The MacBook can handle 4K video output. Adding in Lightroom might slow things down a little. If you're going to be doing a lot of photo editing, or editing of 4K video, probably best to get the 13" MBP which has a bit more power.
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.
Here's How Apple's New MacBook Pro Compares to Last Year's Model
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I guess sometimes it's just very hard for some people to understand what "just" means.
If you think writers, journalists and students only use their laptop for email and internet, you must not know what you're talking about.
So here is one guy who either doesn't know what he's talking about or can't be bother to try an Air before he opens his mouth.
Hang on: I'm not angry, really, but it seems others are, and, honestly, they make good points.
Oh I'm not talking about the Fusion drives. I'm talking about the good ol' standard 5400-rpm spinners. Apple is still selling iMacs and Mac Minis with them.
Also it absolutely matters more than most people realize. Boot-up, copying files, loading games, etc. are all directly and linearly affected by drive speed. I would know, I switched my 2014 iMac's stock boot drive (5400 rpm) to an external USB 3 SSD and everything feels at least 5 times faster.
Yet they used to be able to offer both ways. I still fail to understand why people will stick up for Apple overcharging. Apple has always been more expensive but the fact that their baseline SSD size is still the same as in 2012 is a worry.
Just cause they can doesn't make it right. I don't think it is the right thing to do, to under spec things and then overcharge for upgrades or to put 5400rpm drives in expensive iMacs, but I can see that Apple can obviously do no wrong.
I think it's more ridiculous to sell the 15inch PRO with only 256 ssd storage. It's 2399 dollars and only 256 storage? And then claim it's a pro?
Yeah, but at the end of the day, outside of Apple you don't get macOS, which is why I use it. But that's not really the point of your argument. That's pretty neat that they were able to cram a quad-core i7 into such a small machine, along with a 1060. I've been wanting Apple to do that for years, even if it's a little thicker. Looking at some of the tests of this Razer Blade, it appears that it gets up to 105 degrees on the base under load, and 109 degrees on the keyboard. That doesn't seem very comfy for a Kaby Lake machine. Furthermore, it looks like the display is only 1080p and 83% of the sRGB color space, along with 55% of Adobe RGB. The MBP has 100% DCI-P3 color space, which encompasses all of sRGB, and is similar in size to Adobe RGB but with less of a green bias. A display like this is much better for designers like me, and the iPad has a similar high quality display but can run at 120Hz, which you have to admit is fairly impressive.
As for the comparison of iPad/MBP, iOS is more optimized than macOS, so I'm sure the iPad Pro 2 will be quite capable. The main problem is that it needs more professional level apps. It has a lot of drawing apps, but other areas are a bit lacking. I really wish Apple would introduce a "Pro" section to the App Store for premium pricing by having a minimum price floor in that section—perhaps combined with editorial oversight to ensure only quality apps are admitted from the general App Store.
At the end of the day you just have to look at the progress curve for standard Intel chips vs. Apple's A-series chips to see that even Intel's high end chips aren't safe in a few years—especially if Apple scales to desktop sized chips. Their chip team is insane. I don't really think there's any way that Apple can't see the benefits of moving over to A-series for the Macs and is likely working on such machines. During the keynote they hinted at High Sierra (lol) having some lower level changes to lay the groundwork for the future. Some of that might be something to do with running ARM chips and perhaps building in backwards compatibility for x86. Makes me wonder if that's the real reason the new Mac Pro was delayed until later next year? It's a crazy idea but Apple is the kind of company that doesn't care and does what they want.
Kaby Lake is a marginal upgrade at best following Intel's PAO strategy. IMHO, the PAO strategy is just a way to release marginally better products while Intel rests on it's laurels. I will not own anything Kaby Lake, like ever. Since AMD has release Ryzen, I doubt Intel will stay the course with PAO but change it once again to be more aggressive and more competitive in the market place. We are already seeing drastic changes with Intel's pipeline with the Core - X products and the Core i9 line to be released. AMD has once again kicked Intel in the nuts and let them know "we are still here." Let's see what the silver back gorilla of processors actually does now. Thus far, the gorilla has been awakened from a deep slumber and the signs look great.
I am anxiously waiting for 2018 and Coffee Lake along with hexa-core cpus. Coffee Lake will support LPDDR4 as well as 3D-XPoint too. 2018 should be an exciting year.
I am anxiously waiting for 2018 and Coffee Lake along with hexa-core cpus. Coffee Lake will support LPDDR4 as well as 3D-XPoint too. 2018 should be an exciting year.
hey guys
you know that uh
the function keys macbook pro SSD can be swapped right
so yeah, 128gb option doesn't seem so bad considering for the same price as the baseline 12inch MacBook, you're getting more power, Thunderbolt 3, and a swappable SSD with that wider color gamut display.
you know that uh
the function keys macbook pro SSD can be swapped right
so yeah, 128gb option doesn't seem so bad considering for the same price as the baseline 12inch MacBook, you're getting more power, Thunderbolt 3, and a swappable SSD with that wider color gamut display.
Might as well get a Chromebook then, for a 1/5th of the price. If you install more applications on the laptop, that 128GB will vanish in the blink of an eye. Also, keep in mind that you're not getting 128GB of storage to use. You're going to have under 100GB to play with after the OS is installed. Probably quite a bit less if you keep the default apps.
So, 128GB is much too small for most people who do audio or video/image work of any type. You can't store audio files on the cloud to use in Logic (or Ableton or whatever). Even 256 is too small for that kind of work.
Newegg has M.2 NVME 500GB SSD's for $200 all day. $250 if you want to get an Evo. It's a bullsh1t move by Apple, plain and simple. In the Macbook or MBA, whatever, fine put that 128 drive. But not in a MBP.
if you are referring to that mouse/keyboard that comes with the iMac Pro, well forget it as it won't be sold separately
When I read these statements I wonder, "does the poster actually own one?"
"Do they really render complex 3D images or video work?"
Just smoke on the waters.
Oh and what makes the poster a "Pro" over all those they have insulted by calling those purchasers "prosumers?"
This is what people, myself included, are pissed about. I was watching the live stream thinking "Oh, well, good on you Apple, that's the right move". But, no, not even close. They downgraded the SSD to a pathetic 128, and tried to act like they're giving us a deal. The only segment who this will appear as a deal to are people who ask, "What's a gigabyte?".
I don't have a 2017 model, but is yours still indexing? (Maybe CPU usage affecting OpenCL score)
The TL;DR version is - I would rather pay more for something I want and need than pay less for something which doesn't meet my needs as well.
The long version essentially boils down to this - specs are the means, user experience is the end. Through integration of hardware and software, Apple is able to simulate a superior experience (for me at least) even though their products may have worse paper specs.
An analogy would be if Apple were a restaurant, they are able to use cheaper ingredients to prepare a dish which tastes better than the competition who use more expensive ingredients. The question then is boils down to which you would rather pay for.
For myself, I will always opt for end user experience over raw specs in a vacuum. That's the lesson 20 years with Windows has taught me.
It's not that I am happy with Apple apparently overcharging me (my general strategy with their products is to simply opt for the entry level configurations and avoid tacking on too many add-ons), it just doesn't bother me enough for me to go around throwing a hissy fit because ultimately, it's my choice as to how much I am willing to spend on their products.
That's just my mentality, at least.
So when did you forget Apple is a business selling products and often times ones most of us have no real need for at all. Do we really need a music speaker that we can talk to, or instant social messaging to demonstrate our cumulative ignorance? No but a few have taken the money of the many by helping us perceive our need to have these things.
Ain't life good and worth celebrating! We've got all this great stuff, too bad a few still aren't happy with it.
Moving on to the next "Apple doesn't know what their doing" thread.
Well, I closed all apps before running the benchmark. Also, others have gotten around 55-56K on openCL, while I only got 41-42K, which is off by a substantial margin.
Sorry to break it out to you but the crappy screen on my 2011 Air that I used for 3 months is the reason I upgraded to the pro and have never turned back to non-retina ever since.
When the 2016s came out, there was some discussion about the USB-C ports not all being equal. Some were powered differently than others, and there was fear that they could even damage equipment if you plugged in to the "wrong" USB-C.
Does anyone know if this was fixed, either in an update to the 2016s or in the 2017 model?
Edit for reference: Original MacRumors Article
Does anyone know if this was fixed, either in an update to the 2016s or in the 2017 model?
Edit for reference: Original MacRumors Article
Last edited:
I just realized that too. For a moment I had actually been impressed. Never mind.
Do you really need 3GB/sec? Is 1GB/sec not still a huge increase over 5400 RPM drives they're still selling in iMac models? Is that speed going to make up for 120GB being too little or 1TB costing over $3000? Is there nowhere in-between? You seem to miss my point. These things are not upgradeable. You pay out $3000+ upfront or you have to deal with 128GB for the rest of its life.
I think a lot of people fault their labeling since they made "everything" "PRO".