ANSYS, SOLIDEDGE AUTODESK....nope.
Last edited:
Yeah - I have Logic Pro X on mine (with 200+GB of virtual instruments), and Xcode...
For something the size of an iPad, that allows me to work on music and work in Xcode, - I think it's a pretty amazing machine..
The IPP is a great hairdressers pretend laptop
your simply misguided if you think you can reach the same level of productivity on a IPP compared even to a rMB with good enterprise software.The reason you may not see lag is simply you can't run or push the IPP to the same levels with various software in multiple windows as its simply the most advance Etch a sketch ever running a phone/mobile OS with limited business software and interface
but it is highly optimized for it's intended use.Good for you if the IPP fulfills your needs but others MMV
FYI most structural analysis software will run quite happily on a rMB via bootcamp
The IPP is a great hairdressers pretend laptop
The reason you may not see lag is simply you can't run or push the IPP to the same levels with various software in multiple windows as its simply the most advance Etch a sketch ever running a phone/mobile OS with limited business software and interface
Good for you if the IPP fulfills your needs but others MMV
FYI most structural analysis software will run quite happily on a rMB via bootcamp
IPP does not meet my needs, nor does the rMB.
All i said was that the IPP meets the basic requirements, so does the MacBook. Yet both exist...offering no advantages over each other, although IPP IS cheaper...OS X is crappy on the rMB based on my usage. The rMB lags using ANSYS via Bootcamp.Apple needs to UP the MB...even you cant deny that. its extremely underpowered.
[doublepost=1461557120][/doublepost]
Not to sound uptight....but I would barely call Logic Pro X a work oriented application.
As for Xcode, yes, some light coding is possible on the MB. Try coding Java/Python...youll see lag during run tests.Btw something the size of the iPP would more likely be the rMBP 13...which you can get for the same price of the MB and can do more.
Last edited:
Not to sound uptight....but I would barely call Logic Pro X a work oriented application.
Btw something the size of the iPP would more likely be the rMBP 13...which you can get for the same price of the MB and can do more.
Ok, I think I get it.
You're simply not the intended target of the 12".
People who generally buy the 12" are looking for the smallest/lightest that will run OS X. I think a lot of us also have multiple computers (I have a 15", and a 12.9" iPad Pro).
Here's the 13" vs 12":
If you look at that and say "Its not much of a difference, I'll take the 13.." - then you're not the intended target..the person looking for the lightest/smallest.
With me, I take a backpack filled with supplies to work. The 12" fits in the tablet section of my backpack, and allows me something to run xcode/logic pro x.
I had the 13" before, and the 12" is a huge improvement for me, in terms of portability.
Hell, it's even easier taking with me than my iPad Pro...and I get to use Logic Pro X and Xcode!!
I guess its on preference now. Though you too would have to agree that a tad bit more power would be nice.