Obviously if you want to edit multiple images, the new 1300$ rMB is not the thing for you. :|
I mean, this device is for people who don't do much more than surf the web. And that is the type of consumer that will throw down 1300$ for a computer.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Early Benchmarks Put Retina MacBook CPU Performance in Range of 2011 MacBook Air
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Obviously if you want to edit multiple images, the new 1300$ rMB is not the thing for you. :|
I mean, this device is for people who don't do much more than surf the web. And that is the type of consumer that will throw down 1300$ for a computer.
So all the 4Chan /g/ jokes aside... this is LITERALLY a $1,300 Facebook machine?
Unless you just want email/office/blogging I have NO idea what you would need this for, and even still at $1,300 there are much better machines for that price like the 11 or 12in Air, or ANY PC ultrabook.
Unless you just want email/office/blogging I have NO idea what you would need this for, and even still at $1,300 there are much better machines for that price like the 11 or 12in Air, or ANY PC ultrabook.
For a test I installed "Affinity Designer" (a new competitor for Adobe Illustrator - which suits my needs) on Mac Mini (Early 2009 - Intel Core 2 Duo P7350 @ 2Ghz / Nvidia 9400M - Running Yosemite):
- CPU Single core performance ~50% of Macbook
- CPU Multiple core performance ~50% of Macbook
- Hard Drive < 7% performance of PCIe SSD
- 4GB Memory 50% as much as Macbook.
- GPU ~35% performance of Macbook.
Performance was a little jittery but I was able to edit a fairly complicated image with no real issues (very short test just to get an idea). Multiple image editing is about having enough memory rather than a more powerful CPU over a single image. Based on what I am seeing, the Macbook should be able to edit images using Affinity Designer quite well. Of course testing it out on the Macbook will be a much better test.
I, of course, would not be running Final Cut Pro X on the Macbook.... but few people actually own it
Last edited:
You're right if your main criteria is price. I've been using an 11" air for 4 years and I still like it. I don't remember how much it cost but i've certainly got my moneys worth out of it. I plan on buying the rMB so I can get a better screen and more storage space in a similar package.
When I look at windows laptops in shops they all look and feel like cheap and nasty heaps of junk so i'll pay a bit more to get something I like. Strange concept I know.
This would have been the perfect time for Apple to try out an ARM MacBook when you think about it.
NO! Microsoft made that mistake. If you can avoid being incompatible, avoid it. It confuses users since there is no compatibility in the applications some for one, some for another. This is why Apple has been pushing Intel to work harder on ultra-portable CPUs. If Apple were to use ARM in a laptop it should be advanced enough to be used in the complete line.
Allow me to try to answer this, while explaining why this is different. Microsoft's initial run, the Surface RT, destroyed the hopes for Windows RT in general. It ran on a poor processor, it had few applications, and people just didn't know where this fit into things. Was it just a consumption device? Was it a productivity device?
And what is up with that keyboard/kickstand?
What can Apple fix in their Apple way? They don't have a poor processor for one, it's even better than the Core M that they're using in ways. And I doubt there would be a lack of things to do with it. This is Apple, they would have come on stage with Adobe or Pixelmator and made a big deal about how their product runs on the new device. There might even be new features that run just because of Apple implementing Metal on OS X. The third problem isn't a problem for Apple, they're king when it comes to advertising.
I doubt many people are going to buy the rMB for anything that an ARM MB couldn't do as long as Apple actually tried.
OS X is not a good performer and never has been.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=osx10_ubuntu1410
To be fair, your source is a Linux/Ubuntu supporting source and I've found nothing anywhere else on the Internet that validates this claim. It begs the question the motives behind the tests and if any parts were cherry picked to show Ubuntu in the best light.
Furthermore, let's say it's correct (because it's not really a big deal). Ubuntu is by all accounts a niche OS with very few users hardly worthy of a comparison.
I have been testing different variants of OS's for the better part of 2 decades. Part of my own desire to be able to have objective hands on with them, and also part of work at various IT and software places.
Where OSx, in Lion and Prior tended to be very lightweight, and very linux like in it's overall requirements, Especially compared to fairly high requirements of early day windows. Today the opposite is the truth.
Upon several systems, OSx Mountain Lion started this trend of requiring more resources at boot time than previous generations. Mavericks was the all time peak so far for sheer base resources taken on fresh boot. (over 2 gb of RAM for example on fresh install post boot). Yosemite has been a little better on RAM usage, but slightly higher on idle CPU usage.
In Comparison, right now in the Windows and Linux camps, Both of these Operating systems can fully load on boot (fresh install as well) with well under 1GB of in use system memory.
While OSx on disk on fresh install is still much lower than Windows, there are things it is doing which causes CPU usage to be higher on average than windows.
This doesn't take into account other things such as gaming performance, which due to outdated drivers that are slower to update, OSx does not compete with the pure performance on the same hardware as you will get within Windows.
People are not wrong to be questioning if Apple still considers themselves a "Software" company as it seems that they're intent in going the way Microsoft did with Vista. It isn't uncommon to hear people complain that 4gb of RAM isn't enough for a Mac computer these days, and that is troubling, when Windows and Un*x systems are able to operate quite smoothly on 4, and in some cases even 2.
as for Ubuntu, I don't know the posters motivation, but Ubuntu is seen by linux professionals as a very bloated and one of the worst performing linux variants. The fact that it has better resource handling than OSx should be troubling to all of us who enjoy using OSx since the constant push for higher priced and more resource hardware should be the opposite of where we want to go.
Phoronix is mostly Linux centric site, yes, but that does not make their benchmarks invalid. The benchmark suite they use is all open source, so you can point out EXACTLY what you think is wrong with it (but of course you won't, because you have no idea). And they have been using it for years, if they cheated, don't you think somebody would've noticed by now? It's really not hard to benchmark those systems, anyone with a Mac can do it.
The benchmarks only confirm what even most of us Apple fanboys already know - that HFS+ filesystem performance is so horrible that apparently it was on it's way out for a while (but remained due to Oracle/Sun legal snafu), or that Apple is falling behind with OpenGL implementation - with regressions introduced in Yosemite, or that XNU with it's Mach microkernel component is simply not designed for performance, etc.
Unless of course the people buying the rMB want to run existing applications.
You mean you don't run any 3rd party applications? Right now the way things work is that the applications are compiled down to Intel platforms by the developers.... So everything currently available from 3rd parties would not be available.
VMware / parallels would be useless if someone wanted to run Windows on it.
And Bootcamp would cease to exist for it.
There are solutions to the first issue, but the ensuing confusion would probably do more damage than good..... at least when it comes to "OS X" platforms.
Virtually all OSx, Windows, Linux and compatible programs and binaries.
Switching to Arm would eliminate the ability to also run Parallels or Boot camp windows.
It would be a fatal move that would relegate Apple to pure consumer market with zero compatibility with Enterprise and the majority of the corporate world.
remember last time Apple wasn't on the x86 platform for their computers? that wonderfull < ~5% of the worlds computers. where there were only a handful of programs, and less that even mattered.
you would welcome that back?
Macs aren't really taking the enterprise by storm or anything, Apple is a consumer company. Also, market share means nothing. Plus, I just meant this one computer anyway. If you think x86 is the best thing, buy an Air, Pro, iMac, or Mac Pro.
----------
When I had an Air, I stuck with Apple software really.
I would have no problems with it if it had enough power, but I suspect that the damage will go beyond that in the confusion.... and backlash from a minority. Then of course the lack of 3rd party apps, and having to worry about which CPU I am on when getting software.
It would only be viable if they had applications compiled down to llvm bytecode and no further -- then when the application is installed the llvm bytecode is compiled into machine code (I suspect it is doable but it might be risky). If it were in this form it could be installed on both ARM devices and on Intel chips and be transparent -- with the exception of not being able to run windows in a VM or in bootcamp. I know a few that use Quickbooks for Windows (because QB for mac is not the same and quite an inferior piece of cr@p). How many people are still bound by one or two programs, or people that want to boot into Windows for gaming? I have absolutely no idea.
My problem is I think the perception will be more damaging - the line top to bottom would not be completely compatible and I have quite a few applications that are 3rd party and would not be there at launch....
eg. Affinity Designer, Doceri Desktop, Evernote, Google Chrome, Intellij, iTerm, Libre Office, Microsoft Office, Limechat, MacGourmet, Mental Case, Microsoft Remote Desktop, MPlayerX, OmniGaffle Professional, Pixelmator, Reunion 9, Screenflow, Textmate, VLC, VMWare Fusion for Linux and Oracle database, Winzip......... so for me it would be a nightmare and impossible to move on launch.... I would have to sit there and wait hoping and then pay quite a bit for all the upgrades / new copies etc.
Wha? So you think it is a good idea to not only switch to OS X ARM, but to only do it for one product? That's a massive amount of overhead for Apple to maintain two production OS X architectures for just one product.
MS Surface didn't fail because of its hardware, it failed because Windows RT created confusion and had absolutely no backwards compatibility. This situation would be exactly mirror by releasing ARM OS X for a theoretical ARM rMB.
Its a terrible, terrible idea.
If you think Microsoft has the same pull with developers as Apple, you're kidding yourself.
I'm not sure how this is relevant.
But, since you mention it, don't confuse the power Apple has in the iOS ecosystem with the power they have in the OS X side of things.
Weak sales of the Surface ended with the SP3, sales have really picked up and remained hot. The upcoming Surface 3 for $499 will be an even bigger success.
It is a hard one to peg. I would not consider the Surface Pro 3 to be "hot" sales.... From what I can figure out the quarterly sales are about a million units (give or take 100thousand). Surface 3 is hard to predict and it depends on where consumers peg them. If it is pegged as a tablet with an "optional" keyboard then it probably enters the market a little late.... since the market has matured and tablet sales have generally peaked (even so the iPad still sold around 60 million units in an "off year").
If it is pegged as a "netbook" style computer, then it might have more room.... it all depends.... it could be great sales or just ho-hum.... it will be interesting to watch.
I know this is hypothetical, but it would probably not be the same. OS X would share the exact same applications and frameworks. Mach-O supports fat binaries and it could be used in the same way as Universal binaries was.
The Rosetta framework was included there during transition but when you are taking one machine code and running it on a virtual x86 machine you will probably at least halve the performance (maybe more). With the Power architectured applications they ran considerably slower on newer hardware (for almost a year). Now take that same concept and apply it to a low power CPU and you will have a machine that would likely have less performance than half the power of the latest iPads. It would take a year for some applications to sort out with the "fat binary" as you said.
Then you have the "fat binary" which is basically two copies of the same application, one for each platform - which makes applications.... fat... It was only meant for transition.
If they were to do it again, they would probably move to just compiling down to llvm byte code.... The effect is that it would effectively increase the testing budget significantly (in one case I was personally involved in at a large shop - it was 2 millions of dollars in additional costs to certify each - and that was just a difference in operating system versions not even architectures).
The effective result is most major shops would hold back on supporting the second platform until there was a sufficient user base to make it worth while - causing a chicken and egg situation. It was easier the first time to motivate because it was transitional and not permanent.... they would have to do it sooner or later.... most chose to do it at the next major release date.
It is not that I don't want ARM, I would like to see Intel dethroned as the de facto standard... especially with a more openly licensed platform. The history is littered with failed attempts to do so.