If you plan on photo/video work with new rMPB 13

[dexterbell]

You may want to reconsider, at least with the base model. Although I doubt a little higher clock speed in the mid or upper models will help much anyways. Just picked up the new 2.7GHz 8GB rMBP 13 tonight. It took me 7:12 to export a 4:08 422MB 1080 file at the default medium quality setting in iMovie. Thats nearly double the time of the video clip. Uploading a 1.26GB file with 427 JPG photos from an SD card with the built in reader took 1:32. I don't even want to know what working with 4k video and full sized RAW files in CS6 on this thing is like. I am very disappointed that a $1300 Macbook with PRO in its name in 2015 performs this poorly, its really inexcusable IMO. This is what I would expect from a MacBook Air, not a Pro. This plus the new Macbook release is pretty disheartening. I don't get why Apple thinks their entire user base is full of nothing but people who only surf the internet and check emails on their computers. There are a VERY large numbers of professionals like me who seems to be getting the short end of the stick as Apple keeps moving towards what are basically iPads with keyboards and only the top of the line, insanely expensive model is suitable for any kind of real photo/video work. This is the kind of stuff that will have more and more of us seriously thinking about (as much as I hate the idea) a move to Windows laptops. Taking this back and hoping for a new quad core sometime this year.

 

[David58117]

Sorry buddy, "pro" to me is music production and working with sound libraries.

 

[Android300zx]

You may want to reconsider, at least with the base model. Although I doubt a little higher clock speed in the mid or upper models will help much anyways. Just picked up the new 2.7GHz 8GB rMBP 13 tonight. It took me 7:12 to export a 4:08 422MB 1080 file at the default medium quality setting in iMovie. Thats nearly double the time of the video clip. Uploading a 1.26GB file with 427 JPG photos from an SD card with the built in reader took 1:32. I don't even want to know what working with 4k video and full sized RAW files in CS6 on this thing is like. I am very disappointed that a $1300 Macbook with PRO in its name in 2015 performs this poorly, its really inexcusable IMO. This is what I would expect from a MacBook Air, not a Pro. This plus the new Macbook release is pretty disheartening. I don't get why Apple thinks their entire user base is full of nothing but people who only surf the internet and check emails on their computers. There are a VERY large numbers of professionals like me who seems to be getting the short end of the stick as Apple keeps moving towards what are basically iPads with keyboards and only the top of the line, insanely expensive model is suitable for any kind of real photo/video work. This is the kind of stuff that will have more and more of us seriously thinking about (as much as I hate the idea) a move to Windows laptops. Taking this back and hoping for a new quad core sometime this year.

If you want Quad Core you need a 15''. Also, might want to do a bit more research into what specs you will need to upgrade when you do buy a Mac again. You bought a Base model. I'm sure it's to be expected.

 

[dexterbell]

If you want Quad Core you need a 15''. Also, might want to do a bit more research into what specs you will need to upgrade when you do buy a Mac again. You bought a Base model. I'm sure it's to be expected.

As I said, I seriously doubt a bump from the 2.7GHz base model to the 2.9GHz would really do much for those of us who do photo/video production work, especially since its the same graphics card in all the 13 inch models. I wouldn't think I would need a $2k+ quad core processor Macbook Pro to export a 4 minute 1080 video or download 1.26GB worth of photos in a timely manner. Its not like I am working with uncompressed 4k video and huge RAW files straight off a 21 megapixel camera. As I said, its pretty sad that a brand new PRO model in 2015 can't even work with these relatively simple tasks. Its a shame because the battery life and the new Force Touch trackpad are great.

 

[geoelectric]

As I said, I seriously doubt a bump from the 2.7GHz base model to the 2.9GHz would really do much for those of us who do photo/video production work, especially since its the same graphics card in all the 13 inch models. I wouldn't think I would need a $2k+ quad core processor Macbook Pro to export a 4 minute 1080 video or download 1.26GB worth of photos in a timely manner. Its not like I am working with uncompressed 4k video and huge RAW files straight off a 21 megapixel camera. As I said, its pretty sad that a brand new PRO model in 2015 can't even work with these relatively simple tasks.

Out of curiosity, what do similar operations with the 15" Pro look like in terms of numbers? Is it really the CPU that's the bottleneck here? I remember doing some light video exporting with my work 15" Pro and it was still quite slow. And I can't believe that downloading the videos was CPU-bound; that sounds very bound by the card reader or card.

Overall, I predict you're going to take a lot of heat from the crowd. But I actually agree with you, even as someone who just bought a 13" Pro:

It's really much closer to being the Retina MacBook Air, or at least the Retina MacBook (before the new hyperbook Apple just announced ganked the name). You only have to look at the benchmark numbers from Air->Pro 13->Pro 15 to see that. I think the naming was off on the this model from day one.

That's not to say it's a bad system at all--it's not, and I think mine's perfectly worth the price I paid--but if you're coming from the 15" angle, it's just not in the same league.

 

[yjchua95]

Out of curiosity, what do similar operations with the 15" Pro look like in terms of numbers? Is it really the CPU that's the bottleneck here? I remember doing some light video exporting with my work 15" Pro and it was still quite slow. And I can't believe that downloading the videos was CPU-bound; that sounds very bound by the card reader or card.

Overall, I predict you're going to take a lot of heat from the crowd. But I actually agree with you, even as someone who just bought a 13" Pro:

It's really much closer to being the Retina MacBook Air, or at least the Retina MacBook (before the new hyperbook Apple just announced ganked the name). You only have to look at the benchmark numbers from Air->Pro 13->Pro 15 to see that. I think the naming was off on the this model from day one.

That's not to say it's a bad system at all--it's not, and I think mine's perfectly worth the price I paid--but if you're coming from the 15" angle, it's just not in the same league.

Even 4K work is going to really tax a 15".

Only proxy 4K work could be done using my 15" (2.6/16/1TB/750M), and exporting would take quite a bit of time into the internal SSD (probably around 5+ minutes to export a minute of 3840x2160 30 fps segment). Depends on your footage and compression though. I try to use as little compression as possible.

Serious 4K work should be done on a nMP. Even on my nMP, I've come across some very rare situations where a single frame took more than 30 hours to render (12-core, 64GB RAM, 1TB SSD with 12GB D700 nMP), but then it's worth it.

 

[geoelectric]

Even 4K work is going to really tax a 15".

Only proxy 4K work could be done using my 15" (2.6/16/1TB/750M), and exporting would take a long time into the internal SSD.

Serious 4K work should be done on a nMP. Even on my nMP, I've come across some very rare situations where a single frame took more than 30 hours to render (12-core, 64GB RAM, 1TB SSD with 12GB D700 nMP), but then it's worth it.

To be fair, think he said it was 1080p.

 

[yjchua95]

As I said, I seriously doubt a bump from the 2.7GHz base model to the 2.9GHz would really do much for those of us who do photo/video production work, especially since its the same graphics card in all the 13 inch models. I wouldn't think I would need a $2k+ quad core processor Macbook Pro to export a 4 minute 1080 video or download 1.26GB worth of photos in a timely manner. Its not like I am working with uncompressed 4k video and huge RAW files straight off a 21 megapixel camera. As I said, its pretty sad that a brand new PRO model in 2015 can't even work with these relatively simple tasks. Its a shame because the battery life and the new Force Touch trackpad are great.

For transcoding and rendering, if you need speed, a quad core is a must.

In fact, uncompressed 4K video rendering will be near impossible with anything like you're thinking of on a 15" rMBP. For that, you're going to need a completely maxed-out nMP (12 cores with 64GB RAM, plus a 12GB D700). GPU-accelerated computing for rendering is the only way to get things really done fast.

----------

To be fair, think he said it was 1080p.

It depends on what 1080p you're using.

Via Handbrake, low quality 1080p can be finished in a matter of seconds, while encoding using a placebo (which gives the best quality) can be quadruple the length of the video, even on a quad core.

 

[dexterbell]

Thanks for the reply guys. The video I was working with was 24Mbps 1080i MP4 files off a Canon G20. Nothing too heavy duty by todays standards really. Not trying to complain too much, just want to let people who do photo/video work considering a new rMBP 13 know that the new chips and GPU haven't really improved anything at all.

 

[BoneDaddy]

Sorry buddy, "pro" to me is music production and working with sound libraries.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. Still, I've done video editing and photo editing on mine and I have no problems at all. I've even decided I don't "NEED" a quad core machine. Mine is late 2014 speced out.

I've read other people saying they couldn't even make a simple rap song on their RMBPs. Strange to me. I use professional plugins and 32 lives to use 32bit plugins in 64bit Logic Pro X. That, mixed with high number tracks for scores or chamber orchestral productions and I don't even get to much over 50% CPU, according to iStats.

 

[lcseds]

I don't know about the video work, but please don't judge any notebook by it's transfer speed via SD card.

 

[Rhcpcjg]

You may want to reconsider, at least with the base model. Although I doubt a little higher clock speed in the mid or upper models will help much anyways. Just picked up the new 2.7GHz 8GB rMBP 13 tonight. It took me 7:12 to export a 4:08 422MB 1080 file at the default medium quality setting in iMovie. Thats nearly double the time of the video clip. Uploading a 1.26GB file with 427 JPG photos from an SD card with the built in reader took 1:32. I don't even want to know what working with 4k video and full sized RAW files in CS6 on this thing is like. I am very disappointed that a $1300 Macbook with PRO in its name in 2015 performs this poorly, its really inexcusable IMO. This is what I would expect from a MacBook Air, not a Pro. This plus the new Macbook release is pretty disheartening. I don't get why Apple thinks their entire user base is full of nothing but people who only surf the internet and check emails on their computers. There are a VERY large numbers of professionals like me who seems to be getting the short end of the stick as Apple keeps moving towards what are basically iPads with keyboards and only the top of the line, insanely expensive model is suitable for any kind of real photo/video work. This is the kind of stuff that will have more and more of us seriously thinking about (as much as I hate the idea) a move to Windows laptops. Taking this back and hoping for a new quad core sometime this year.

remember the 13' macbook pro used to be just a "macbook",

 

[yjchua95]

Thanks for the reply guys. The video I was working with was 24Mbps 1080i MP4 files off a Canon G20. Nothing too heavy duty by todays standards really. Not trying to complain too much, just want to let people who do photo/video work considering a new rMBP 13 know that the new chips and GPU haven't really improved anything at all.

I'm not sure about what's wrong with your Mac, but I've got a late-2013 13" rMBP (i7/16/512) and an early-2015 13" (i7/16/512 also) and both perform quite smoothly in FCP X, using 1080p/30fps footage from a 5D Mk3.

iMovie's engine may be slightly different from FCP X and may result in poorer performance.

 

[dexterbell]

I'm not sure about what's wrong with your Mac, but I've got a late-2013 13" rMBP (i7/16/512) and an early-2015 13" (i7/16/512 also) and both perform quite smoothly in FCP X, using 1080p/30fps footage from a 5D Mk3.

iMovie's engine may be slightly different from FCP X and may result in poorer performance.

Im sure the i7 and 16GB in your 13 makes a huge difference but thats a $2200 machine. Is that whats its come to with Apple? They can't make a Macbook PRO capable of working with basic 1080 video files in iMovie and downloading 400 JPEG photos in a computer for under $2k? It doesn't even playback the video properly in iMovie, its all choppy. Pretty ridiculous in 2015, especially when there are Windows laptops plenty capable for about half the price. What would you consider more important to what I am doing? i7 vs i5? Processor speed? Amount of RAM? The graphics card?

 

[yjchua95]

Im sure the i7 and 16GB in your 13 makes a huge difference but thats a $2200 machine. Is that whats its come to with Apple? They can't make a Macbook PRO capable of working with basic 1080 video files in iMovie and downloading 400 JPEG photos in a computer for under $2k? It doesn't even playback the video properly in iMovie, its all choppy. Pretty ridiculous in 2015, especially when there are Windows laptops plenty capable for about half the price. What would you consider more important to what I am doing? i7 vs i5? Processor speed? Amount of RAM? The graphics card?

RAM.

By the way the i7 and i5 in the 13" are almost identical to each other. They should perform almost identically.

Transfer speeds from external storage to your computer isn't the computer's fault. You're limited by your SD card.

I transferred multiple VMs to my external SSD and it did it at a rate of around 350+ MB/s.

http://bgr.com/2013/11/18/apple-13-inch-retina-macbook-pro-review-late-2013/

You should also read the review here to see what it can really do.

 

[Meister]

I don't know about the video work, but please don't judge any notebook by it's transfer speed via SD card.

I was about to say the same thing. It appears to me that the OP does not quite know what parts of a computer are relevant for what kinds of actvities.

----------

I don't even want to know what working with 4k video and full sized RAW files in CS6 on this thing is like.

I work with raw files from my D610 (24 megpix, 14-bit lossless compressed) all the time. It is extremely fast (2013 rmbp 2.4/8/256) I even use my mac mini (2.5ghz dual core, 4gb ram, 500gb hdd) for this without any problems.

----------

Its not like I am working with uncompressed 4k video and huge RAW files straight off a 21 megapixel camera. As I said, its pretty sad that a brand new PRO model in 2015 can't even work with these relatively simple tasks. Its a shame because the battery life and the new Force Touch trackpad are great.

The transfer speeds depend on the speed of the sd card. I use a sandsik extreme pro (95mb/s) and I can transfer hundreds of raw files within a few minutes. It's also not like one minute more or less is the end of the world.

 

[ZBoater]

...By the way the i7 and i5 in the 13" are almost identical to each other. They should perform almost identically...

I think that we have different definitions of "almost identical".

What percentage difference would you call "almost identical"? 1%? 3%? 5%?

Just wondering.

 

[Meister]

RAM.

I disagree. I would say that for video and especially photo editing cpu speeds are the deciding factor.

Especially Lightroom (and for hdr even Photoshop) does not seem to care about the amount of ram. Once I import raws the editing itself is smooth as butter, even with 4gb RAM. Exporting the jpegs however takes quite long on both my rmbp and mac mini.
Same seems to be true for basic video editing in iMovie. The main bottleneck are rendering times and they depend on the cpu, not ram.

 

[dexterbell]

Thanks to everyone for the replies ad help. I scored a great deal on a mid 2014 rMBP 15 base model from Craigslist today and ran the same tests. The video that took 7:12 on the 13 only took 4:08 (which is the exact length of the video) and the same 1.26GB of photos that took 1:32 to transfer from the SD card on the 13 only took :54 on the 15. These are speeds I can live with. I guess the i7, 16GB of RAM and Intel Iris Pro is the lowest I can go and be satisfied. Quick questions, does the 1536MB next to the Intel Iris Pro mean this has dedicated graphics too? Or is it shared?

 

[yjchua95]

I think that we have different definitions of "almost identical".

What percentage difference would you call "almost identical"? 1%? 3%? 5%?

Just wondering.

Performance deltas of 10% or less.

 

[ZBoater]

Performance deltas of 10% or less.

I'm am not sure that by any reasonable definition a delta of 9% can be called "almost identical". That sounds like internet hyperbole to me.

 

[yjchua95]

I'm am not sure that by any reasonable definition a delta of 9% can be called "almost identical". That sounds like internet hyperbole to me.

Benchmarks are just a figure.

Real life performance is what matters. I'm hard-pressed to tell the difference between the 3.1GHz in my own rMBP and the 2.7GHz in my friend's rMBP.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/2097413?baseline=2096703

Single core performance delta: 7%
Multi core performance delta: Also 7%

 

[ZBoater]

Benchmarks are just a figure.

Real life performance is what matters. I'm hard-pressed to tell the difference between the 3.1GHz in my own rMBP and the 2.7GHz in my friend's rMBP.

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/2097413?baseline=2096703

Single core performance delta: 7%
Multi core performance delta: Also 7%

I don't disagree with you on that. What I am having issue with is your "almost identical" characterization. They are not "almost" identical. There IS a difference. Whether YOU can tell the difference or not, or whether you need to run a benchmark or not is irrelevant to the question of them being "almost" identical.

If they were truly "almost" identical, Intel and Apple would have a hard time telling them apart. Fact is, if you want 7% better performance, get the i7. Period. They are not "almost" identical. They are, in fact, 7% apart.

 

[AliMacs]

I don't disagree with you on that. What I am having issue with is your "almost identical" characterization. They are not "almost" identical. There IS a difference. Whether YOU can tell the difference or not, or whether you need to run a benchmark or not is irrelevant to the question of them being "almost" identical.

If they were truly "almost" identical, Intel and Apple would have a hard time telling them apart. Fact is, if you want 7% better performance, get the i7. Period. They are not "almost" identical. They are, in fact, 7% apart.

I think he was just trying to say the 7% difference whether it can be quantified for $XXX.00 amount difference is really up to the end buyer - for him, he thinks that delta % in performance isn't worth the price difference.

It's like buying a 328i vs 330i BMW. It's not like buying a 318i vs 330i.

 

[Troneas]

I agree with the op that the 13 inch rmbp should have quad core by today's standards.

Dual core is for the Mac airs.