Comparing real life performance of 2017 MBP to earlier gens?

[NeuralControl]

I've been using an early 2011 15 inch MBP (2.2GHz i7) for almost 7 years now. It worked great for about 5 years and then I noticed slowdowns. Last year I upgraded the RAM from 4GB to 16GB and many of the performance problems disappeared. Overall, I'm happy with this computer and it is serving me well.

I'm in grad school and have the opportunity to purchase a new MBP. I have to make the purchase in early 2017. Tonight, I was looking around Geekbench and noticed that compared to my 2011 MBP model, the 2017 13 inch MBP (3.1GHz with Touch Bar) scored a bit higher in single-core, but significantly lower in multi-core. Is this because my 2011 has a quad core processor, whereas the new machine has a dual core?

My principle uses of a computer are reading papers, writing manuscripts, analyzing data, and making figures. I watch Netflix and Youtube on my MBP. Safari, Messages, Word, Powerpoint, Excel, Endnote, Preview, and Illustrator are the apps I use most. I don't play video games. I do store photos, and occasionally edit them using Photos.

Will I notice performance improvements with a 2017 MBP? I understand the Geekbench scores are an artificial marker of performance, and that's why I'm curious to hear what people's experiences are with these machines. I have a HDD in my machine, but the new ones have SSDs - I imagine that would have a performance advantage.

Thanks.

 

[Jaro65]

You would see a huge difference just due to SSD.

 

[jaduff46]

IMHO it would serve you well. Your usage doesn't indicate to me a need for the upgraded I7 chipset since you aren't playing video games nor doing any video rendering. I'd go with at least 256GB SSD as @Jaro65 suggests that will bring quite an improvement to your experience.

Depending on your portability needs you could even go with the 13" and a nice external monitor.

 

[Pearl Wisdom]

I've been using an early 2011 15 inch MBP (2.2GHz i7) for almost 7 years now. It worked great for about 5 years and then I noticed slowdowns. Last year I upgraded the RAM from 4GB to 16GB and many of the performance problems disappeared. .... Is this because my 2011 has a quad core processor, whereas the new machine has a dual core? ....

Will I notice performance improvements with a 2017 MBP? I understand the Geekbench scores are an artificial marker of performance, and that's why I'm curious to hear what people's experiences are with these machines. I have a HDD in my machine, but the new ones have SSDs - I imagine that would have a performance advantage.

There has been some but not massive improvement in CPU performance since 2011, as you saw from the single cpu Geekbench scores. But your 2011 with quad core should often outperform a dual core 2017 in terms of the CPU. It is good that you upgraded the RAM of the 2011. Now all you have to do is upgrade the 2011 to an SSD and that will make a major performance difference, and then the upgraded quad core 2011 will probably slightly outperform a dual core 2017. It is very simple to upgrade to an SSD in a 2011 model (I've done so myself on several), and the cost is very reasonable.

 

[NeuralControl]

Thank you for the replies.

I would like to shoot for a 512GB SSD, as I currently have a 750GB HDD in my MBP. SSDs just haven't dropped in price as fast as I would have liked over the years (at least not Apple's prices).

Would 8GB of RAM be sufficient? Sierra on my 2011 model uses up as much RAM as possible. With just 3 apps open and a few files, I often am left with ~5GB of RAM available. Is that because macOS is designed to use as much as possible?
[doublepost=1513305802][/doublepost]

There has been some but not massive improvement in CPU performance since 2011, as you saw from the single cpu Geekbench scores. But your 2011 with quad core should often outperform a dual core 2017 in terms of the CPU. It is good that you upgraded the RAM of the 2011. Now all you have to do is upgrade the 2011 to an SSD and that will make a major performance difference, and then the upgraded quad core 2011 will probably slightly outperform a dual core 2017. It is very simple to upgrade to an SSD in a 2011 model (I've done so myself on several), and the cost is very reasonable.

Pretty sad state of affairs in terms of CPU advances, especially considering the major leaps and bounds Apple makes in their own chips from year to year. I guess this is partially why so many Apple pundits want an ARM-based Mac in the near future.

 

[Sterkenburg]

Would 8GB of RAM be sufficient? Sierra on my 2011 model uses up as much RAM as possible. With just 3 apps open and a few files, I often am left with ~5GB of RAM available. Is that because macOS is designed to use as much as possible?

Yes, exactly, the OS is optimized to do that. Unused RAM is effectively wasted RAM, therefore no matter how much you have the memory management system will try to use up as much as it can. What you should look to is not the amount of free space, but the memory pressure indicator. Try to simulate a typical memory-intensive situation you could encounter in practice: if the memory pressure indicator is still green, you are ok.

About the possible upgrade: overall, you would see improvements everywhere except for multicore CPU performance, so it depends on how much important that factor is for you and how often you use CPU-intensive applications that exploit multiple cores. Judging by the usage you describe, you should be fine with the current-gen dual cores, but if you hadn't mentioned that you have to make the purchase soon I'd have recommended to skip the 2017 model and wait for the 2018 refresh, which is speculated to bring a nice performance boost on the CPU side.

 

[ZapNZs]

In terms of real-world performance, you will see massive performance improvements with your stated usage between the two systems (arguably most attributable to the SSD, and then the GPU). You would also obviously gain a huge benefit in battery life, even if the battery in your 2011 is in excellent health. If you use external storage devices very often, you can also enjoy USB 3.1 gen 1 (formally called USB 3.0) and the even faster 3.1 gen 2.

I would not invest a penny in a 2011 15-inch at this state, personally. If yours is still functional (which it sounds like it is), I would take advantage of the several hundred dollar trade in value while it still operates correctly, because the 2011 15/17s are ticking time bombs (2011 owner here.)

Edit: And good luck with grade school. What field are you going into?

 

[polbit]

It comes down to two things - how price conscious you are, and are you willing to give up the real estate of a 15" screen in exchange for much greater portability. If you are trying to save money, you can get a 512Gb SSD for $150-200. If you haven't upgraded the battery, you might have to do that as well, at $100. Do a fresh install, and the computer should be plenty fast for a while still. We have the same early 2011, and after upgrading to an SSD, it's been rock solid. Battery finally gave out earlier this year, and after replacing it, my wife has been using it when her iPad won't do.

 

[parajba]

My 2017 nTB 13 i7/16/512 smokes my older 2010 MBP admittedly i5 but upgraded to 8GB and SSD.
I don't play games though.

 

[NeuralControl]

I have funds through a fellowship to pay towards this new computer. I do not want to lose the money I earned, so I will be using them towards a new computer.

My budget is limited, so I cannot go for a 15 inch to replace my current one. The current 15 inch models are extremely expensive, in my opinion. Even the 13 MBP is priced very high.
Apple's current 13 inch models are as expensive as 15 inch models were when I purchased my current Mac.

So far it seems that I would see improvements in the 2017 13 inch MBP over my 2011 15 inch MBP. I'm glad that's the case, despite the Geekbench score. That's exactly why I wanted to ask the question, and not simply assume anything based on artificial benchmark scores.

I appreciate everyone's input.

 

[DevNull0]

I've been using an early 2011 15 inch MBP (2.2GHz i7) for almost 7 years now. It worked great for about 5 years and then I noticed slowdowns. Last year I upgraded the RAM from 4GB to 16GB and many of the performance problems disappeared. Overall, I'm happy with this computer and it is serving me well.

I have the 2011 13" 2.3GHz, upgraded with SSD and 16 gig of RAM, and the 2017 non-touchbar model base model CPU, 8 gig of ram, 128 gig SSD. Running OS 10.12.5 on both.

I use them both heavily for photoshop as well as light gaming and the usual web browsing. I find the 2011 offers slightly better performance for most things. One weird quirk is when I try to load a new web site in Safari, it takes a good 15 seconds on the 2017 model. For a while I was blaming my ISP, but the 2011 performs flawlessly.

I actually use the 2011 more because of the integrated SD reader and normal USB ports. The 512 gig SSD I have in the 2011 is nice and with the 128 in the 2017 model I'm doing most of my work off a spare 2.5 "internal" SSD with a SATA to USBC cable.

The retina screen on the 2017 is gorgeous. Overall though, I flat out prefer the 2011 to the 2017. Though, if Apple allowed you to use iCloud drive a plain network storage drive and not limit it to synching functions, it would make the 2017 a much better machine.

 

[parseckadet]

I have the exact same machine you do, with the RAM upgraded to 16GB and the original 500GB HDD@7200RPM. The biggest issue for most people was always the fact that the hard drive acted as a bottle neck. Download the Black Magic disk tester app from the Mac App Store and check out the results you get from that. My drive scores sequential write speeds of 60MB/s and sequential read speeds of 100MB/s. Compare that to the 2017 MBP, which scores about 1750MB/s write and 2400MB/s read. Results vary depending on the disk size (larger being faster), but only by a few percent. As you can see, it's just no contest.

The other factor to consider is that the 15" 2011 has a discrete graphics card, while the 2017 13" uses integrated graphics. I ran the Cinebench tool on my machine last night and scored 31fps. The 2017 13" results I've seen have it scoring 33fps. So not a big gain for you there, but from your usage I would consider that a win. You'll be getting roughly the same graphics performance using integrated graphics that used to require an discrete graphics card. That means you'll get the same graphics performance everywhere you go, and with the light hit to your battery, that the 2011 15" only got while plugged in.

On top of all of that you'll get ThunderBolt 3 and USB 3.1 gen 2 for modern transfer speeds to external drives.

The point you should take away is that these days CPUs can easily handle most tasks people throw at them. If you edit photos you might tax it while making your adjustments. This was the case even in 2011. It had gotten to the point where the biggest limitation in computing was I/O speeds. That's why you've had others suggest you upgrade the internal drive on your 2011 to an SSD. Honestly though, I think this would only allow you to continue on for another 2-3 years.

I think you should upgrade to the 13" as you suggested. In terms of upgrades, prioritize maxing out the RAM, since won't be able to upgrade it on your own later. After that, get the largest SSD you can afford since that's also a component you can't upgrade later.

 

[NeuralControl]

I have the exact same machine you do, with the RAM upgraded to 16GB and the original 500GB HDD@7200RPM. The biggest issue for most people was always the fact that the hard drive acted as a bottle neck. Download the Black Magic disk tester app from the Mac App Store and check out the results you get from that. My drive scores sequential write speeds of 60MB/s and sequential read speeds of 100MB/s. Compare that to the 2017 MBP, which scores about 1750MB/s write and 2400MB/s read. Results vary depending on the disk size (larger being faster), but only by a few percent. As you can see, it's just no contest.

The other factor to consider is that the 15" 2011 has a discrete graphics card, while the 2017 13" uses integrated graphics. I ran the Cinebench tool on my machine last night and scored 31fps. The 2017 13" results I've seen have it scoring 33fps. So not a big gain for you there, but from your usage I would consider that a win. You'll be getting roughly the same graphics performance using integrated graphics that used to require an discrete graphics card. That means you'll get the same graphics performance everywhere you go, and with the light hit to your battery, that the 2011 15" only got while plugged in.

On top of all of that you'll get ThunderBolt 3 and USB 3.1 gen 2 for modern transfer speeds to external drives.

The point you should take away is that these days CPUs can easily handle most tasks people throw at them. If you edit photos you might tax it while making your adjustments. This was the case even in 2011. It had gotten to the point where the biggest limitation in computing was I/O speeds. That's why you've had others suggest you upgrade the internal drive on your 2011 to an SSD. Honestly though, I think this would only allow you to continue on for another 2-3 years.

I think you should upgrade to the 13" as you suggested. In terms of upgrades, prioritize maxing out the RAM, since won't be able to upgrade it on your own later. After that, get the largest SSD you can afford since that's also a component you can't upgrade later.

That was a terrific reply. Thanks for taking the time to give your insight.

 

[evec]

Unless use professional or programming, RAM upgrade is not necessary, however it will improve the system performance and make it more smooth even you just working for web browser, which additional storage area can be used for cache, and actually 8GB is not very good for MacBook pro 13 because some memory will used for system and display usage (around 2GB).

 

[Retops]

I replaced my 2011 MBP 15 with a 2017 MBP 15 last month. The new one is much faster, lighter, and has a better screen. My old machine was still working, but it had definitely slowed down a bit and getting the new one has been a nice experience. Getting a new one, and treating it as a new install, allowed me to dump some old programs I don't use and to move scads of old academic files to the cloud and off the SSD.

 

[NeuralControl]

I'm sure the 2017 15" MBP is a beast of a machine. Glad to hear you're enjoying it so much. Unfortunately, it's prohibitively expensive for me at this point.
I'm hoping I'll adjust to the 13 inch screen size after all these years on a 15. The higher resolution Retina screen will help, I think.

 

[cambookpro]

Replaced my 15" quad-core 2011 (2.2GHz i7, 8GB, 6750M, 512GB SSD) for a 13" 2016 (2.9GHz i5, 8GB, Iris 550, 512GB SSD) MBP last year. I'm really happy - performance is a bit quicker due to the insanely fast SSD, but it's not night and day.

The real benefits are the size and weight, the amazing screen (I don't miss the 15" size, as I run the 13" retina in the 'More Space' mode which replicates the number of pixels on the old high-res 15"), the speakers, the battery life, Bluetooth 4.0 for Continuity and Handoff, 802.11ac, etc. I do use it with a 27" Thunderbolt display most of the time, so for me screen real estate is even less of an issue.

No regrets here. The 2011 was probably marginally faster when rendering effects or exporting video, but that's the only real thing I do which really pushes the CPU. Other than that, the 2016 is much better day-to-day.

I too found the price of the 2016/17 15" prohibitive, but actually ended up preferring the smaller size - if they ever do a quad-core version, it'll basically be my perfect computer.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Replaced my 15" quad-core 2011 (2.2GHz i7, 8GB, 6750M, 512GB SSD) for a 13" 2016 (2.9GHz i5, 8GB, Iris 550, 512GB SSD) MBP last year. I'm really happy - performance is a bit quicker due to the insanely fast SSD, but it's not night and day.

The real benefits are the size and weight, the amazing screen (I don't miss the 15" size, as I run the 13" retina in the 'More Space' mode which replicates the number of pixels on the old high-res 15"), the speakers, the battery life, Bluetooth 4.0 for Continuity and Handoff, 802.11ac, etc. I do use it with a 27" Thunderbolt display most of the time, so for me screen real estate is even less of an issue.

No regrets here. The 2011 was probably marginally faster when rendering effects or exporting video, but that's the only real thing I do which really pushes the CPU. Other than that, the 2016 is much better day-to-day.

I too found the price of the 2016/17 15" prohibitive, but actually ended up preferring the smaller size - if they ever do a quad-core version, it'll basically be my perfect computer.

Quad core 13 inch next year should be with on chip AMD graphics if the rumour mill is to be believed, it will still be a 28w chip but should give 30-50% boost in Multicore scores and the turbo speed should keep it fast single core.

 

[NeuralControl]

Quad core 13 inch next year should be with on chip AMD graphics if the rumour mill is to be believed, it will still be a 28w chip but should give 30-50% boost in Multicore scores and the turbo speed should keep it fast single core.

Quad core CPU in the 13" sounds like it will be an upgrade option, not a base configuration. Is there any rumor to suggest otherwise?

I haven't read any rumors regarding when the 2018 update is likely to arrive. It's only been 6-7 months since the 2017 models were released. I wonder when the 2018s might show up.

 

[mj_]

At this point it is first and foremost a matter of if the 2018 will show up, not when. Nobody knows whether or not Apple is even going to update the MacBook Pro in 2018 at all. They might skip the Kaby Lake-R generation and go straight for Coffee Lake or even Cannon Lake for all we know.

There is another option for you if the newer 15" models are too expensive and the 13" models are too slow. I don't know what your budget is but have you considered a 15" 2015 MacBook Pro? Apple is still selling these brand-new as low-entry 15" models with integrated graphics, 2.2 GHz Core i7, 16 GB of RAM and a 256 GB SSD for $2,000.

 

[NeuralControl]

Thank you for the suggestion.

I don't know that the 2017 13" will be too slow. I made this thread to get people's insight. The comments in this thread suggest that for my main purposes, the computer would be noticeably faster than my 2011.

You're right that we don't know if or when the 2018 MBP will show up. People have mentioned waiting for them, but I don't think I will be able to do that.

 

[mj_]

Anything with an SSD is going to be faster than your HDD equipped 2011 MBP

The 2017 13" will only be too slow if you require more than two cores on a regular basis, say for rendering, compiling software, or gaming. From your initial post two weeks ago, you use your current MBP for the following:

My principle uses of a computer are reading papers, writing manuscripts, analyzing data, and making figures. I watch Netflix and Youtube on my MBP. Safari, Messages, Word, Powerpoint, Excel, Endnote, Preview, and Illustrator are the apps I use most. I don't play video games. I do store photos, and occasionally edit them using Photos.

​

I have a 2016 13" nTB MBP (i7/8GB/512GB) that I am currently trying to return (or sell if Apple won't take it back) due to the defective-by-design keyboard. In terms of performance it would have easily done everything on your list and then some so you need not worry about that. And given that you have someone else paying for your Mac I don't see a single reason not to get one. Just remember that the new keyboard might take some getting used to - it's a love it or hate it relationship with no middle ground. At least the 2017 model is supposed to be a bit more reliable than the 2016 one I've had.

 

[NeuralControl]

Haha yes, I look forward to the speed improvements of the SSD over my old HDD.

I've tried out the keyboard at an Apple Store, and while it's vastly different than whats on my machine, I think I could get used to it.

 

[mj_]

Then go for it.

What is your budget by the way? Have you not mentioned it yet or did I miss it?

 

[NeuralControl]

By budget is around $1500-1900.