Do you think the new MBPr is significantly better than the late 2013 model?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Hieveryone, Mar 10, 2015.

  1. Hieveryone macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    #1
    Is it worth the upgrade?

    Mine is 2.6 GHz. This is 2.7.

    Mine doesn't have the haptic feedback.

    Is it worth these features and whatever else? My guess is no but I'd like further feedback.
     
  2. David58117 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2013
    #2
    I swear I just read that they are comparable to the 2014 models.
     
  3. thepoynt macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #3
    I'm considering the exact same upgrade, but I'm leaning towards waiting for Skylake. Part of me wonders if they'll upgrade the 13" later this year again when those come out, but they'll have to do the 15" anyway, so I'm guessing they will. If not, I'll just get one of the ones that just came out, which at that point will hopefully be available in the refurb store.

    The main thing for me actually is the faster flash storage. 1.6GB/s is ridiculously fast. The new trackpad looks pretty slick too.
     
  4. rhaezorblue macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    #4
    If yours is 2 years old, probably not worth the minimum 1299 price - I don't have a Macbook yet so for me, now is the time. :) The CPU and GPU were both updated, the RAM had its speed increased, and the SSD is 2x as fast as the 2014 model per Apple.. one hell of a fast machine I'd say. Oh ya, and the force touchpad :) .. oh wait, plus another hour of battery,10 hours surfing, 12 hours itunes movie playback!
     
  5. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #5
    Computers always get better with every generation. There is nothing revolutionary in the new rmbps.
     
  6. solo118 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    #6
    If you had an late 2012/early 2013 I would say go for it. The difference between late 2013 and the latest model is not that big a deal unless you are a power user.
     
  7. KUguardgrl13 macrumors 68020

    KUguardgrl13

    Joined:
    May 16, 2013
    Location:
    Kansas, USA
    #7
    It's not enough better for me to consider upgrading yet. I also try to keep my laptops as long as possible. I upgraded to my late-2013 rMBP from a mid-2009 MBP that's still going as a home media server. I expect my late-2013 to keep going until at least late-2017.
     
  8. Hieveryone thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    #8
    Can you tell me the difference between the late 2012 and early 2013 models vs mine?

    Thanks
     
  9. solo118 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    #9
  10. Hieveryone thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    #10
    Yes very helpful. Thanks. Do you know if there is any physical differences between late 2013 and 2015?

    I read that the 2012 & early 2013 were actually thicker and heavier for the 13" model. I didn't know that!!
     
  11. solo118 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 16, 2011
    #11
    2012 was slightly thicker. The 2015, as far as I know just has a new trackpad so physically from the exterior it would be the same as a late 2013 model.
     
  12. Hieveryone thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    #12
    This is great. So as long as you have a late 2013 or above, you basically have the same looking computer as the latest 2015 model.

    The real differences are on the inside. And if all you do is surf the web, take notes, listen to music, watch YouTube, use pages, numbers, calendar, and calculator, you are grand.

    I don't even use thunderbolt. I don't click on the trackpad, ever. And 2.6 GHz, 8 GB RAM, and 256 SDD storage is plenty for my use.

    I also don't have a 4k display (yet :D) Although it won't be soon. I'm looking for when 4k becomes mainstream and content is all 4k.
     
  13. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #13
    It is, but for Iris 6100.

    Then you can finally drive 4K displays at 60 Hz.
     
  14. Hieveryone thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    #14
    Yeah that's definitely nice. I don't have a 4k yet. I'll get one eventually though but when it is more mainstream and there is more content (hollywood movies shot in 4k, etc)
     
  15. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #15
    I already shoot in 4K in my cinematography job, but mainly just small segments (and a few ads) for now.

    It'll go up in the future, when affordable 4K comes.
     
  16. Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Enjoying Better Things
    #16
    Only if you need to drive 4K external, if not save your $$$$, performance increment is insignificant, the rest is just "bells & whistles" wait on Skylake at a minimum.

    Q-6
     
  17. Hieveryone thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    #17
    Sweet. Yeah that sounds great. I'm definitely going to wait at this point.

    I promised myself awhile ago I'm using this MBPr for at least 5 years. Apple somehow always finds a way to convince me out of it.

    Thankfully, there are smart people on this forum to help stop me from wasting money :apple:
     
  18. neteng101 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2009
    #18
    That had the old terribly underpowered HD4000 graphics that really wan't suited for a retina display. The Iris 5100 is a quantum leap from the 4000, the 6100 is just a minor bump.

    I really want to see some eDRAM added before I'd consider upgrading - that little bit of eDRAM really does make a difference. Hopefully Skylake will bring Iris Pro down to the 13" rMBPs.
     
  19. Hieveryone thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    #19
    Can you tell me what eDRAM is? Also, why was 4000 that much worse than 5100? I believe I have the 5100. And what makes the 6100 only marginally better than 5100?
     
  20. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #20
    The 5100 has far more EUs than the 4000.

    eDRAM is basically a very fast cache area.

    The 6100 isn't marginally better; it's way better for the fact alone that it can power 4K @ 60 Hz. The 6100 only has 8 more EUs than the 5100 though.

    The 6100 also supports OpenCL 2.0, but the 5100 only support 1.2.
     
  21. Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Enjoying Better Things
    #21
    That`s Apple`s strongest point, best spin the business :) Save your $$$$ until you need to spend, or something really significant to is brought to the table. Right now you have a killer Notebook for the next couple of years.

    Q-6
     

Share This Page