My new 2.9Ghz i7 2016 MBP is only 10-15% faster than my 2013 2.3 Ghz i7. What?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by drvelocity, Nov 13, 2016.

  1. drvelocity macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    #1
  2. Skika macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    #2
    How much faster were you expecting it to be?
     
  3. jackoatmon macrumors 6502a

    jackoatmon

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    #3
    CPUs have plateaued. CPU advancements are now in size and heat reduction, not speed.

    It's not an important spec in the way it was 5-10 years ago.

    Now you should be looking at things like GPU, RAM speed, and most importantly, SSD speed.
     
  4. drvelocity thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    #4
    I guess I was hoping for at least 25-30%. Back in the day CPU speed would have doubled in a three year period. But yes CPU development has hit a wall in terms of computation power.

    At least the battery life should be improved.
     
  5. Deanster macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    #5
    Look at the release date - the chips are only two years apart, and Haswell was/is a damn fine CPU.

    Why has Apple delayed new MBP's for so long? This is exactly why - Intel is really struggling to move beyond the 14nm process, and while we live in an age of CPU-cycle superabundance, the days of 20%/year improvements are long gone on the desktop/laptop level.

    Still seems to be available in GPU's and mobile rigs, though.
     
  6. drvelocity, Nov 13, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2016

    drvelocity thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    #6
    That is crazy that the best CPU you can get in a Macbook was released 5 quarters ago. (Yes again I know this is Intel's fault.) If only AMD were able to put some pressure on Intel again..

    What's really weird to me is that the 2.9ghz clock speed should yield a 20% improvement over the 2.3ghz just from the .6ghz gain alone, let alone architectural improvements of which there apparently are none.
     
  7. MagicBoy macrumors 68040

    MagicBoy

    Joined:
    May 28, 2006
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #7
    You are comparing the base frequency (2.3GHz/2.9GHz), rather than the turbo (3.5GHz/3.8GHz). Most of the benchmark improvement is due to architecture, not the clock speed.
     
  8. monkeydax macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    #8
    Any idea what the performance upgrade would be then from the Base 2.6GHz to the 2015 2.5GHz? Would there be any loss of performance?
     
  9. monkeydax macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    #10
  10. fs454 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles / Boston
    #11
    It's nuts, I'm in the same boat coming from the late 2013 2.3ghz Haswell. I'm banking on the absolutely wild SSD speeds, faster RAM and Pro 460 to couple with that 15-20% CPU performance increase to produce a noticeably faster notebook day to day and in pro apps.

    If not, return policy's getting used.
     
  11. MICHAELSD macrumors 68040

    MICHAELSD

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #12
    I was debating starting a thread about my 15" 2012 2.3GHz i7 MacBook Pro being over 33% faster than a 13" 2016 i7 MacBook Pro base model. Was hoping to see some improvement out of the Touch Bar models, but I'm seeing less and less reason to upgrade. Honestly I mainly wanted the new display as I'm a stickler for any display improvements, but even that I wish was OLED for the price.
     
  12. MH01 Suspended

    MH01

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    #13
    One reason not to spend extra on the CPU upgrade , generally it's not worth the money
     
  13. killawat macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    #14
    That's to be expected. You're comparing a relatively recent top end quad core chip to a more recent but low power chip. If you want to see deltas, go back further years (2010 e.g.).
     
  14. MICHAELSD macrumors 68040

    MICHAELSD

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Location:
    NJ
    #15
    In 2012 I would have expected low-power chips to catch up to the new quad-core chip I was buying then. If you had asked me I probably would have said Apple would be able to build a MacBook Air as powerful as my 2012 MacBook Pro within 4-5 years. The MacBook has about half the performance though. Too bad.
     
  15. fokmik macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2016
    Location:
    USA
    #16
    In any pro app you will see performance over 20% because you are not using only the cpu. So better performance in a new light chassis with more battery usage is a go go
     
  16. StayPuft Suspended

    StayPuft

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    #17
    Which is why it's ridiculous they're not more focused on the GPU.
     
  17. Antairez macrumors regular

    Antairez

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    #18
    Intel is very disappointing these days, not being able to make a quad core cpu into the 28W product lines, performance boost is mediocre, power efficiency still has a long way to go as well (Apple will just reduce the battery size for every % of power efficiency that Intel managed to output, thus consumers really can't feel a big difference).
     
  18. NickPhamUK macrumors 6502

    NickPhamUK

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    #19
    This is not news, I've been preaching in every single thread, do not upgrade CPUs... You can go as far back as 2013 and CPU-wise, the MBP's performance are the same as that of the model today. Intel has been focusing on making the chips more power efficient than powerful nowadays...
     
  19. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
    #20
    Unfortunately no. The CPU uses less power yes, but, you know, thinner. Less battery, same battery life.

    [​IMG]
    "Make it thinner!" -John Ivy, recently.
     
  20. whg macrumors regular

    whg

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2012
    Location:
    Switzerland
    #21
    I have an ASUS Zenbook 15" with the i7-6700HQ and a MBPr 15" (2015) with the i7-4870HQ. I tested the runtime of a big Monte Carlo type simulation on both systems (Mac with Windows 10 in Bootcamp) and the newer processor was 5% faster. In another test I compared Matlab performance between both systems, this time the Mac on OS X. Here I found one test (using nested loops) that was 10% faster on the "old" Macbook, while another test (using matrix calculations) was 10% slower. So no urgent need for me to upgrade my Macbook (with all the ports I use daily).
     
  21. The Mercurian macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    #22
    Unless you need it. For certain applications even single core speed is relevant so clock speed still relevant to some people.
     
  22. sneak3 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    #23
    Would anyone be able to tell me whether there is a PERFORMANCE upgrade from a mid 2012 mbp 15" 2.6ghz i7 to the 15" 2016 2.6ghz?
     
  23. jackoatmon macrumors 6502a

    jackoatmon

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    #24

    what are you talking about

    this is literally the first time apple has put a decent (for the times) gpu in a laptop
     
  24. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #25
    Those days are long gone, today, the performance bump is rather small.
     

Share This Page