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.
Consumer Reports Reverses Course, Recommends MacBook Pro Following New Testing After Apple Bug Fix
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah....cause your first Mac is relevant to this topic. Though my first Mac was not far off yours.
Yeah it's become a high end ultra book. Shame cause I want that screen.
What are these people smoking? The GPU Still Sucks it would still thermal throttle while playing games and editing videos. The CPU is still from 2yrs back, Even Dell's Laptops are out there with Kaby Lakes, and we are paying a bomb for a 2Yr old tech. The only GPU it has is what comes onboard the CPU (Iris Pro), which by any margin of GPU performance is an SPU (Shi**Y Performing Unit). Even a sub $700-800 Entry level Gaming Laptops have better GPU then what Apple is handing us out. Sure it could run 3 Displays at once, but only as long as you display the Yosemite wallpaper on each screen, once you start doing some serious work, the CPU thermal throttles and bombs. Has apple paid these people now to have a reverse opinion? What a bunch of ill thought out Nonsense. No one is willing to carry an adapter dock. That's not innovation. Just removing stuff is not innovation, there should be something to replace it. When Apple got rid of floppy drives back in 2000's they introduced USB, the hope was USB is going to be used more in future. Here there is no replacement, there are no micro USB pen drives available. Your option is to carry a dock around. I mean seriously who writes these consumer reports?
Paragraphs are your friend.
https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/22/2016-macbook-pro-speed-versus-retina-macbook-pro/
Rendering speeds are twice that of the original 2012 model.
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/5nuauz/two_lg_5ks_arrived_today/?st=IXY4LYPK&sh=f2db566c
There are options. The only issue is whether you are willing to adapt or stay stuck in the past and whine.
See. No docks, no adaptors, just a very nice and clean setup.
The experiences shared by people who are actually using these devices for work appear to differ with you.
https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/22/2016-macbook-pro-speed-versus-retina-macbook-pro/
Rendering speeds are twice that of the original 2012 model.
Kathy Lake doesn't really offer much of an improvement in terms of performance. You aren't getting anything beyond bragging rights for sporting the latest specs.
Again, not the experience shared by people on Reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/5nuauz/two_lg_5ks_arrived_today/?st=IXY4LYPK&sh=f2db566c
And that replacement is USB C.
There are options. The only issue is whether you are willing to adapt or stay stuck in the past and whine.
See. No docks, no adaptors, just a very nice and clean setup.
I agree with John Gruber:
There’s no way they would’ve published that rushed initial report for a laptop from any brand other than Apple. Clickbait, pure and simple.
Energy impact is a synthetic measure based on a sum of factors, primarily CPU% and IDLEW (number of transitions from idle to active state).
It's not visible at all until you go to Settings -> Advanced and turn it on. To 99% of users it is absolutely invisible.
[doublepost=1484492661][/doublepost]
Well, that's what they measured, so it did. Who knows what settings they used. Maybe WiFi powers down when it's not used. Maybe because they downloaded from their own servers, that happens at extremly high speed (downloading 1MB might take 20ms where it takes one second when I download through my ISP, saving 980ms WiFi usage). Maybe brightness was a little bit lower than it should have been. Maybe they used images that can be rendered by built-in hardware instead of software, using less power.
Maybe Apple themselves have a whole set of different tests they can run, and one of them will repeatedly run for 18 hours, and marketing said "if we publish 18 hours customers will kill us if they get only 10, which most will". And they have another test that only runs 6 hours and marketing said "if we publish 6 hours we'll lose sales". So they are using the test that runs ten hours.
Another thing: When your battery charges and displays 100%, it's not fully charged yet. Leave it on the charger for another few hours and it will still continue displaying 100% but have a slightly bigger charge. So if they ran the test in the morning after charging the whole night, they will get a bit more time. If they then charged again and stopped exactly at 100% charge, the test will run shorter.
Another thing: I think there's a setting that lets the screen adjust brightness to the environment, and there is the keyboard lighting. It could be that a MacBook in a brightly lit lab lasts longer than the same MacBook in a dim or dark lab because of that.
Last edited:
This stroll-down-memory-lane post fails because it omitted the obligatory, "Hey you kids! Get off my lawn!"
What relevance does your first Mac have to this conversation?
I normally like what you write and agree most of the time yet what you write here is bullocks.
Lithium Ion will charge to 100%, the battery indicator on the plug changes colour, the battery is full.
There is no such thing as a little bit more than 100% on a Lithium Ion cell, it will break if you try to overcharge, hell it even might explode when charging over a certain Voltage.
Actually there is. My battery has a design capacity of 6.669 mAh but is currently able to charge up to 6.946 mAh. It seems most battery apps will show current charge related to design capacity and cap the value at 100% although with my battery the maximum charge (based on design capacity) is actually 104%. Use pset -g rawlog to get the data from embedded processor in the battery and you can see your values. Here is my log:
According to Wikipedia 18 out 24 mobile Kaby Lake processors have a release data of Q1 2017 (and only six with one of Q4 2016). But I guess we keep comparing apples with oranges. Maybe the Skylake processors in the MBPs are two years old (hint: there aren't, more like 14 months), but if it were to take more than two years for Intel to release successors, that would be somewhat unavoidable.
The 2016 15" MBP (shipped in Nov 2016) uses these three Skylake CPUs, whose direct Kaby Lake successors are:
- 6700HQ (Sep 2015) -> 7700HQ (Q1 2017)
- 6820HQ (Sep 2015) -> 7820HQ (Q1 2017)
- 6920HQ (Sep 2015) -> 7920HQ (Q1, 2017)
[doublepost=1484502118][/doublepost]
They also are using the same test, they used for rating their previous MacBooks. They might do moderate adjustments but if they say a new model gets an extra hour of battery life, it must get it on the same or pretty similar test otherwise it would be completely meaningless statement.
Last edited:
Do you normally have trouble understanding basic context? He wasn't saying it lost any Apple sales. He was saying that Apple had to pay CR to get them to change the recommendation. Hence "I wonder how much that cost Apple!".
But that interpretation would mean he was suggesting complicity. The moderators certainly would not allow such a comment in this forum.
Still No, if you go past a certain Voltage threshold you will damage the battery, 100% is set at lets say 4.2 volts, it will stop charging at that point and won't charge again under a certain Voltage threshold, but 4.2 volts is set with a deviation of +- 0.05 volts, so 100% can be at 4.15 volts but also 4.25 Volts, if 100% is set at 4.25 Volts it will charge a bit more than standard but it"s still 100%.
You are probably a lucky one, yours charges until 4.25 volts and that explains why you have more charge in your battery but it's still 100% in your case.
This might also explain why some people get more hours out of their batteries.
Last edited:
Wow. Comparing to a 4-year old configuration doesn't offer anything beyond bragging rights either. Reminds me of Schiller pitting the iPhone 7 against the 10yr old original. Pointless brouhaha. Let's run the same test alongside the mid 2015 and then we can talk about tangible improvement.
Any improvement Kaby can offer, be it performance or power management related is a plus. In fact, the added features are not that negligible at all. It's odd how Apple pursues greatness in some regards (eg. blazing SSD I/O speeds) while it is curiously behind on others (CPU, GPU, RAM etc). Some balance is in order perhaps?
Also, I would LOVE to know more about the "the most CPU and graphics intensive things" the reddit user ran flawlessly, because all I can see are two pretty wallpapers on Finder.
Riiight. Don't forget to add the bill for all those out-of-nowhere extras, to replace functions that should have come out of the box. You see, I've also got cupboards full of expensive gadgets I've given up to go forward. This new MBP, however, is asking us to give up stuff and buy lots of extras to do business as usual. Past upgrades (like the 2012 rMBP) brought massive, immediate benefits. All things considered, this new generation is just a few percent faster, a few percent smaller and a few percent lighter than the 2015 model. It's also a few percent less upgradeable and quite a few percent more expensive. That doesn't open up new technological possibility for that price tag, and is certainly not worth upgrading all our peripherals for. Right now, it's the gift that keeps on taking.
Sorry, but @pankajdoharey is right.
@Abazigal, I don't know if your unbridled positivity about this release is due to Apple stock ownership, optimism or naïveté, when even the Apple fanatics this year feel hesitant to shell out this kind of money for an incomplete and arrogant design.
The comment just below yours pretty much disproves your assertion that moderators wouldn't allow such a comment.
My assertion was as sincere as the comment that someone else accused me of misinterpreting.
A blazing-fast SSD doesn't really make the device thicker and heavier (for the same battery life). Allowing 32 GB of RAM or putting in a bigger GPU does require more battery (to achieve the same battery life) and in regard to the GPU might also require more space, not least for additional cooling.
And if you look at the release dates of the Kaby Lake processors that are the direct successors to the currently used Skylake ones (7700HQ, 7820HQ, 7920HQ), they are all listed at Q1 2017. Hard to put them into a computer shipping in November 2016.
About 210 g lighter is something noticeable (which is matched by reports).
Very much depends on which model you look at. If you compare the 2015 15" MBP with a discrete graphic card (2.5 GHz) with the 2016 equivalent (2.6 GHz), it actually got $100 cheaper ($2499 vs $2399). On the 15" model, they essentially removed the model without a discrete graphic card (quite literally, there were three 15" stock models in 2015, there are only two in 2016). The high-end 15" 2015 model even cost $3199, whereas the high-end 15" 2016 model is 'only' $2799. Part of this is probably cheaper SSD prices.
The 13" retina MBA (aka two-TB3/USB-C port 13" MBP) is actually only $300 more expensive than the 13" non-retina MBA once you equalise the SSD storage to 256 GB (and that gives you also a faster CPU, 2.0 vs 1.6 GHz which is one rung up on Intel's line-up and an Iris instead of an HD graphics).
The 13" MBP follows a similar pattern with the elimination of lowest model in three-model line-up (2.7, 2.9, 3.1 GHz) that gets reduced to two models (2.9, 3.1 GHz), where the 2.7 GHz model had a 128 GB SSD, while the 2.9 GHz model starts at 256 GB. Though here, in an apples-to-apples comparison we do see a significant price increase $1499 to $1799.
My main point of criticism with the 2016 MBPs is the price increase. While on the 15" model, that is largely explained by the removal of the entry-level model, at the 13" size it goes beyond that.
Except for TB3 and USB-C, including up to two 5K monitors on the 15" model.
If you look at the ports most people where using: two (13")/ three (15") USB-A + two TB/mDP ports, that is at worst five adaptors to allow to keep using your old peripherals. The USB-C to USB-A adaptors are still only $9 apiece.
[doublepost=1484530975][/doublepost]
Ok, I missed the sarcasm.
Last edited:
Why is it that the whiners, who are constantly complaining about the specs, don't understand whats even available from Intel?
The latest MBP still uses Skylake because there are no H-series Kaby Lake processors yet. You MIGHT start seeing these high-end laptop chips at CES in January...but Intel hasn't been great at keeping to its release schedule so don't hold your breath!
But hey...dont let the lack of existence of these chips, and your lack of knowledge of that fact, stop you from complaining...
Stick with complaining that 4 USBC ports isn't pro enough...despite having a higher throughput than any other laptop, being able to run multiple external 5k monitors plus being able to connect to any existing peripheral utilising the correct cable.
aka "whah whah, Hey everyone I really am so professional, but I can't afford the right cable"
The latest MBP still uses Skylake because there are no H-series Kaby Lake processors yet. You MIGHT start seeing these high-end laptop chips at CES in January...but Intel hasn't been great at keeping to its release schedule so don't hold your breath!
But hey...dont let the lack of existence of these chips, and your lack of knowledge of that fact, stop you from complaining...
Stick with complaining that 4 USBC ports isn't pro enough...despite having a higher throughput than any other laptop, being able to run multiple external 5k monitors plus being able to connect to any existing peripheral utilising the correct cable.
aka "whah whah, Hey everyone I really am so professional, but I can't afford the right cable"