MBP 13” i5 2015 vs MB m7. Huge performance gap right?

[slandy]

So I just bought a refurbished MBP 13” i5 2015 with 16GB RAM and 256GB. I know WWDC is around the corner but judging from the initial MB 2016 prices, to get the new MBP with 16GB of RAM would probably cost too much for me.

However I was tempted to get the MB 2016 m7 because it was similar in price and I really appreciate the thin design. Also the one port situation doesn’t bother me. My question.. Is there a huge difference in performance between these two machines? This would be my primary workstation so I opted for the MBP but if performance is very similar, I’ll probably return it and get the MB m7.

 

[snaky69]

So I just bought a refurbished MBP 13” i5 2015 with 16GB RAM and 256GB. I know WWDC is around the corner but judging from the initial MB 2016 prices, to get the new MBP with 16GB of RAM would probably cost too much for me.

However I was tempted to get the MB 2016 m7 because it was similar in price and I really appreciate the thin design. Also the one port situation doesn’t bother me. My question.. Is there a huge difference in performance between these two machines? This would be my primary workstation so I opted for the MBP but if performance is very similar, I’ll probably return it and get the MB m7.

I'm not sure what you mean by MB m7, but if you're speaking of the MacBook, it's nowhere near the power of a MBP. Not even close.

But since you didn't mention what you actually do with a computer, whether that power is enough for you is anybody's guess.

 

[cpt2hearts]

Stick with what you have.

 

[Howard2k]

At a sprint the performance isn't a world apart I don't think. The Macbook has faster SSD and faster memory doesn't it? The processor burst is quite decent too on the m7.

The big question is whether the processor can sustain the burst, and with no active cooling it's probably not realistic to think that it can. So for "brief" bursts, yeah it's probably close. For sustained heavy lifting, it would not be.

I don't have specific stats on hand though so take that for what it's worth.

 

[venom600]

I'm not sure what you mean by MB m7, but if you're speaking of the MacBook, it's nowhere near the power of a MBP. Not even close.

First, he means the M7 processor in the Macbook. You can get a Core m5 or Core m7 in the Macbook now, just like you can get a Core i5 or Core i7 in the Macbook pro.

Second, you're wrong. I was rather surprised to see that the Core m7 in the Macbook is within spitting distance of the 3.1Ghz Core i7 in the Macbook Pro. The geekbench multicore tests on Barefeats put the m7 at roughly 6700 and the i7 at roughly 7600. Single core scores are within 10-15% of each other. That means the m7 Macbook is probably roughly (close enough for government work) as fast as the i5 Macbook Pro. It becomes a very appealing package given that news.

 

[snaky69]

First, he means the M7 processor in the Macbook. You can get a Core m5 or Core m7 in the Macbook now, just like you can get a Core i5 or Core i7 in the Macbook pro.

Second, you're wrong. I was rather surprised to see that the Core m7 in the Macbook is within spitting distance of the 3.1Ghz Core i7 in the Macbook Pro. The geekbench multicore tests on Barefeats put the m7 at roughly 6700 and the i7 at roughly 7600. Single core scores are within 10-15% of each other. That means the m7 Macbook is probably roughly (close enough for government work) as fast as the i5 Macbook Pro. It becomes a very appealing package given that news.

And from what I've read the passive cooling disallow it from sustaining that performance for very long.

 

[venom600]

And from what I've read the passive cooling disallow it from sustaining that performance for very long.

Crap. You're right. I remember reading that even the miserable performance of the first Macbook was difficult to sustain due to throttling.

 

[Merkie]

Crap. You're right. I remember reading that even the miserable performance of the first Macbook was difficult to sustain due to throttling.

It's the other way around actually. Performance is considered miserable because it's hard to sustain the performance. Burst performance is not bad at all (even better with Skylake). Benchmarks don't give a fair representation of daily use performance (which typically consists of burst load, unless you're rendering, video editing or gaming) because of the throttling.