I was thinking that having a small powerful 6 core laptop connected to my Apple LED Cinema Display would be way better than what I am using now. It would have 2 screens and be portable. As months and years have passed since a replacement was announced I have run out of upgrades to my cMP 6 core. Other than popping the cover to clean dust off the fans there is no reason to look inside. But will I be happy settling for less?
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.
Is a 6 core MBP a good replacement for 6 core 5,1
- Thread starter rjtiedeman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
https://www.apple.com/shop/help/returns_refund
The 14 day return policy has been extended until 8 Jan for items received before 25 Dec.
Also check https://forums.macrumors.com/search/6645461/?q=throttle&o=date&c[title_only]=1&c[node]=90 - there are reports that the MBP slows down under heavy load.
Last edited:
All depends what you're using it for. I still find the MP5,1 faster and more reliable for many tasks over MBP's. My 5,1 is upgraded to dual 3.46, 128GB RAM, NVMe boot drive, SSD media drives, and GTX 1080 FE 8GB. On High Sierra until January 2019. Have an RX580 8GB ready to go if I need to upgrade to Mojave around then.
Mac Pro is definitely a more powerful space heater in winter time. MBP no way to match it 
6-core Mac Pro https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/262
6-core i7 MBP https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/430
All Macs: https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks
The MBP is about 1.5x faster than the 6-core Mac Pro single core and multi-core but there are many other factors involved.
6-core i7 MBP https://browser.geekbench.com/macs/430
All Macs: https://browser.geekbench.com/mac-benchmarks
The MBP is about 1.5x faster than the 6-core Mac Pro single core and multi-core but there are many other factors involved.
Exactly why I posted Apple's return policy - so that the OP can try it with his workflows.
I would always choose a Mac Pro over a Macbook if I have a choice, -always.
Don't get me wrong, Macbooks are great machines. But they wear down a lot faster because of the battery, they tend to heat up very fast,(thermal throttling) and they are just a bad choice on the long run when it comes to real tough render work. They are nice in the first two years, ok in the third but real bad from the fourth year of use on.
(In the past) A Mac Pro can be used for a decade.
Since Apple removed the internal SSD port on the 2017 macbooks and all other ports on the outside (except USB-C) you are screwed once your mainboard breaks in terms of data.
On top of that you can't update a thing. Then this crappy T2 Apple chip comes along, good lord! Another Apple trap to screw you. You need a docking station from the start. Back in 2010 it was a different game, so I got a 17' back in the day.
Great machine and all, but today those things are so much worse on the upgrade side. The only reason I cold use my Macbook for 8 years was the upgrade path to more ram and SSD as well. Not possible anymore. If I have a choice, I always choose the desktop version. If you are not much of a road warrior or a snake oil salesman, go stationary.
In your case, I would keep the 5.1 for sure and just go for a 13' MBP as an additional device.
Don't get me wrong, Macbooks are great machines. But they wear down a lot faster because of the battery, they tend to heat up very fast,(thermal throttling) and they are just a bad choice on the long run when it comes to real tough render work. They are nice in the first two years, ok in the third but real bad from the fourth year of use on.
(In the past) A Mac Pro can be used for a decade.
Since Apple removed the internal SSD port on the 2017 macbooks and all other ports on the outside (except USB-C) you are screwed once your mainboard breaks in terms of data.
On top of that you can't update a thing. Then this crappy T2 Apple chip comes along, good lord! Another Apple trap to screw you. You need a docking station from the start. Back in 2010 it was a different game, so I got a 17' back in the day.
Great machine and all, but today those things are so much worse on the upgrade side. The only reason I cold use my Macbook for 8 years was the upgrade path to more ram and SSD as well. Not possible anymore. If I have a choice, I always choose the desktop version. If you are not much of a road warrior or a snake oil salesman, go stationary.
In your case, I would keep the 5.1 for sure and just go for a 13' MBP as an additional device.
Last edited:
My Geek bench scores are:
1. my upgraded 6 core-5,1 (single-core 3151- multi-core 14281)
2. proposed replacement.
2018 MacBook Pro i9 6-core (single-core 5348- multi-core 22598)
the MacBook score is for a older slower GPU
I guess you could empty out the cMP case and use it to house the 2018 MacBook Pro so it looks like a tower. Maybe even use the pro fans to cool it. This is a test of new tech against old in every way. Amazing what Apple packed into a wafer.
I have both and would say it depends on your work. I use the laptop for Xcode and light to moderate photo & video editing. But for large projects? The Mac Pro offers better ergonomics (separate keyboard, mouse & monitors), storage and peripheral expansion (i.e.. no dongles and cable spaghetti), and larger thermal overhead (stays quiet under load).
Much as Apple hates to admit it, the tower desktop still has it's place in today's professional environment.
Much as Apple hates to admit it, the tower desktop still has it's place in today's professional environment.
Last edited:
Geekbench scores are a lousy indicator of performance for anything other than running Geekbench. As suggested take advantage of Apple's generous return policy by buying the replacement and testing it. You may discover that, despite the higher GB scores, the difference may not be as significant as the GB scores suggest.
So true - and applicable to most "generic" benchmarks. Nothing beats benchmarking with the software and data that's your pain point (i.e. important to you). Even a popular FCPX benchmark may be misleading if your codecs or settings are different from the benchmark settings.
This is especially true for a thermally challenged system like the MBP (or MP6,1). It might scream while encoding a 60 second clip, and throttle back to "molasses" on a 90 minute job.
Note that one HP advertising point is "Unthrottled Performance":
Although it's not mentioned, you can guess which company they're referring to.
If you buy the MBP today, you'll be able to try it for almost a month before deciding whether to keep it. Don't listen to strangers on the web
, try it on your own workflows.
Last edited:
For a more realistic test, use CineBench 5-6 times and then the last results
or
convert a 4K video to 1080p in Handbrake and take the time.
The only realistic test is your workflow, as @AidenShaw says.
I have a 2013 MBP with GT750M and a 6x3.33 cMP. The benchmarks show that the MP should be faster. FCPX import/export is always faster on the MBP. This includes 4K clips. This is because it's a well-integrated system (and the RX580 isn't fully utilized).
Handbrake is faster on the cMP. It uses only CPU for it's work. If that's what you do, stick with this.
Last edited:
That's why it was qualified with the word "more". I agree with his recommendation.
Doesn't that MBP CPU contain the "Quick Sync" hardware encode/decode engine? Laptops with Quick Sync often are faster at video encode/decode than bigger systems without Quick Sync.
One more reason to test with *your* workflow
I believe so. And that is likely why this system *beats* the MP for video in/out, which on paper it should not.
But the reason for my "well-integrated" comment, aside from the fact that an fewer CPU cycle and less-capable GPU go faster in this workflow is that watching activity monitor, the MBP is pretty steady at keeping the CPU and GPU busy. The MP is very spiky. To me, that suggests contention/inefficiency in the end-to-end throughput.
[doublepost=1544638429][/doublepost]
I have 2 SATA SSDs inside, one on the PCIe bus, the other on the SATA bus. I don't think this is an issue. Watching Activity Monitor, disk usage (reads/writes) is very low. But if there's more information on this, I'd be interested.
Thanks to all for the helpful opinions. I ordered a iMac Pro 10 core today, After trying my sons new MBP out I came several conclusions. I need a big screen to do my work efficiently and my primary CAD software needs lots of cores to process data. Adding a eGPU helps but the cost of the eGPU, screen and MBP was the same as or close to the cost of a iMac Pro. It would have been nice to wait for a 2020 Mac Pro but life goes on and I don't want to wait any longer.