Interesting reviews for those interested in thermals of the Macbook

Fuzzball84

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 19, 2015
367
169
Two interesting links for reviews that include a section measuring the surface temperatures of the retina MacBooks (first is 2015 and second is 2016 version, both are base models). They give the rooms ambient temp underneath for each set of measurements.

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-MacBook-12-Early-2015-1-1-GHz-Review.143178.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Apple-MacBook-12-Early-2016-1-1-GHz-Review.164797.0.html


So it looks like the core m3 macbook runs slightly cooler under load than the older core M. Note that the first review was with OS X Yosemite and not El Capitan that could improve performance of the older version.
 
  • Like
Reactions: izzyfanto

asoksevil

macrumors 6502
Jun 7, 2010
467
139
Taipei, Taiwan
This is interesting:

Verdict

The 12-inch MacBook is and remains an impressive device. Low weight, an excellent display, and its build quality are outstanding properties. However, not much has changed compared to the model from 2015. Slightly improved graphics performance and slightly longer battery runtimes are no reason to change. Due to the lower single-core performance, the Skylake m3 is even slower than its predecessor in several benchmarks (and in everyday tasks). Nevertheless, the performance of the fanless subnotebook is sufficient for most applications. The Turbo can mostly keep the clock rate at 2 GHz if load does not persist for more than several minutes.

It seems the 2016 M3 isn't worth to take over the 2015 M3, considering it isn't faster under everyday tasks and it costs way more than a refurbished 2015 model.
 

BeatCrazy

macrumors 68000
Jul 20, 2011
1,808
731
It seems the 2016 M3 isn't worth to take over the 2015 M3, considering it isn't faster under everyday tasks and it costs way more than a refurbished 2015 model.
2016 rMB graphics are improved in both real world and synthetic tests. I think you notice graphics performance vs a minor CPU difference, in real world activities.
 

SSD-GUY

macrumors 65816
Sep 20, 2012
1,004
1,767
Interstellar
Wow. I'm surprised the 2016 base model is slower then the 2015 base model in quite a few cpu benchmarks. Even in the GPU benchmarks, there isn't much of a difference between the two.
 

helloitsme

macrumors newbie
Apr 25, 2016
9
19

It's amazing how far we've come. Even at its worst performance, the fanless m3 MacBook still manages to achieve twice the Cinebench R15 score as my 5 year old MacBook Pro.
 

Fuzzball84

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 19, 2015
367
169

It's amazing how far we've come. Even at its worst performance, the fanless m3 MacBook still manages to achieve twice the Cinebench R15 score as my 5 year old MacBook Pro.
I agree with you on that. Its amazing how powerful the macbook is (all versions plus 2015 versions) considering its size and passive cooling.

After reading all of the reviews I'm thinking 99% that I'm just going to buy apple care in the last month warranty for my 2015 base model as for me the new base model is just slightly better on battery and more so on GPU. But I don't really push my system at all CPU and GPU wise and don't use it for games, so the benefits would only be a half or hour more battery runtime if I upgrade... and to be honest battery runtime hasn't been an issue at all for any macbook Ive had in the past two years (had a MBA and MBP before the rMB).

Overall I think for new casual users the 2016 base model is a great buy as it is similar or improves on last years version in a number of metrics. But 2015 refurbs from apple are real awesome just now if anyone wants to save $300 or more. Those who bought during Best Buys recent sale of 2015 MacBooks also got a real good deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SSD-GUY and Queen6