Maxed out 13” TB bad value?

[JPizzzle]

Hey guys,

So I’m wondering if it makes sense for me to pickup a maxed out 13” vs a maxed out 15” (1TB not 2Tb) for my purposes. I will be using the laptop for amateur raw photo editing as an amateur (Sony A7R level files) on LR, some amateur 4K video editing on FCP, and the usual office suite. I picked the 13” for portability and ease of use on the couch bed etc, but the price difference between the 13” and 15” with my discounts is about $500. Is it really rational to pick the 13” in this situation when the 15” isn’t far off in price (relatively speaking since I’m already spending $$$).

 

[Abaganov]

13 vs 15 is a long debate, there are many mac users (including myself) that simply rater the 13" form factor better then the 15" even if they were in the exact same price.

It's true that if you max out the 13 TB it's about the same price more or less as the more powerful 15"
but ask yourself , what device will serve you better? (and do you really need that extra CPU/GPU power the 15 will give you?)

for me and many others - the 13" is the pick.

love the portability of the 13 , don't need the quad core processor or the dedicated graphic card,

from a design point of view - the 13 is stunning , looks like a piece of art that is complete , while the 15 looks like it's not in the right proportions, the trackpad is comical and absurdly huge. something just doesn't sit right with the built for me. (it's still much better then any windows laptop.. we are talking apple standards here)

The only real reason for me really consider the 15" is the extra screen real estate, but when I use my MBP to do actual work I am always connecting it to an external monitor in any case so doesn't really matter al that much.

 

[ZapNZs]

It is a bad value in a sense that each of the 13-inch CPU upgrades involve a substantial price investment for only limited returns in CPU/GPU performance, and by the time you spec it out the price is not much difference from the 15, with its much greater processing and graphics power.

It is a good value in a sense that, if a maxed out 13 fits your personal needs/preferences well, it will enable you to perform your work as you desire.

(If pricing permits) Have you considered the possibility of a 15-inch + either a MacBook or iPad Pro? Right now I'm using a 15 MBP + base rMB, with the 15 inch being mainly connected in the same location to my TB2 dock and two externals, and the 12 inch being my mobile/on the couch/on the bed machine. I am really digging the setup. (Surprisingly, the rMB is capable of many of the workflows once only the MBP could handle - this includes 4k editing.)

 

[jerryk]

Unless you need a system right now I would hesitate to put money into the existing 13" systems. Intel has already announced the quad core processors that will replace the 13" NTB dual core unit's. And the higher performance quad core for the 13" TB should be announced soon.

As far as the 13" vs 15, I could not imagine using a 13" on Lightroom. I find the 15" pretty restrictive and usually wait to couple it to an external monitor.

 

[JPizzzle]

Unless you need a system right now I would hesitate to put money into the existing 13" systems. Intel has already announced the quad core processors that will replace the 13" NTB dual core unit's. And the higher performance quad core for the 13" TB should be announced soon.

As far as the 13" vs 15, I could not imagine using a 13" on Lightroom. I find the 15" pretty restrictive and usually wait to couple it to an external monitor.

Wow quad core on a 13” would be great. I don’t NEED one right now so maybe I will hold out for the next update. Thanks

 

[JesterAZ]

I just couldn't handle the, ahem, girth, of the 15" at any rate. My usage dictates I'll not need the quad core.

So 13" it is. I'm more of a regular MacBook user, however I wanted a bit of future proofing, so I went MBP, 16gig of ram, 256gig HD.

I couldn't be happier with it's performance.

DO NOT USE CHROME.

 

[andy9l]

Wow quad core on a 13” would be great. I don’t NEED one right now so maybe I will hold out for the next update. Thanks

Based on the past several years of computer hardware sold to the public, the performance boost will be 10-20%. Just as it is every year.

It makes absolutely zero sense for a business (Intel, Apple or any other manufacturer) to release a mass-produced product that has a huge performance boost over its predecessors. Especially in such a well established product line (i.e. "laptops"). It would crush customer trust/loyalty, and massively reduce return customer frequency for several years from that point whilst software caught up. But above all, it would have to be matched year-on-year.

If you need one now, buy one now. If you don't, there will always be a better model just round the corner.

 

[Jamalogo10]

I bought a nTB and maxed it out. I've got 16gb of ram, an i7, and 512 ssd. I came from a 15" to a 13" and haven't looked back once. The screen size of the 13" is more than adequate and never feels "too small".

This year we were offered a much bigger jump in performance than anyone expected. The 15in model got an incremental boost while the 13" saw it's biggest jump since the introduction of the unibody. We're talking a 20-25% performance increase as measured by geekbench.

My scores: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3468305

 

[ilikewhey]

Based on the past several years of computer hardware sold to the public, the performance boost will be 10-20%. Just as it is every year.

It makes absolutely zero sense for a business (Intel, Apple or any other manufacturer) to release a mass-produced product that has a huge performance boost over its predecessors. Especially in such a well established product line (i.e. "laptops"). It would crush customer trust/loyalty, and massively reduce return customer frequency for several years from that point whilst software caught up. But above all, it would have to be matched year-on-year.

If you need one now, buy one now. If you don't, there will always be a better model just round the corner.

it make absolute sense since amd has ryzen to the challenge. intel at this point doesn't have no choice but to release a quadcore for it's entry setup. otherwise they will be crushed by amd's ryzen.

 

[andy9l]

it make absolute sense since amd has ryzen to the challenge. intel at this point doesn't have no choice but to release a quadcore for it's entry setup. otherwise they will be crushed by amd's ryzen.

You didn't read my post. I am not disputing that they might be quad-core. The resulting performance boost, however, will not be any more significant than usual.

The new Ryzen mobile CPUs are said to outperform current AMD mobile CPUs by "up to 50%" by AMD themselves. AMD mobile CPUs currently underperform against Intel. Thus, performance boost is going to be incremental.

It will ALWAYS be this way. I don't understand how one can kid themselves that "this is the year". It hasn't been "the year" for the past 10, so why is it any different today - in an age of margins and efficiencies, not clock speeds.

It's going to be another incremental improvement. Slightly faster, slightly better battery, slightly cooler. Just like every year. Hold out if you wish.

The unfortunate truth is; for the vast, vast majority of customers, current CPU power is more than enough. What's not good enough is 5-6 hour battery life of decent usage. This is the biggest tech challenge of today. That's what they'll be looking solve.

A 20 hour battery life would sell like hot cakes in comparison with a 50% CPU jump. Apple isn't selling to the niche it once was, my friend.

 

[JPizzzle]

I don’t know much about CPU advancement, so excuse my ignorance, but why the assumption that quad core would only be an incremental upgrade from dual?

 

[andy9l]

I don’t know much about CPU advancement, so excuse my ignorance, but why the assumption that quad core would only be an incremental upgrade from dual?

You don't need to know about CPU advancement or any technical details

In almost any industry, if you launch a product that is a world away from the previous generation - especially a premium product only a few months old - customer dissatisfaction and mistrust will become a serious issue.

Furthermore, if the massive leap cannot be matched in the future iterations, they would be awfully received by the media and customers alike.

In technology, that poses some very serious cash flow risks for business. That's why we (consumers) are drip-fed technology advancements.

This is all just my opinion, of course. I could be completely wrong and the next MacBook Pro could suddenly bump performance by triple figure percentages. But history, combined with a basic understand of cash flow and 'business', would suggest otherwise.

Just take a look at the iPhone as a fantastic example of an incredibly lucrative and incremental product. It made Apple.

 

[ilikewhey]

intel's next gen cpu will mostly be 4 core for laptop. you're gonna see 30 percent performance, whether apple choose to use it or not its up to them, but knowing other vendors like hp, dell, lenovo, they will definitely will. thus slap around mbp in processing even more.

leaked benchmark is already suggesting intel breaking its norm.

https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...3SsdRqYniQtBjcEAFycaAoIJEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds

have you ever seen an i5 with hyperthreading technology before? i haven't. they are also breaking ranks with their quadcore i7 mainstream by making 6core to compete against ryzen.

roll back 10 years, going from i7 930 to i7 2600k, you see 10-15% increase in ipc
but because intel has been left uncheck for so long, you get 6600k-6700k with only 7% increase

your talking about consumer politic, but your forgetting intel used to make leaps and strives back in the old westmere and sandybridge period. and if anyone is known for making leaps is apple. just look at how controversial the new butterfly keyboard is.

 

[andy9l]

have you ever seen an i5 with hyperthreading technology before? i haven't. they are also breaking ranks with their quadcore i7 mainstream by making 6core to compete against ryzen.

All mobile i5 CPUs used in MacBooks have offered hyper-threading since at least 2011, possibly earlier.

MacBook Pro "Core i5" 2.3 13" Early 2011 / i5-2415M spec sheet

your talking about consumer politic, but your forgetting intel used to make leaps and strives back in the old westmere and sandybridge period. and if anyone is known for making leaps is apple. just look at how controversial the new butterfly keyboard is.

Again, you're missing the point. For the vast, vast majority of consumers - current clock speeds are beyond adequate. We are in the age of efficiency now in terms of CPU performance for the masses. Battery life is today's biggest tech challenge. There's no money in chasing higher clock speeds. The return on investment would be absolutely abysmal.

Remember, we're talking about a relatively cheap consumer laptop lineup here - not an expensive single-purpose desktop workstation.

 

[ilikewhey]

All mobile i5 CPUs used in MacBooks have offered hyper-threading since at least 2011, possibly earlier.

MacBook Pro "Core i5" 2.3 13" Early 2011 / i5-2415M spec sheet



Again, you're missing the point. For the vast, vast majority of consumers - current clock speeds are beyond adequate. We are in the age of efficiency now in terms of CPU performance for the masses. Battery life is today's biggest tech challenge. There's no money in chasing higher clock speeds. The return on investment would be absolutely abysmal.

Remember, we're talking about a relatively cheap consumer laptop lineup here - not an expensive single-purpose desktop workstation.

fair point, i forgot about the dual core i5 HT lineup.

 

[jobs.jdfournier]

Get the 13" for portability and an external GPU for performance at your desk. I use that now and greater support for it is coming in High Sierra update.

 

[Abaganov]

Get the 13" for portability and an external GPU for performance at your desk. I use that now and greater support for it is coming in High Sierra update.

got any recommendation for a good external GPU to go along with MBP?

 

[green86]

I bought a nTB and maxed it out. I've got 16gb of ram, an i7, and 512 ssd. I came from a 15" to a 13" and haven't looked back once. The screen size of the 13" is more than adequate and never feels "too small".

This year we were offered a much bigger jump in performance than anyone expected. The 15in model got an incremental boost while the 13" saw it's biggest jump since the introduction of the unibody. We're talking a 20-25% performance increase as measured by geekbench.

My scores: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3468305

LOL. You made a bad decision bro.

And I'm sorry, how is this a 25% increase:

MacBook Pro (13-inch Late 2016)
Intel Core i5-6360U @ 2.0 GHz (2 cores)
3639

MacBook Pro (13-inch Mid 2017)
Intel Core i5-7267U @ 3.1 GHz (2 cores)
4225

And on the high end:

MacBook Pro (13-inch Late 2016)
Intel Core i7-6567U @ 3.3 GHz (2 cores)
4027
MacBook Pro (13-inch Mid 2017)
Intel Core i7-7567U @ 3.5 GHz (2 cores)
4590
I'm not sure you know how Geekbench works.

 

[Jamalogo10]

LOL. You made a bad decision bro.

And I'm sorry, how is this a 25% increase:

MacBook Pro (13-inch Late 2016)
Intel Core i5-6360U @ 2.0 GHz (2 cores)
3639

MacBook Pro (13-inch Mid 2017)
Intel Core i5-7267U @ 3.1 GHz (2 cores)
4225

And on the high end:

MacBook Pro (13-inch Late 2016)
Intel Core i7-6567U @ 3.3 GHz (2 cores)
4027
MacBook Pro (13-inch Mid 2017)
Intel Core i7-7567U @ 3.5 GHz (2 cores)
4590
I'm not sure you know how Geekbench works.

TROLL ALERT:

Before you try to erroneously correct someone you should probably get your facts straight...
If you look ANYWHERE on the web, most mac journalist/websites are reporting a 20%(+) increase in performance. Yes, this is a rough estimate and real world numbers are hard to quantify but it's the best we got. The first computer you posted is a base 13" nTB 2016, but you're comparing Apples to Oranges. If you're going to compare computers you need to compare computers with identical specs. Why don't you throw the iMac in your comparison while you're at it.

Here are two nTB computers... that are the same configuration (1 year apart)

2016 13" nTB i7
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/4230074

Single Core - 4023 Multi Core - 7891




2017 13" nTB i7
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3468305

Single Core - 4898 Multi Core - 10009

In this comparison you're looking at a 26% performance increase. So my 20% claim seems to be quite a modest estimate. Before you tell me I made a bad decision do some research. The nTB I configured is currently Apple's best bargain when you consider performance, battery life, size, and aesthetics.

AND IF YOU REALLY NEED MORE PROOF WATCH THIS VIDEO: Start at 1:25

21% faster single core and 30% faster multi core, BRO.

your 11 likes out of your 366 comments tells the greater picture. Clearly you're just a troll.

 

[Falhófnir]

The lineup is masterfully crafted and priced specifically to upsell, with each next step up being more of a ‘no brainer’ than the last. Try it out starting from a base 13” ntb and ending up at the maxed out TB configuration...

 

[green86]

TROLL ALERT:

Before you try to erroneously correct someone you should probably get your facts straight...
If you look ANYWHERE on the web, most mac journalist/websites are reporting a 20%(+) increase in performance

In this comparison you're looking at a 26% performance increase. So my 20% claim seems to be quite a modest estimate. Before you tell me I made a bad decision do some research. The nTB I configured is currently Apple's best bargain when you consider performance, battery life, size, and aesthetics.

AND IF YOU REALLY NEED MORE PROOF WATCH THIS VIDEO: Start at 1:25

21% faster single core and 30% faster multi core, BRO.

your 11 likes out of your 366 comments tells the greater picture. Clearly you're just a troll.

Your claim was 25%, which isn't nearly accurate, and you know it. Your just wrong.

I'm not a troll, but if I see BS I'll call it out. If anything, your need to propagate misinformation would indicate that YOU are the troll.

You can't cherry pick random Geekbench scores, they are easily spoofed. Anyone with a few shreds knowledge would know that. But I understand you need to make yourself feel better about a terrible purchase.

A majority of my posts (nearly all of them in fact) came from a time before there was a 'like' system in place, but you wouldn't know that because your just a noob having joined this year. Yet a simple google search would yield this knowledge. You should try google, bro.

And I'll end on this, from your own video:

In what universe is this 25%? lol......

 

[green86]

I've already provided hard numbers from a source that aggregates Geekbench scores that there hasn't been that big of a jump this generation. I have no dog in this fight; I myself own a Kaby Lake 15". I gain nothing from proving you wrong, but you are. The question in this thread is if the current 13" nTB is a bad value when maxed out. It is. I'm sorry that you feel otherwise, but there is proof backing this up.

 

[Jamalogo10]

I got flagged for my last post and I don't feel like rewriting my entire post. The geek bench scores you posted aren't comparing apples to apples. 2016 i5 nTB vs 2017 i5 nTB etc.

Once again here are the scores comparing two identical computers 1 year apart skylake versus kaby.

Here are two nTB computers... that are the same configuration (1 year apart)

2016 13" nTB i7
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/4230074

Single Core - 4023 Multi Core - 7891

2017 13" nTB i7
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/3468305

Single Core - 4898 Multi Core - 10009


THE MOST FRUSTRATING PART ABOUT ALL OF THIS IS YOUR INCREDULOUS TONE IN ALLLLL OF YOUR POSTS.
So here is my big finale, you said, and I quote "in what world is this 25%" and my response is uhhh everyones? that the screenshot you took is comparing the BEST 2016 i7 TB to the BASE 2017 i5. You tried to manipulate the numbers and didn't catch your own mistake. So I'll leave it to others in this forum to pick up on it as well.




















Just so everyone is certain about this guy slamming everyones posts. I don't get how you could just ignore the video I posted...fast forward to another part... than try to slam me when you're comparing apples to oranges.

Please people, listen to the experts at 1:25 in this clip:

21% and 30% faster by geekbench as stated by professionals. I said 20-25% but for some reason you decided to take the higher number and yet 20-25 claim ended up being conservative haha. But okay....... in what world right?


I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

 

[tomdwan]

Exactly, i could make a case for any of the models.
Even if I just „need“ the basic nTB, I might end up with a maxed out 15“ !!! Because foor every small upgrade it‘s use another 250$...until it‘s 10*250...

The lineup is masterfully crafted and priced specifically to upsell, with each next step up being more of a ‘no brainer’ than the last. Try it out starting from a base 13” ntb and ending up at the maxed out TB configuration...

 

[sahnjuro]

Exactly, i could make a case for any of the models.
Even if I just „need“ the basic nTB, I might end up with a maxed out 15“ !!! Because foor every small upgrade it‘s use another 250$...until it‘s 10*250...

Couldn't agree more. I've held back from getting a new MBP because I found Apple's blatant effort at upsell offensive and insulting. Just hate giving more of my money to Apple when it only wants to do is take all of one's money it can.