Macbook 12" VS Macbook PRo 15" Difference when just browsing online?

[Turnpike]

Probably a silly question, but I'm sure there are people on here who have used both or who do use both and have experience comparing...

I have a 2015 MBPro 15" with the 2.5GHz i7 16GB RAM configuration, that I use daily...

...and a 2015 12" Retina Macbook 1.3Ghz 8GB RAM configuration that I'm thinking of making my daily machine.

I use the MBPro for a certain kind of research- tracking news and stocks, and a few different websites, usually working with 15-20 or so tabs open at once in Google Chrome, and connected to an external Apple 27" Thunderbolt display.

I haven't moved things to the 12" Macbook yet, but commuting with it would be SO SO SO much easier, especially since I enjoy walking rather than the bus on nice days.

Could I use the 12" Macbook and expect the same performance (speed) as I've been getting from the 15" if I'm only using it for Chrome with 15-20 tabs open at once, or does the 15" MBPro have a clear advantage in some way that I don't yet know about, either for speed or cooling or something else? They both get plugged into an external keyboard, mouse, and display while I use them for the 8-10 hour day.

Thanks in advance for your input!

 

[EugW]

I have a 16 GB 2017 MacBook and honestly it usually doesn't seem much different for surfing than than my 24 GB 2017 i5-7600 iMac. Occasionally, I can notice a slight difference, but most of the time I do not. Perhaps 3 years from now, the difference would be greater, but today in 2018 that MacBook surfs just beautifully.

Where do I notice the difference? For example, if I'm playing a video and I maximize or minimize the window on the MacBook, I sometimes may get a few dropped frames. I see that less on the iMac.

However, I generally don't use 20 tabs at a time. I have tested this and 20 tabs was fine, but I guess it would depend on what is being done in that tab. If it's just a relatively static web page, then CPU usage isn't a big concern. It's just memory usage, so you'd benefit from having 16 GB RAM.

However, your 2015 8 GB MacBook might be a problem. First of all it's only 8 GB, which is OK, but not ideal in this context, and second, it's a 2015. I guess the good news is it's a 1.3 GHz M-5Y71 which is reasonably fast. It's slower than my m3-7Y32, but OK. OTOH, the entry level 2015 M-5Y31 MacBook is noticeably slower.

 

[maerz001]

As chrome is much less optimized u better try out safari if u run in performance issues.
As u already have both machines try it out.
I have the 2016 m5 running flawlessly. Should be similar to the 2015 m7.

 

[BODYBUILDERPAUL]

I use the 2017 i5 MacBook as my one and only computer for both my business/living and for pleasure - I keep it as the Digital Media Hub for my iPhone X & SE and for my Apple TV 4K.

I'm a digital nomad (as it's branded and make my living from it. No problems whatsoever. It's a delight to use and I edit 4K 60fps iPhone uncompressed video daily in FCPX with no stress.

I stick to Apple optimised software and love Safari so I'd never recommend Chrome on it. Being honest, I'm not a fan of Google and their lack of privacy/ethics. Safari simply works!

I had the 2016 M5 before that and the 2015 M5 originally. All performed great for me. I always buy the 512GB one and tend to leave 150GB spare on it - plenty of breathing space

Try it for a month - you can always go back BUT i'm sure that you'll fall for the tiny, chic design of the Mac. It's effortless!

 

[FreakinEurekan]

My 2016 m7 1.3GHz is my daily machine, as others have mentioned 15-20 tabs in Chrome is going to be a lot. 15-20 tabs in Safari would be a breeze.

 

[mj_]

I've had a 15" 2015 MacBook Pro until recently and now a 12" 2017 MacBook, and I cannot tell the difference between the two when doing light work such as browsing the web, writing documentation (aka using a word processor), or even coding lightweight stuff.

I do have to admit that I'm using Safari though because of how terrible Chrome is running on macOS in general. It gobbles up RAM faster than I can track it and is very heavy on the CPU.

 

[EugW]

I've had a 15" 2015 MacBook Pro until recently and now a 12" 2017 MacBook, and I cannot tell the difference between the two when doing light work such as browsing the web, writing documentation (aka using a word processor), or even coding lightweight stuff.

I do have to admit that I'm using Safari though because of how terrible Chrome is running on macOS in general. It gobbles up RAM faster than I can track it and is very heavy on the CPU.

A 16 GB MacBook would probably help with that, at least to a certain extent.

 

[sosumi99]

One thing to note is that the MacBook, when it’s driving a large external monitor, does tend to get sluggish. I have mine attached to an LG Ultrafine 4K monitor, and when I do Exposé or switch between workspaces, I definitely notice the slow down. I don’t have a MacBook Pro, but from what others have been saying, it doesn’t have this problem. If your usage is mainly attached to an external display, then it’s possible that the MacBook Pro is a better fit for you.

 

[Kierikka]

As you have both, why not just try it out at home and see how it handles.
As alot of others have pointed out try using Safari instead. I only use Chrome to open pages that still has Flash on them as Chrome has a built in Flash-decoder or pages that do not render right in Safari.
The Macbook is a fantastic machine and the best overall computer I have owned. I still have a MBP 15 from 2012 for FCPX but I use my Macbook more and more editing in FCPX probobly selling my MBP after the summer.
I carry my Macbook everywhere I go so the size and weight is perfect.

 

[Ffosse]

I'm using my 2016 MacBook and for my purposes it does everything I could think of. Prior to this I was using a Chromebook so I'm not particularly hard to please. I do appreciate the screen, the all metal chassis, the backlit keys, though.

 

[EugW]

One thing to note is that the MacBook, when it’s driving a large external monitor, does tend to get sluggish. I have mine attached to an LG Ultrafine 4K monitor, and when I do Exposé or switch between workspaces, I definitely notice the slow down. I don’t have a MacBook Pro, but from what others have been saying, it doesn’t have this problem. If your usage is mainly attached to an external display, then it’s possible that the MacBook Pro is a better fit for you.

Which MacBook? Anyone have a demo video of this? I'm curious.
Any difference between the 2015, 2016, and 2017 models? I'm thinking there might be.
Any difference between the 2017 8 GB and the 2017 16 GB? I'm thinking there won't be.

The Exposé slowdown can be annoying (as I've noticed with my old machines with multi-monitor), but ultimately it's a pretty minor annoyance.

FWIW, 1440p external screens are fine with my 2017 MacBook 16 GB in my limited experience, but 1440p is a heluvalot easier to drive than 4K 2160p.

 

[blackberrycubed]

Just got the MB i7, 16gb , 256gb CTO. Smooth as butter.

what resolution do you run it at eugw?

 

[EugW]

Just got the MB i7, 16gb , 256gb CTO. Smooth as butter.

what resolution do you run it at eugw?

1152x720 usually but if I desire more space then 1280x800.

Interestingly, 1152x720 was the default for the 2015 but 1280x800 is the default for the 2017. The screen is the same.

I like 1152x720 because the default text size is larger.

 

[blackberrycubed]

1152x720 usually but if I desire more space then 1280x800.

Interestingly, 1152x720 was the default for the 2015 but 1280x800 is the default for the 2017. The screen is the same.

I like 1152x720 because the default text size is larger.

same res I use as well! also perfect 2x scaling, extra crisp and no stutter.

 

[waquzy]

1152x720 usually but if I desire more space then 1280x800.

Interestingly, 1152x720 was the default for the 2015 but 1280x800 is the default for the 2017. The screen is the same.

I like 1152x720 because the default text size is larger.

Seriously guys? Am I the only one using the 1440x900, anything below that, just don't look as good or crisp.

 

[EugW]

Seriously guys? Am I the only one using the 1440x900, anything below that, just don't look as good or crisp.

1152x720 / 2304x1440 would be the most crisp as it is the native resolution.

Because it is a Retina screen, 1440x900 looks fine too, but for me it is too squint inducing. The default size for text and OS elements is too small for usual UI ergonomics. That said, it is dependent on what you do and your own preferences. Furthermore, software these days often can scale up better than in previous years, so it also is dependent upon the software used.

 

[mj_]

Seriously guys? Am I the only one using the 1440x900, anything below that, just don't look as good or crisp.

Definitely not the only one. For me personally, anything below 1440x900 is too large. Plus I really need the screen real estate. I run my 5K iMac at the highest of the five default settings, my 12" MacBook at the highest of the four default settings, and used to do the same with my 13" and 15" MBP.

Oh, and FYI: even the 2016 13" nTB MBP and the 2015 15" MBP (AMD R9) tended to get sluggish with Expose on external HiRes 4K displays so that certainly ain't limited to the 12" MacBook.

 

[sosumi99]

Which MacBook? Anyone have a demo video of this? I'm curious..

I have the 2016 i5. Since I use Exposé as my main method of Window management, it’s quite annoying.