Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacBook Pro mid-2014 vs MacBook Pro early-2015

L

LarryGreen35

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Mar 21, 2015
1
0
Hello Everyone,

I am considering buying a Macbook Pro and have the opportunity to get the previous version (MacBook Pro mid-2014) around 300 Euros (in Europe) cheaper than the newest version (MacBook Pro early-2015). Which one would you get if you were me? I know that the new MBP has new processor chipset as well as better I/O. Do they all really worth 300 Euros considering I will do typing, programming and gaming from time to time?

I cannot decide at the moment and appreciate your help.
enjoy you weekend.

Larry G.
 
gaming will suck on both of them
typing - what software?
programming - what software?
 
LarryGreen35 said:
Hello Everyone,

I am considering buying a Macbook Pro and have the opportunity to get the previous version (MacBook Pro mid-2014) around 300 Euros (in Europe) cheaper than the newest version (MacBook Pro early-2015). Which one would you get if you were me? I know that the new MBP has new processor chipset as well as better I/O. Do they all really worth 300 Euros considering I will do typing, programming and gaming from time to time?

I cannot decide at the moment and appreciate your help.
enjoy you weekend.

Larry G.
Click to expand...

You need to get the new model if you're doing the gaming and programming gig. That Iris 6100 is going to have your back.

Everybody else needs to get the 2014 and put that extra cash in their pocket.
 
Hieveryone said:
You need to get the new model if you're doing the gaming and programming gig. That Iris 6100 is going to have your back.

Everybody else needs to get the 2014 and put that extra cash in their pocket.
Click to expand...

The 6100 is a minor upgrade to the 5100.

Would you pay €300 for an extra 3-4 fps?

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Graphics-5100.91977.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Graphics-6100.125591.0.html

A couple of games have been tested with both - like skyrim, which depending on the settings gets no more than 4 fps more (and still a rather pathetic FPS figure).
 
Brian Y said:
The 6100 is a minor upgrade to the 5100.



Would you pay €300 for an extra 3-4 fps?



http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Graphics-5100.91977.0.html

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Graphics-6100.125591.0.html



A couple of games have been tested with both - like skyrim, which depending on the settings gets no more than 4 fps more (and still a rather pathetic FPS figure).
Click to expand...




And yet in the same links you provided they have a graphics card classification system with class 1 being the best for gaming. The Intel iris 6100 is classified as "class 2" meaning "Mid-Range Graphics Cards - With these GPUs you are able to play modern and demanding games fluently at medium detail settings and HD resolution."

And the Intel iris 5100 is classified as "class 3" meaning "Low-Midrange Graphics Cards - Modern games should be playable with these graphics cards at low settings and resolutions. Casual gamers may be happy with these cards."

So there is a noticeable improvement according to your link for the 6100 in the broadwell chips to be classified in a better performing "class" than the 5100 that's found in the older haswell chips.
 
You can "classify" them however you want. Whatever "category" it's in, it only gets an extra 4fps max.

You didn't answer my question - would you pay €300 for 4fps?

Thought not.
 
Brian Y said:
The 6100 is a minor upgrade to the 5100.

Would you pay €300 for an extra 3-4 fps?

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Graphics-5100.91977.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Iris-Graphics-6100.125591.0.html

A couple of games have been tested with both - like skyrim, which depending on the settings gets no more than 4 fps more (and still a rather pathetic FPS figure).
Click to expand...

Didn't see that the notebookcheck benchmarks were out for the 6100. Yup a really minuscule increase over there. Let's compound this with the fact that the ram saw a slight bump in speeds, the 6100 really seems to be almost a non-upgrade.

This makes me wonder how much better the 6200 will perform vs the 5200. I remember intel quoting a 40-50% improvement in their top end GPU sometime last year, but if the performance improvement is anything like the 5100->6100, i'd be more pessimistic.

----------
diesel said:
And yet in the same links you provided they have a graphics card classification system with class 1 being the best for gaming. The Intel iris 6100 is classified as "class 2" meaning "Mid-Range Graphics Cards - With these GPUs you are able to play modern and demanding games fluently at medium detail settings and HD resolution."

And the Intel iris 5100 is classified as "class 3" meaning "Low-Midrange Graphics Cards - Modern games should be playable with these graphics cards at low settings and resolutions. Casual gamers may be happy with these cards."

So there is a noticeable improvement according to your link for the 6100 in the broadwell chips to be classified in a better performing "class" than the 5100 that's found in the older haswell chips.
Click to expand...

Dude, those classifications are more qualitative than anything and they don't have a strict criteria - there are times where some old GPUs that used to be top game are left in class 1 etc.

Take a look at the numbers that the other user has posted and you'll see what he means.
 
Maybe the new graphics card is better for the high resolution screen, so it will have less lag than the previous model.
 
I have both the Iris 5100 (Macbook Pro 2013) and the Iris 6100 (Macbook Pro 2015)

Playing League of Legends at 1650 resolution the Macbook Pro 2015 is very playable with frame rates around 56 on medium. The older Macbook Pro 2013 is not playable at that resolution.

The difference is fairly significant
 
I have both the Iris 5100 (Macbook Pro 2013) and the Iris 6100 (Macbook Pro 2015

The difference is fairly significant
Click to expand...

#FutureDancer: what is your opinion/observation on battery life - 2013 vs 2015. I have MBPr 13 2013 and consider updating now (I think I will pull the trigger on Wednesday :cool:). But I only need more battery life... CPU power is ok for me.
 
lobo1978 said:
#FutureDancer: what is your opinion/observation on battery life - 2013 vs 2015. I have MBPr 13 2013 and consider updating now (I think I will pull the trigger on Wednesday :cool:). But I only need more battery life... CPU power is ok for me.
Click to expand...


Good time to ask me. I'm on battery on it now. I've been on it for 3 hours on medium use and have at least 5 hours to go. With screen dimmed though reads 8 hours.

I think its a bit longer than the 2013 MBPr. Keep in mind i have a core i7 in the 2015 model and a core i5 in the 2013. So thats really good
 
FutureDancer said:
Good time to ask me. I'm on battery on it now. I've been on it for 3 hours on medium use and have at least 5 hours to go. With screen dimmed though reads 8 hours.

I think its a bit longer than the 2013 MBPr. Keep in mind i have a core i7 in the 2015 model and a core i5 in the 2013. So thats really good
Click to expand...

Super, thanks a lot!
 
6100 is a minor improvement over the 5100 despite the "extra 1000" in the naming convention. It is not a new chipset, simply a minor refresh of an existing chipset. Skylake will bring the big jump in GPU. To me, it simply isn't worth getting a 2015 model if you can save $300 on a 2014. We're talking .1 MHz in processor speed, a few FPS in GPU speed, and Force Touch.
 
Kendo said:
6100 is a minor improvement over the 5100 despite the "extra 1000" in the naming convention. It is not a new chipset, simply a minor refresh of an existing chipset. Skylake will bring the big jump in GPU. To me, it simply isn't worth getting a 2015 model if you can save $300 on a 2014. We're talking .1 MHz in processor speed, a few FPS in GPU speed, and Force Touch.
Click to expand...

I don't know why people say that. I have both a 2013 Haswell Iris 5100 Macbook Pro 13 here and the new 2015 Iris 6100 Broadwell Macbook Pro 13.

If i play League of Legends. The 2015 Macbook Pro is easily playable at a decent resolution 1650 and maintains around 56 fps. The older Macbook isn't playable at that resolution. In large team fights it grounds to a halt.

In terms of playability 6100 is playable 5100 is not.
 
yangchewren said:
Didn't see that the notebookcheck benchmarks were out for the 6100. Yup a really minuscule increase over there. Let's compound this with the fact that the ram saw a slight bump in speeds, the 6100 really seems to be almost a non-upgrade.



This makes me wonder how much better the 6200 will perform vs the 5200. I remember intel quoting a 40-50% improvement in their top end GPU sometime last year, but if the performance improvement is anything like the 5100->6100, i'd be more pessimistic.

----------





Dude, those classifications are more qualitative than anything and they don't have a strict criteria - there are times where some old GPUs that used to be top game are left in class 1 etc.



Take a look at the numbers that the other user has posted and you'll see what he means.
Click to expand...




Yes qualitative. Unless you used both the haswell based 5100 and the broadwell based 6100 and played the same games you will simply not know the difference. I can play the same games at higher graphics settings on the 2015 that I couldn't necessarily play at the same setting on my previous 2014 mid year rMBP. So the improvement is noticeable and significant for my use.
 
diesel said:
Yes qualitative. Unless you used both the haswell based 5100 and the broadwell based 6100 and played the same games you will simply not know the difference. I can play the same games at higher graphics settings on the 2015 that I couldn't necessarily play at the same setting on my previous 2014 mid year rMBP. So the improvement is noticeable and significant for my use.
Click to expand...

Your explanation is equally plausible and may actually address a root issue.

We can see a variety of factors in play with mobile integrated graphics - throttling, speed of shared ram etc. And this also brings up a problem with mobile graphics benchmarking on NBC, we see absolute numbers like mean FPS, but little information on variance or sensitivity of variance to duration of running the laptop.

So while these are measurable quantities - we either don't have reviewers with the necessary tools, time or skill to benchmark our hardware. The anecdote may tell us a greater story than a single benchmark - but I'm curious why there isn't a "Broadwell MBP gaming thread" so everyone could gather their experiences.
 
LarryGreen35 said:
Hello Everyone,

I am considering buying a Macbook Pro and have the opportunity to get the previous version (MacBook Pro mid-2014) around 300 Euros (in Europe) cheaper than the newest version (MacBook Pro early-2015). Which one would you get if you were me? I know that the new MBP has new processor chipset as well as better I/O. Do they all really worth 300 Euros considering I will do typing, programming and gaming from time to time?

I cannot decide at the moment and appreciate your help.
enjoy you weekend.

Larry G.
Click to expand...
Depends. What games? How often? Typing and programming should make no difference and 300Euros is a lot of money? If you can afford it go for the new one but unless there is a game that is significantly better on a 2015 why spend the extra cash?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back