Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Downgrading from 15" to 13" MBP?

O

outsidethebox

macrumors member
Original poster
Jan 10, 2008
90
27
I've been using 15" MBPs for 7 years now (currently a 2015 15", 2.5Ghz i7). My workloads are typically heavy Lightroom work with RAW files, I've started dabbling in 4k video editing, and the rest is typical video watching, browsing, etc.

15" is becoming a bit cumbersome and I'm thinking of getting a 2017 13" MBP instead (w/ 16gb ram). Screen difference aside (I am planning to get a 4K external monitor), how much of a performance difference will I feel in day-to-day use?
 
Beyond the screen size reduction, the BIG thing that you're going to lose is the quad-core CPU from the 15". The 13" can only be upgraded to a speedy dual-core CPUs.

It's not just the RAM that matters, but without the higher capable CPU, you might find dealing with 4K a bit cumbersome.
 
You'll also be losing the discrete graphics card offered by the 15". You basically ticked every box, other than gaming, where having one is a big benefit.
 
I'd advice you to keep using your current machine for a few months, until Apple releases the next-gen 13" MacBook Pro with its quad-core CPUs.
 
parseckadet said:
You'll also be losing the discrete graphics card offered by the 15". You basically ticked every box, other than gaming, where having one is a big benefit.
Click to expand...

I had assumed Adobe (eg. Lightroom) relied mainly on cpu power and not gpu, maybe I’m wrong there.
 
Any decent photo/video editing application will make use of multiple cores of the CPU and the GPU, especially the plugins where they end up using math to do their work and the GPU is perfect for math work.
 
I've gone from 15 -> 13, back to the 15 and again trying the 13" form factor.

Guess what size my next laptop will be :p Yep 15" The 13" offers a nice small laptop for traveling but the work I do, I find the smaller screen harder to use and/or too confining. I'm a slow learner so I needed to jump into the 13" pool a couple of times to fully realize that I'm more of a 15" laptop user.
 
  • Like
Reactions: outsidethebox and MagicBoy
I did the size swap once. Once the 15" went quad core I was going back very quickly...
15" 1,1 -> 13" Aluminium unibody MB -> 15" 2011 -> 15" late-2013 rMBP.
 
The Mercurian said:
That will happen. It can't not happen. Dell and others are shipping 13" quad-cores for months already.
Click to expand...

If it does happen it will make the 13” much more attractive to me then... as I mentioned, the screen size difference is irrelevant as I will use a 4K external monitor when at home.
 
outsidethebox said:
If it does happen it will make the 13” much more attractive to me then... as I mentioned, the screen size difference is irrelevant as I will use a 4K external monitor when at home.
Click to expand...

Yeah I hear you. A quad-core 13" would be very tempting to me too - also I'm not worried about the screen size particularly (my 15" is hard to use on a plane and that is a problem). However if the 15"\s get hex-core then I'll want that :D
 
quad core in the 13 will probably come as an up grade that will push the 13 into 15inch price territory. I can honestly say that i am impressed by the 2017 15's "smallness" compared to my 2015 15. I have no need for the power of the 15 anymore as i am just doing standard emailing word excel type work stuff so i carry a 2015 13 (yes i have both the 13/15 inch from 2015).
 
Fthree said:
quad core in the 13 will probably come as an up grade that will push the 13 into 15inch price territory.
Click to expand...

That's extremely unlikely. I understand why so many think Apple will cash in on that upgrade, but with the availability of CPUs that's almost impossible to happen. The entry level 15W dual core 7th gen CPU is actually more expensive than the entry level quad core 15W 8th gen CPU, and there are no dual core 15W CPUs in the current CPU generation. Spending more money to deliver a slower notebook which looks like incredibly bad value compared to the competition is not a way to increase your sales.

They'll most probably keep their upsell model with tiny SSD sizes and huge upgrade fees for larger SSDs. At least they can use current technology across the board, and this way the lower cost models are also actually cheaper to produce.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The Mercurian and Fthree
Poki said:
That's extremely unlikely. I understand why so many think Apple will cash in on that upgrade, but with the availability of CPUs that's almost impossible to happen. The entry level 15W dual core 7th gen CPU is actually more expensive than the entry level quad core 15" 8th gen CPU, and there are no dual core 15W CPUs in the current CPU generation. Spending more money to deliver a slower notebook which looks like incredibly bad value compared to the competition is not a way to increase your sales.

They'll most probably keep their upsell model with tiny SSD sizes and huge upgrade fees for larger SSDs. At least they can use current technology across the board, and this way the lower cost models are also actually cheaper to produce.
Click to expand...
I see your point but do you not think that a good majority of 15 users would opt to switch to the 13? Apple knows this will/could happen and it they will have to find a way to ensure the margins are met. Its my guess that they have kept the dual and quad cores separate so long to benefit from people not having the choice. Macs are definitely the best out there and people will buy them despite what hoops they have to jump through to get them. (sacrificing size for cores etc.)
 
Fthree said:
I see your point but do you not think that a good majority of 15 users would opt to switch to the 13? Apple knows this will/could happen and it they will have to find a way to ensure the margins are met. Its my guess that they have kept the dual and quad cores separate so long to benefit from people not having the choice. Macs are definitely the best out there and people will buy them despite what hoops they have to jump through to get them. (sacrificing size for cores etc.)
Click to expand...

Back when I bought my 15" MBP in 2009, both the 13" and 15" models did only offer dual core CPUs. This time, the larger one actually gets six cores, so there's still a performance advantage. The reason why the 13" models didn't get a quad core yet is because there simply were no quad core chips available with a TDP low enough to fit into a 13" MBP. So with the new 15W quad core chips, there's nothing anyone loses compared to the previous dual core chips, it's a win-win situation. And yes, while some people might choose the 13" model now over the 15", don't forget that both machines are expensive, and we do not know if the margin of the 15" model is actually larger. For what it's worth, the 13" MBP costs almost the same as the 15" if you configure it with 16 GB RAM and an i7 CPU (which both are standard on the 15"), and it still lacks the dGPU.

By the way, a friend of mine just purchased an HP notebook with a quad core 8th gen Intel CPU, a 256 GB SSD and 8 GB RAM for €599. The equivalent MacBook Pro costs €1749 and only comes with a dual core CPU. Of course I know what we're paying for (better screen, faster SSD, better build quality, ...), but still, shouldn't the CPU at least be as fast as a notebook one third the price?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Apple Fritter and Fthree
Poki said:
Back when I bought my 15" MBP in 2009, both the 13" and 15" models did only offer dual core CPUs. This time, the larger one actually gets six cores, so there's still a performance advantage. The reason why the 13" models didn't get a quad core yet is because there simply were no quad core chips available with a TDP low enough to fit into a 13" MBP. So with the new 15W quad core chips, there's nothing anyone loses compared to the previous dual core chips, it's a win-win situation. And yes, while some people might choose the 13" model now over the 15", don't forget that both machines are expensive, and we do not know if the margin of the 15" model is actually larger. For what it's worth, the 13" MBP costs almost the same as the 15" if you configure it with 16 GB RAM and an i7 CPU (which both are standard on the 15"), and it still lacks the dGPU.

By the way, a friend of mine just purchased an HP notebook with a quad core 8th gen Intel CPU, a 256 GB SSD and 8 GB RAM for €599. The equivalent MacBook Pro costs €1749 and only comes with a dual core CPU. Of course I know what we're paying for (better screen, faster SSD, better build quality, ...), but still, shouldn't the CPU at least be as fast as a notebook one third the price?
Click to expand...
You may be right on the above. Apple could up the cores in the 15 in due time and have 13 a quad. Im just glad I've stretched out the performance on these 2015s and am saving my pennies for when they are on the verge of death. :)
 
Fthree said:
I see your point but do you not think that a good majority of 15 users would opt to switch to the 13? Apple knows this will/could happen and it they will have to find a way to ensure the margins are met. Its my guess that they have kept the dual and quad cores separate so long to benefit from people not having the choice. Macs are definitely the best out there and people will buy them despite what hoops they have to jump through to get them. (sacrificing size for cores etc.)
Click to expand...
You think that most people from a size only everything else being equal would choose a 13 inch MacBook over a 15inch?
 
tim1000 said:
You think that most people from a size only everything else being equal would choose a 13 inch MacBook over a 15inch?
Click to expand...
Honestly yes. I still think your super Pro users that work and live on them will stay with the larger screen but from what I've read on these forums and of course my own personal opinion (which is extremely bias of course) I do think most would go from a 15 to a 13 all things equal. (read through some of the similar threads at the bottom of this page)
 
  • Like
Reactions: outsidethebox
Fthree said:
but from what I've read on these forums and of course my own personal opinion (which is extremely bias of course) I do think most would go from a 15 to a 13 all things equal. (read through some of the similar threads at the bottom of this page)
Click to expand...

Absolutely for me, the 15” is so cumbersome to use on the train/flights. The 13” seems like the sweet spot between the 15” and ultra portable 12”.
 
outsidethebox said:
Absolutely for me, the 15” is so cumbersome to use on the train/flights. The 13” seems like the sweet spot between the 15” and ultra portable 12”.
Click to expand...
do you plug in to a external monitor when not on the go? I never use an external display with my MacBooks.
 
outsidethebox said:
Absolutely for me, the 15” is so cumbersome to use on the train/flights. The 13” seems like the sweet spot between the 15” and ultra portable 12”.
Click to expand...
It is easier to use on the plane, but for me, the smaller screen was harder to work on - to each his own but I prefer the larger display :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back