Macbook Pro's are still super slow in 2017

UBS28

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Oct 2, 2012
1,176
412
My 15" 2010 MBP -> My 2013 15" Haswell Retina Macbook Pro = 3 times faster

My 2013 15" Haswell Retina Macbook Pro -> 2017 15" Retina Macbook Pro = 11% faster.

That is really an amazing progress after almost 4 years. I obviously won't bother upgrading with these kind of snail step improvements.

At some point, the iPad Pro will start to become more powerful than the 15" rMBP with these kind of tiny improvements every year.
 

PBG4 Dude

macrumors 68030
Jul 6, 2007
2,770
1,976
You can check geekbench. No progress after 4 years while the jump from my 2010 15 MBP was huge.
Was your 2010 model tested before or after you replaced HDD with SSD? I would hope a SSD-equipped machine would run circles around any HDD equipped machine. The lack of latency (don't have to wait for that part of the platter to be under the head), and increased throughput of an SSD would dramatically increase the speed of any process that needs to access long term storage.
 

UBS28

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Oct 2, 2012
1,176
412
Was your 2010 model tested before or after you replaced HDD with SSD? I would hope a SSD-equipped machine would run circles around any HDD equipped machine. The lack of latency (don't have to wait for that part of the platter to be under the head), and increased throughput of an SSD would dramatically increase the speed of any process that needs to access long term storage.
What does that have to do with the CPU performance?

And yes, my 2010 MBP was fully upgraded with a 512 GB Samsung SSD ofcourse.
 

TMRJIJ

macrumors 68040
Dec 12, 2011
3,233
5,379
South Carolina, United States
What does that have to do with the CPU performance?

And yes, my 2010 MBP was fully upgraded with a 512 GB Samsung SSD ofcourse.
HDD/SSD performance contribute to overall performance. It's not just the CPU that keep the Macs running fast. This also includes RAM amount, RAM type, Graphics performance, etc. In addition to that, Intel no longer does the tick-tock cycle with these CPUs. We've hit a point where processors are being made for efficiency (both in Power and size), not Speed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BeatCrazy

AFEPPL

macrumors 68030
Sep 30, 2014
2,644
1,570
England
Looks like 50% increase vs 2011 and 108% vs 2010 to me.
4642 for i7-7920HQ (2017)
4161 for i7-6920 (2013) (11%)
3093 for i7-2820QM
2229 for i7-620M

How big a jump do you want/need?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trubbles

UBS28

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Oct 2, 2012
1,176
412
HDD/SSD performance contribute to overall performance. It's not just the CPU that keep the Macs running fast. This also includes RAM amount, RAM type, Graphics performance, etc. In addition to that, Intel no longer does the tick-tock cycle with these CPUs. We've hit a point where processors are being made for efficiency (both in Power and size), not Speed.
Then the iPad Pro will become more powerful than the 15" Macbook Pro at some point as they are making big performance gains.
[doublepost=1502221002][/doublepost]
Looks like 50% increase vs 2011 and 108% vs 2010 to me.
4642 for i7-7920HQ (2017)
4161 for i7-6920 (2013) (11%)
3093 for i7-2820QM
2229 for i7-620M

How big a jump do you want/need?
My 2013 15" Haswell does 13794
The 2017 15" 2.9 rMBP does 15293.

That is not a big jump Over almost 4 years.
 

simonsi

macrumors 601
Jan 3, 2014
4,850
734
Auckland
Then the iPad Pro will become more powerful than the 15" Macbook Pro at some point as they are making big performance gains.
Even if true, why exactly is that a problem? Are you having a bragging rights problem or expect one? ;-)

Unless you are doing huge (in human timescale terms), CPU intensive tasks then the overall experience speed for most users is limited by the user, not the technology, hence development is being routed into different areas us humans will see a benefit from, eg better battery life through lower power consumption...
 

AFEPPL

macrumors 68030
Sep 30, 2014
2,644
1,570
England
So multi core then..
I'm seeing 7920 at 15611, so 13%

But q is still the same, what is it you need/want?
Does your existing or new one not do what you need?

I'm typing this on a 12.9G2 iPad and the experience is so slow/poor. The performance regardless of what GB says makes no real difference. In fact I've not notciced other than the refresh rate any performance benifits on the pro.
 

lobo1978

macrumors 6502
Sep 22, 2011
372
248
Why blame Apple? It is Intel play as a monopolist on CPU market.
That is why Apple IS developing CPU/GPU to replace Intel crap in their desktop/laptops within 2-3 years tops. IMO it is inevitable they will use their own solutions to get the edge over the competition. They have reached peak performance gain with super-fast SSD. Now they optimize software to gain even more for slides in the next WWDC.

This will be a killer move as neither Dell nor Samsung can afford to develop their own CPU/GPU solutions - they are not so focused (and rich) as Apple.

I look forward to the future!
 

Nik

macrumors 6502a
Jun 3, 2007
615
930
Germany
I just keep my older MBP and let others buy the overpriced stuff. Letting them finance the future stuff in the years to come. Then upgrade a few years later when it really matters. Let the early adopters pay the premium and then upgrade when issues with the new machines are gone. Sounds like a good strategy I think :)

Just figure out if you really _need_ something or if you just strive for something new for the sake of having something new. I just buy less expensive new stuff in the meantime until I really _need_ to upgrade. Get as much work out of the MBP as you possibly can and be happy that you still got a very nice machine after several years.

I spent a fraction of the MBP 2017 upgrade money on new headphones as an example. This way I got something new to be happy with and can wait longer. Even saving a lot of money in the process.
 

UBS28

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Oct 2, 2012
1,176
412
So multi core then..
I'm seeing 7920 at 15611, so 13%

But q is still the same, what is it you need/want?
Does your existing or new one not do what you need?

I'm typing this on a 12.9G2 iPad and the experience is so slow/poor. The performance regardless of what GB says makes no real difference. In fact I've not notciced other than the refresh rate any performance benifits on the pro.
I want a worthy upgrade for my 15" Macbook Pro ofcourse. But looks like I will keep using it for an other 4 years unless it dies earlier or when there will finally be a big upgrade in CPU performance.

My 12.9 iPad Pro was never meaned to replace my Macbook Pro. It's just something on the side as I found the screen of my iPad Air 2 a bit too small.
 

UBS28

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Oct 2, 2012
1,176
412
Even if true, why exactly is that a problem? Are you having a bragging rights problem or expect one? ;-)

Unless you are doing huge (in human timescale terms), CPU intensive tasks then the overall experience speed for most users is limited by the user, not the technology, hence development is being routed into different areas us humans will see a benefit from, eg better battery life through lower power consumption...
These 2017 Macbook Pro have the same 10 hours battery life rating by Apple. What lower power consumption are you talking about?
 
  • Like
Reactions: joefoong79

JoelTheSuperior

macrumors 6502
Feb 10, 2014
379
249
London, UK
Not really sure what you point is. This is true of the computer industry in general - the fact is that CPUs simply aren't advancing in performance as quickly as they once were. The biggest gains, performance wise, has been graphics, but the reality is we're pretty much at the limits of what current silicon technology will allow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: willmtaylor

mr.bee

macrumors 6502a
May 24, 2007
710
425
Brussels, belgium
For the last decade, you shouldn't buy a new computer for a faster processor (or even more RAM)

You buy a new macbook pro because
* better screen
* better graphics
* higher overal performance (better SSD,..)
* smaller/lighter
* better battery
* gimmicks like touchid, unlock with apple watch...
* and very important: connections, yes everyone mocks the USB-C/thunderbolt decision from Apple, but these connections will be very powerful in the nearby future, eGPU anyone?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Closingracer

davygee

macrumors member
Oct 9, 2015
74
30
Saltcoats, UK
Is this just a noticeable small difference with the i7 chips?

Looking at the i5 chips in the 13" models, we are seeing a difference in multicore scores from 5663 in 2013 to 8955 in 2017, so thats a 58% increase in speed.

What is apparent, is that we haven't been seeing the gains in recent years, compared to what we did some 5-10 years ago.
 

ashleykaryl

macrumors 6502
Jul 22, 2011
268
52
UK
I picked up a 13" i7 3.5GHZ MBP for my daughter this week and must admit I expected better performance. A couple tests at video encoding and some heavy lifting in Photoshop suggest it's about 50% slower than my mid 2010 Mac Pro.

That doesn't make the laptop horribly slow by any means, but it has taken the shine off getting a laptop replacement when the Mac Pro eventually dies. Given the price of these laptops, I really expected it to be well ahead after 7 years. Perhaps it's not a fair comparison, but people tend to roll their eyes if I mention the Mac Pro, as if I'm using a slow old relic.
 

KGB7

Suspended
Jun 15, 2017
925
749
Rockville, MD
My 15" 2010 MBP -> My 2013 15" Haswell Retina Macbook Pro = 3 times faster

My 2013 15" Haswell Retina Macbook Pro -> 2017 15" Retina Macbook Pro = 11% faster.

That is really an amazing progress after almost 4 years. I obviously won't bother upgrading with these kind of snail step improvements.

At some point, the iPad Pro will start to become more powerful than the 15" rMBP with these kind of tiny improvements every year.
I trade you my 5-year-old Dell for your 2017 MBP....i'll even pay for shipping.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.