Base 2019 13-Inch MacBook Pro is Up to 83% Faster Than Previous Generation in Benchmarks

[Ronnie Zolverda]

You can’t use the iPad for your professional needs. That doesn’t make it a device incapable of professional work, running professional apps for a lot of people.

I agree with that, there's definitely a class of professional apps that work pretty well or better on the iPad than the Mac(book), like some design and drawing applications. There iPad Pro is there for a reason, of course.

My reply was more aimed at the remark that we all should be looking at the iPad instead of the Mac, and that's clearly not true either.

The truth is, as usual, somewhere in between. Some classes of pro apps work well on the iPad, others don't. Professional development (programming/coding) is one class of apps that doesn't work well on the iPad, and most specific ones (such as the ones I mentioned) don't work at all.

 

[5232152]

Impressive, but iPad Pro is where you should be putting your money now.

No, not really.

 

[aevan]

I agree with that, there's definitely a class of professional apps that work pretty well or better on the iPad than the Mac(book), like some design and drawing applications. There iPad Pro is there for a reason, of course.

My reply was more aimed at the remark that we all should be looking at the iPad instead of the Mac, and that's clearly not true either.

The truth is, as usual, somewhere in between. Some classes of pro apps work well on the iPad, others don't. Professional development (programming/coding) is one class of apps that doesn't work well on the iPad, and most specific ones (such as the ones I mentioned) don't work at all.

Agreed. I just get a bit triggered when people mention Facebook, like it's all iPad is good for

 

[chucker23n1]

I agree with that, there's definitely a class of professional apps that work pretty well or better on the iPad than the Mac(book), like some design and drawing applications. There iPad Pro is there for a reason, of course.

My reply was more aimed at the remark that we all should be looking at the iPad instead of the Mac, and that's clearly not true either.

The truth is, as usual, somewhere in between. Some classes of pro apps work well on the iPad, others don't. Professional development (programming/coding) is one class of apps that doesn't work well on the iPad, and most specific ones (such as the ones I mentioned) don't work at all.

That's really not what your original post said, though. It strongly suggested that an iPad can't be used "professionally" unless it can be used by software developers.

The original remark was one extreme, but your position wasn't really moderate either.

 

[Sander]

Let’s not fool ourselves here: there is a lot of people on this forum that try to cynically present the iPad as some casual-use-only device even though there are more and more tasks and professions where iPad can not only replace, but even surpass traditional computers. And yet, a lot of people here insist it’s a toy for Facebook and Netflix. That is all. It’s that simple.

You can’t use the iPad for your professional needs. That doesn’t make it a device incapable of professional work, running professional apps for a lot of people.

I think it's the other way around. I see a lot of push towards "people who still need a laptop for their so-called professional work are just old-fashioned dinosaurs who are too reluctant to adapt their workflows to the modern world." This rubs a lot of us dinosaurs the wrong way.

 

[splitpea]

Pretty sure Intel could have implemented LPDDR4 support with Coffee Lake back in 2017, since the spec was finalized in August of 2014, but instead has been jerking us around, kicking the can down the street, while telling us their 10nm fairytales, trying to keep us primed to jump for joy at whatever hobbled dreck they finally ship in Q4 of this year, if it ships at all...but, sure, cause Apple.

They managed it with the 15”. It’s only apple’s insistence on slimness over all else that makes it impossible in a 13”. In fact, with the 2015 form factor they could have given us a 13” with 32GB years ago.

 

[sirozha]

Depends on your post-modernist needs.
[doublepost=1563091282][/doublepost]

Omg, seriously? Another person confusing “professional” with “personal”. Procreate, Clip Studio Paint, Affinity Photo, Affinity Designer - all professional applications. So is Word or Pages or Google Docs, depending on your profession. But, of course, let’s mention Facebook.

I think people like you think that the only professions that exist in this world are related to drawing, photo, video, and music.

 

[Zdigital2015]

They managed it with the 15”. It’s only apple’s insistence on slimness over all else that makes it impossible in a 13”. In fact, with the 2015 form factor they could have given us a 13” with 32GB years ago.

No, Apple finally threw in the towel and implemented DDR4 like Acer, Dell, HP and Lenovo have been forced to do for the past 2-1/2 years because Intel has been screwing around with 10nm for so long, which is supposed to finally usher in LPDDR4/x support, that Apple had no choice but support DDR4 and enable 32GB of DRAM support on at least the 15" MacBook Pro as customers were clamoring for that next tier of expansion in order to be able to do the work that just would not fit into 16GB of DRAM. The only CPU Intel has that supports LPDDR4/x is the rather obscure Core i3-8121U - https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...-8121u-processor-4m-cache-up-to-3-20-ghz.html - which was more a PR stunt than anything else to prove that 10nm wasn't vaporware, which it still is.

Apple isn't going to implement DDR4 on the 13" MacBook Pro as LPDDR3-2133 gets them 90% of the way there in terms of memory bandwidth without the additional power draw and lack of additional power states that caused Apple to shy away from straight DDR4 in the first place.

FYI, other PC OEMs use LPDDR3-1866 and -2133 in their smaller and thinner laptops as well, so focusing on Apple as the sole vendor that does this is disingenuous. The Microsoft Surface Book 2 uses LPDDR3-1866 and tops out at 16GB of DRAM, Wirth the 15" starting at $1799 all the way up to $2,999. There are numerous other examples.

The lack of LPDDR4 support from Intel in their mobile chipsets and CPUs in the year 2019, 5 years after JEDEC released the standard, while they continue to promise it's coming real soon with their 10nm CPUs instead of implementing it in 14nm, 14nm+ or 14nm++ is simply to drive sales for 10nm because they can make an artificial comparison of battery life versus 7th, 8th and 9th Gen devices that are only able to support DDR4. This is Intel's baby all the way, they own it.

 

[Gudi]

Serious, does anyone really need a laptop that is even faster? What is big the hurry?

Movies don’t recode themselves to x265.

 

[randyhudson]

For that type of work you don't pick an entry level unit.

Better not pick the high-end unit either, as it will quickly overheat and throttle the CPU.

 

[chucker23n1]

No, Apple finally threw in the towel and implemented DDR4 like Acer, Dell, HP and Lenovo have been forced to do for the past 2-1/2 years because Intel has been screwing around with 10nm for so long, which is supposed to finally usher in LPDDR4/x support, that Apple had no choice but support DDR4 and enable 32GB of DRAM support on at least the 15" MacBook Pro as customers were clamoring for that next tier of expansion in order to be able to do the work that just would not fit into 16GB of DRAM. The only CPU Intel has that supports LPDDR4/x is the rather obscure Core i3-8121U - https://ark.intel.com/content/www/u...-8121u-processor-4m-cache-up-to-3-20-ghz.html - which was more a PR stunt than anything else to prove that 10nm wasn't vaporware, which it still is.

Apple isn't going to implement DDR4 on the 13" MacBook Pro as LPDDR3-2133 gets them 90% of the way there in terms of memory bandwidth without the additional power draw and lack of additional power states that caused Apple to shy away from straight DDR4 in the first place.

FYI, other PC OEMs use LPDDR3-1866 and -2133 in their smaller and thinner laptops as well, so focusing on Apple as the sole vendor that does this is disingenuous. The Microsoft Surface Book 2 uses LPDDR3-1866 and tops out at 16GB of DRAM, Wirth the 15" starting at $1799 all the way up to $2,999. There are numerous other examples.

The lack of LPDDR4 support from Intel in their mobile chipsets and CPUs in the year 2019, 5 years after JEDEC released the standard, while they continue to promise it's coming real soon with their 10nm CPUs instead of implementing it in 14nm, 14nm+ or 14nm++ is simply to drive sales for 10nm because they can make an artificial comparison of battery life versus 7th, 8th and 9th Gen devices that are only able to support DDR4. This is Intel's baby all the way, they own it.

That's all true and I generally agree it's on Intel.

It doesn't really negate the original assertion, though: just like Apple was able to adapt the 15-inch MacBook Pro to DDR4, they could do the same on the 13-inch if they really wanted to.

My guess is they weighed their options and figured that demand is fairly low. Most who want a laptop powerful enough to offer that much RAM will also want a more powerful CPU, so they'll go with the 15-inch. That means providing a special 32 GB DDR4 option would suck, and making the entire 13-inch line-up (except for the low-end model) DDR4 would hurt battery life.

 

[aevan]

I think people like you think that the only professions that exist in this world are related to drawing, photo, video, and music.

Quite the opposite. You’re literally twisting my words. I constantly keep saying iPad is not suitable for every profession and can’t be used professionally by everyone (no device can, really, but that’s beside the point). What I am saying is that some professions can use the iPad and that makes it a professional tool for those professions. How on earth did you come from this claim that I’m constantly making, to the conclusion that I think only drawing and photo editing professions exist? No, really, please explain the thought process behind that huge leap. I’m serious, please, I want to see the dots that connect these two vastly different claims.

All I’m saying is: the fact that some professions can’t use the iPad for work doesn’t mean it’s only good for Facebook, surfing and Netflix as some members here are saying (and in fact, I was replying to such post). That is all I’m saying. Are you ignoring the fact that even though there are, indeed, professions other than drawing, photo, video and music (gasp) the aforementioned professions do, in fact, exist, making the iPad not “good just for Facebook”? Why is this so hard to understand for so many people?!

The fact that some of you guys can’t use it for work doesn’t make it a toy. I can’t use a guitar for my work either, but does that make a guitar something that’s just good for having fun at parties?

 

[ChipperVW]

Apple this week updated its entry-level 13-inch MacBook Pro with a Touch Bar and Intel's latest 8th-generation Core quad-core processors, and benchmarks for the 2019 model are now beginning to surface.

Geekbench 4 scores indicate the base 2019 model with an 8th-generation 1.4GHz quad-core Core i5 processor has up to a 6.8 percent increase in single-core performance, and up to 83.4 percent faster multi-core performance, compared to the base 2017 model with a 7th-generation 2.3GHz dual-core Core i5 processor.

Specifically, the 2019 model has average single-core and multi-core scores of 4,639 and 16,665 respectively based on eight Geekbench results, while the 2017 model averages 4,341 for single-core and 9,084 for multi-core.

The new entry-level 13-inch MacBook Pro is powered by Intel's Core i5-8257U processor, which appears to be a custom variation of its Core i5-8250U processor designed for Apple. The 15W chip is part of the Coffee Lake family and has a max Turbo Boost frequency of up to 3.9GHz.

The notebook can also be upgraded to an 8th-generation 1.7GHz quad-core Core i7 processor. This configuration uses Intel's Core i7-8557U, which is likewise believed to be a custom variation of its Core i7-8550U processor, with a TDP of 15W and a max Turbo Boost frequency of up to 4.5GHz.

Only one Geekbench result is available for the 1.7GHz configuration so far with single-core and multi-core scores of 4,835 and 15,515 respectively. There is room for variance here as more results come in, but this would be a performance increase of up to around 60 percent compared to the equivalent 2017 model.

Apple advertises the new entry-level 13-inch MacBook Pro as "two times more powerful" than the previous generation. The benchmarks approach this at up to 83 percent, but performance in real-world usage will vary.

Apple did not update the entry-level 13-inch MacBook Pro in 2018, which is why 2017 models serve as the previous-generation comparisons.

Article Link: Base 2019 13-Inch MacBook Pro is Up to 83% Faster Than Previous Generation in Benchmarks

So I think I’d be fine with the new entry level MacBook Pro, but wondering if upgrading to the i7 or upgrading to 16GB ram would be worth it? Any thoughts? Just a daily use computer, no heavy lifting most of the time. But I’m tired of dealing with my older MBA getting bogged down

 

[chucker23n1]

So I think I’d be fine with the new entry level MacBook Pro, but wondering if upgrading to the i7 or upgrading to 16GB ram would be worth it? Any thoughts? Just a daily use computer, no heavy lifting most of the time. But I’m tired of dealing with my older MBA getting bogged down

You'd really need to provide more info on how you use it.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Yep I'm already using iPadOS and it truly is a remarkably powerful system.

Like I said, the new MacBook Pro is impressively performant and I'll concede is a great system for those who still want to use legacy computing products for whatever reason. I think it's reasonable for the iPad Pro to be in this conversation too because the performance is remarkable.
<snip>

Though I agree that iPad is a perfectly valid choice for those who have requirements that match what iPad offers, I don’t agree with your use of the word “legacy”. I think the word you want is “traditional”. And iPads certainly can replace traditional laptops/desktops for some users. But laptop/desktop computers aren’t legacy devices, as they haven’t been superseded by tablet computers.

 

[ChipperVW]

You'd really need to provide more info on how you use it.

Thanks for the reply. I’ve been living with a 2010 15” MBP and 11” MBA. Most of what I do is web based, email, word processing, spreadsheets. Not much more. But those older machines will get bogged down now with many tabs in safari and few others apps running. They both have 4gb of ram so getting a machine so much newer with only 8gb seems low.

 

[PickUrPoison]

Thanks for the reply. I’ve been living with a 2010 15” MBP and 11” MBA. Most of what I do is web based, email, word processing, spreadsheets. Not much more. But those older machines will get bogged down now with many tabs in safari and few others apps running. They both have 4gb of ram so getting a machine so much newer with only 8gb seems low.

To add my 2¢, based on your usage and the fact that you seem to keep your machines a long time, I would go with 16GB but wouldn’t upgrade to the i7.

 

[ChipperVW]

To add my 2¢, based on your usage and the fact that you seem to keep your machines a long time, I would go with 16GB but wouldn’t upgrade to the i7.

Thanks. That’s what I’m leaning towards also. Wish the middle level 13” MBP had 16GB Ram to make it a no brainer for me.

 

[Zdigital2015]

So I think I’d be fine with the new entry level MacBook Pro, but wondering if upgrading to the i7 or upgrading to 16GB ram would be worth it? Any thoughts? Just a daily use computer, no heavy lifting most of the time. But I’m tired of dealing with my older MBA getting bogged down

16GB yes, always! But not the Core i7, too much for too little gain at this point...get the 256GB or 512GB SSD instead of you can afford it, for better SSD speeds. More NAND chips, more speed...but if your storage needs are modest just stick with the 256GB. $1699 gets you a nice system with decent storage and allows you to run multiple apps at once without bogging down. Good luck!

 

[chucker23n1]

To add my 2¢, based on your usage and the fact that you seem to keep your machines a long time, I would go with 16GB but wouldn’t upgrade to the i7.

Yup.

macOS at 8 GB is OK; at 16, it’s more future-proof. Storage-wise, see what you’re currently using and how much you really need built in (vs. on a much cheaper external disk) and local (vs. on the Internet).

And CPU-wise, upgrading the CPU is never a good deal, and should only be done if you need to eke out as much performance as possible. Which you don’t.

 

[ChipperVW]

16GB yes, always! But not the Core i7, too much for too little gain at this point...get the 256GB or 512GB SSD instead of you can afford it, for better SSD speeds. More NAND chips, more speed...but if your storage needs are modest just stick with the 256GB. $1699 gets you a nice system with decent storage and allows you to run multiple apps at once without bogging down. Good luck!

I’ve become pretty used to using iCloud storage and a 128GB usb thumb drive so thinking I can live with the 128GB. Will read more about the speed gains with 256 though. Thanks

 

[Zdigital2015]

I’ve become pretty used to using iCloud storage and a 128GB usb thumb drive so thinking I can live with the 128GB. Will read more about the speed gains with 256 though. Thanks

Only you can decide what you can live with, so if 128GB is enough for you, it’s enough...I am assuming that the 256GB has better write speeds as it should have more NAND chips to write to, but I have no proof of that to show and back it up. Good luck with whatever you decide is best for you.

 

[ChipperVW]

Thanks for all of the helpful replies. Now to order and then decide if I’ll keep the free Beats or not

 

[poematik13]

They managed it with the 15”. It’s only apple’s insistence on slimness over all else that makes it impossible in a 13”. In fact, with the 2015 form factor they could have given us a 13” with 32GB years ago.

Uh, no. The LP (low power) DIMM's in 16GB flavor literally didn't exist until now. Blame Intel, as usual.

 

[chucker23n1]

Uh, no. The LP (low power) DIMM's in 16GB flavor literally didn't exist until now. Blame Intel, as usual.

Again, while it's unfortunate that Intel still isn't offering LPDDR4-capable chips, Apple could've done the same on the 13-inch as they eventually did on the 15-inch, and move to DDR4 instead of LPDDR3. This would've required more power and more space, but it would absolutely have been possible.

It just probably wouldn't have been worth it.