See one in person and you will want it.
This is coming from someone with a brand new 2015 13" pro
This is coming from someone with a brand new 2015 13" pro
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mid-Range 1.2 GHz Retina MacBook CPU Shows Nice Speed Boost Over Low-End Model
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The target audience of this Mac are people like my mom, whose most intense task they do with it is updating the OS
I'd wager that this thing is up to the task for what 90% of the entire computer user base uses computers for.
while you're busy playing angry birds on your ipad air, the rest of us are doing actual work on our actual full desktop OS X.
EDIT: my bad, thought you were talking about the ipad air. i was really confused at how you could compare a tablet to a full desktop os laptop. now it all makes sense
Last edited:
The target audience of this Mac are people like my mom, whose most intense task they do with it is updating the OS
I can't get any of the non-tech savvy people I know to update anything on their computer, OS or apps. They're highly resistant to change.
Its for someone who wants a small laptop with a better screen than the crap on the air. An iPad and a laptop are two very different things. The power comparison for the air is null because this isn't for someone requiring power but for someone that goes online, does some word processing. Too many people think that just because its aa new product it needs to fit their needs.
For what I want which is to have something portable and lightweight to bring to class or be able to use around the house it is perfect. I don't like bringing my 15 inch everywhere and I had purchased an 11 inch air but the screen wasn't all that good and it was wobbly on flat surfaces. Even after 2 exchanges the same issue was occuring.
Im tired of people hating on this because its not power hungry. Please most people don't need half the power they pretend to need other than being able to brag about it on the internet. That wasn't intended at you by the way just in general
I don't get it either and I'm theoretically the target market for this machine (enough disposable income, travels often, generally keeps more than one machine). The only thing there that's an upgrade from my 2012 MBA is the screen. The weight is darn close to the same, the keyboard on my MBA is better, the processor on my MBA is more powerful.
I do think, in a few years, the following devices in this line will be really great.
The screen is exactly why so many of us ordered the new Macbook. I wanted a tiny, portable companion to my 15" rMBP. I tried the 11" Macbook Air, but I returned it, because the screen was awful. The new Macbook is smaller than the 11" Air, but with a larger, much better screen, which is exactly what I wanted.
I am pretty worried about that overclocking. The fact that there is no fan, combined with the fact that the one that is overclocked less is showing disproportionately higher scores in the multi core benchmark lead me to believe that heat is causing the base CPU to throttle back when pushed which is very worrisome
No.
Even if this does what you want as is, for the same price it would be better value if it had more ports, was lighter, had a better screen, a bigger drive etc etc….
Just because it does what you want doesn’t mean it’s good, (or bad), value. It just means you’re prepared to pay the asking price.
Geekbench scores are misleading. This CPU Upgrad looks good on paper, but it doesnt help very much in more realistic scenarios. Techblogs found out that every Core M model starts to throttle after 2min under heavy loads. In the worst case you can use the extra power from the BTO CPU Upgrade only for a few seconds until it slows down to stay in its thermal profil.
I was wondering about this. Would be nice if benchmarks could also use real word scenarios;
Time to export some photos to X format.
Time to produce PDF from X document.
Time to convert movie to X format.
..and so on and so on.
Huh?
Define "heavy loads", please.
It feels like us nerds on Macrumors are upset that Final Cut Pro won't work well on this and I really can't understand why.
Do we really think most people looking for the smallest, lightest notebook possible also expect to run high-end graphic programs (well) on it?
Define "heavy loads", please.
It feels like us nerds on Macrumors are upset that Final Cut Pro won't work well on this and I really can't understand why.
Do we really think most people looking for the smallest, lightest notebook possible also expect to run high-end graphic programs (well) on it?
Close, but no cigar. Even a 2.6 GHz Pentium 4 only scored 633, so you're probably looking at around 500 for your 2 GHz thing. On single-threaded tasks, that would make this MacBook five times as fast; on two threads, well over ten times.
But, yeah, your CPU would be way faster at one thing: racking up your power bill.
I'm glad it works for some people. I'd hate for Apple to get the idea that no one wants a super-lightweight machine with a small form factor (we do, we do!). I'll be happy to buy down the line, once Apple adds another port (so we can charge and use a peripheral at the same time) and gives it a bit more power.
I'd say that makes the 1.2 GHz the sweet spot in the lineup.
$300 for a noticeable performance increase and double the storage seems reasonable.
It'll be interesting to see how it evolves - if it follows the arc of the MBA it should get better and better.
$300 for a noticeable performance increase and double the storage seems reasonable.
It'll be interesting to see how it evolves - if it follows the arc of the MBA it should get better and better.
what macbook did you end up getting, im essentially in the same position. Leaning towards just getting the 1.1
I was really happy to see most reviews said the keyboard felt different but easy to get used to. Glad to see normal average users like yourself saying the same too. Can't wait for mine to arrive!
This is one point. It’s relative, needs to be compared to what is out there. Ultimately you’ll buy if it does what you want/looks how you want whether it’s worth it or not. The Edition watch is terrible value, (IMO).
I suppose what something costs is an absolute. What something is worth is not the same.