New 15-inch Retina MacBook Pro Lives Up to Apple's Claims, Reaches SSD Throughput Speeds of 2GB/s

[Cheffy Dave]

My 2008 MBP, is very fast, with a recent 512 OWC SSD and 8 Gb Ram.
As a Retina Lover,(iPads only), I will wait for the Skylake re-design, the new Keyboard, Force-touch Trackpad,16/32 Gb Ram, and finally my Retina Screen, in a Lappie, AMD/NVidiaGraphics

 

[cwt1nospam]

My 2008 MBP, is very fast, with a recent 512 OWC SSD and 8 Gb Ram.

We're coming to the end of Moore's law. After Skylake (and until quantum computing), we can expect the microprocessor to become much more of a commodity item because the improvements will be too small to be noticed in most use cases. This is why Apple chose well early on: computer makers who don't own their OS will have no way to distinguish themselves. Even Apple will be affected though. When Moore's law no longer applies, people will not only not be replacing their computers very often, but they won't be replacing their phones or watches every two years either.

 

[Cheffy Dave]

We're coming to the end of Moore's law. After Skylake (and until quantum computing), we can expect the microprocessor to become much more of a commodity item because the improvements will be too small to be noticed in most use cases. This is why Apple chose well early on: computer makers who don't own their OS will have no way to distinguish themselves. Even Apple will be affected though. When Moore's law no longer applies, people will not only not be replacing their computers very often, but they won't be replacing their phones or watches every two years either.

Amen, I guess I am already there

 

[bkkcanuck]

We're coming to the end of Moore's law. After Skylake (and until quantum computing), we can expect the microprocessor to become much more of a commodity item because the improvements will be too small to be noticed in most use cases. This is why Apple chose well early on: computer makers who don't own their OS will have no way to distinguish themselves. Even Apple will be affected though. When Moore's law no longer applies, people will not only not be replacing their computers very often, but they won't be replacing their phones or watches every two years either.

Don't be so quick yet..... what we are nearing the end of is actually silicon based chips. 10nm will silicon based, 7nm may be silicon or indium gallium arsenide, along with the work on 3D chip manufacturing - it could continue marching for a while.... we will have to see.

Quantum Computing really is not even close for general computing needs - it is good for specialized applications but not for most..... as it stands now.

The technology has already reached a point where the vast majority of users really have no "need" (only want) to replace the computer before it is dead as a doorknob. I use to replace my computers every 3 years on average but now I am on year seven with my preferred computer.... and would see no need to upgrade if I were an average user. The thing that might get me to move is 4K monitors (3 of them) which my computer cannot support, or a farm of DAS storage devices....

 

[cwt1nospam]

Don't be so quick yet...

Who's being quick? I'm saying we're nearing the point where for most users the improvements will be incremental and practically invisible. You're saying we're already there!

 

[dyinginavan]

Hello! I hope nobody minds me asking advice and opinions but you all seem to know your stuff very well and I would be so appreciative of advice.

My laptop is just for personal use, but I am also studying Computer Science at the moment and I'm finding my 13 inch 2 year old MBA just a bit small and slow to work with, such as when I'm working on scripting and also when I have many screens open working on coursework. So I'd been holding out for the refresh of the 15 inch MBP to do a big laptop upgrade that I've really been looking forward to. I have literally been crossing off the days waiting for the announcement (and then missed it haha lol) because I do REALLY need a new laptop now.

I do also do some amateur video editing with Final Cut Pro, nothing too intensive really, YouTube standard I suppose. I find it not too bad on the MBA but I've really been craving a bigger screen for that also and more power, so the fact that for both Uni work and my hobbies, I really want a larger screen, it's been justifying to me going for the 15 inch. I do use my laptop to play The Sims 4 (unfortunately) and to be honest, the MBA isn't too bad at this but I'm guessing the game requirement for that is so low that any of the MBP's would suffice.

However, I feel a smidge put off with all of the reviews I've read about this being an old Broadwell processor and to wait longer for the Skylake upgrade etc. And I have to admit, I don't really understand why or what the advantage of waiting would be... but then I always have this mentality that I don't want to be buying new laptops every couple of years, I want to spend wisely so if it's genuinely going to be better to wait then I'd probably make myself wait.

But for the uses that I listed above, would the new 15 inch MBP be a good investment for me? And which of the two models looks best? I think I'd rather have the 512GB HD but I don't know if I need all the graphic capabilities of the higher end MBP, but by the time I've added the 512GB HD to the entry level model, it's nearly as expensive as the high end model anyway.

I just wondered if people thought I might be wasting money or if I would see a significant performance improvement in the speculative Skylake refresh next year.

 

[chucker23n1]

Hello! I hope nobody minds me asking advice and opinions but you all seem to know your stuff very well and I would be so appreciative of advice.

My laptop is just for personal use, but I am also studying Computer Science at the moment and I'm finding my 13 inch 2 year old MBA just a bit small and slow to work with, such as when I'm working on scripting and also when I have many screens open working on coursework. So I'd been holding out for the refresh of the 15 inch MBP to do a big laptop upgrade that I've really been looking forward to. I have literally been crossing off the days waiting for the announcement (and then missed it haha lol) because I do REALLY need a new laptop now.

First of all, if you really need something now, buy something now. It's that simple. You can always wait for the next big thing, and it'll always come, eventually. You can save some money with an education rebate and perhaps might also want a refurbished model.

However, I feel a smidge put off with all of the reviews I've read about this being an old Broadwell processor and to wait longer for the Skylake upgrade etc. And I have to admit, I don't really understand why or what the advantage of waiting would be.

Haswell, actually.

People were hoping the new revision would ship with Broadwell; instead, they're still Haswell. That generation is from 2013, though Apple is using revised models from 2014.

The reason they aren't using Broadwell is that appropriate CPUs still aren't out — apparently, Intel either keeps delaying them or has canceled them altogether. Apple uses the 'H' series of CPUs in their 15-inch MacBook Pros, which basically means for cores in a mobile format, and those simply don't exist in the Broadwell generation. Certainly not now; possibly never.

For other variants, Broadwell chips do exist, which is why for instance the Retina MacBook has them. But those would be far too slow for a 15-inch MacBook Pro.

It would've been nice to have Broadwell-H particularly because of GPU performance improvements.

Skylake is the upcoming generation, which may add stuff like Thunderbolt 3. Guesses on when Skylake-H is coming are really all over the map from this fall to late 2016.

but then I always have this mentality that I don't want to be buying new laptops every couple of years, I want to spend wisely so if it's genuinely going to be better to wait then I'd probably make myself wait.

Sure, but you'll always be chasing after the next big thing. When and how often you upgrade should depend entirely on what you can afford.

But for the uses that I listed above, would the new 15 inch MBP be a good investment for me?

It's definitely still a good laptop. The SSD, the amount of RAM, the screen, etc. are all great.

(Personally, I'd love even more RAM. But I'm quite the edge case there.)

The CPU, and consequently the integrated GPU, are getting a little rusty.

And which of the two models looks best? I think I'd rather have the 512GB HD but I don't know if I need all the graphic capabilities of the higher end MBP, but by the time I've added the 512GB HD to the entry level model, it's nearly as expensive as the high end model anyway.

The dedicated GPU is far more powerful than the integrated one, but also draws more power, thus reducing battery life and increasing heat, and is more prone to logic board failure. In theory, the OS intelligently switches between one and the other; in practice, if you can live without dedicated graphics, consider doing so. You mention Final Cut Pro, though, so the additional graphics power may just be worth it.

I just wondered if people thought I might be wasting money or if I would see a significant performance improvement in the speculative Skylake refresh next year.

It'll absolutely ship with a better integrated GPU (its Iris Pro graphics will be two generations more advanced), and will therefore tilt the answer further towards "don't bother with a dedicated GPU". The CPU won't change much, but probably isn't your bottleneck anyway — and even with today's rMBP, you'd benefit from having twice the cores.

But, again, it's about how long you're willing to wait. Maybe you buy it now, and Apple releases a Broadwell or Skylake rMBP in fall. That'd suck. But maybe you wait, and Apple doesn't release one until late 2016.

 

[uid15]

I lied. Sorry

 

[bkkcanuck]

The excitement for these speeds is amusing. The company I work for has just released a proprietary, enterprise SSD solution which uses stack-pumped QLC V-nand, and it has a nominal throughput of 64 GB/S - not a lab experiment, REAL product. The only thing holding it back... is PCI-E speeds, not itself

Silly me, not getting excited about something that is out of my price range. Enterprise storage has always been faster than consumer storage (massive array of SAS drives were faster than my consumer 7200RPM hard drive)..... but since it is out of my price range ... I save my excitement that might allow my local storage to be faster than what is available to me now....

 

[uid15]

I lied. Sorry

 

[milo]

Impressive. Now why aren't they putting these into the mac pro? Seems like that one still has the same storage as when it came out late 2013.

 

[unplugme71]

I will upgrade my PowerBook when there's 1PB SSD's and 512GB DDR5 in a 1 inch thick Ultra Retina display. Right now I can pretty much do everything I need.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

1. It isn't large, at least not in profits.
2. Gamers tend to be technical, and that's the opposite direction from where computers are headed. The internet of things can't need techies to keep it running. These things need to be easy to use and reliable. No overclocking or liquid cooling!

You seem to be confused between a gamer and an extreme gamer. Apple offers literally nothing remotely near just normal gaming level GPUs, let alone SLI type setups, etc. You seem to think Apple can't handle technical hardware either. I disagree. It would cost Apple next to nothing to offer a Mac Pro case with a normal motherboard and a mid to high level GPU option. It's even set up where SLI could be added, if desired. It could run OSX and Windows. Alternatively, they could license an OSX based gaming machine to someone like Alienware to make it for them using their designs. Either way, it would entice some of us to stick around that are wondering if this will be our last Mac between god-awful hardware and the worst version of OSX ever made.

 

[cwt1nospam]

You seem to be confused between a gamer and an extreme gamer. Apple offers literally nothing remotely near just normal gaming level GPUs, let alone SLI type setups, etc. You seem to think Apple can't handle technical hardware either.

No, I'm saying that the difference is between a gamer and an extreme gamer is irrelevant. Apple certainly can handle technical hardware. They do it all the time, but they have no financial interest in low profit gaming hardware. It would lower their ASP and their profit margins. Even worse, gaming hardware/software does little to advance computers in the direction they need to go.

 

[chucker23n1]

You seem to be confused

[..]

Alternatively, they could license an OSX based gaming machine to someone like Alienware to make it for them using their designs.

Staaaaaahp

 

[doctor-don]

That bit in Armageddon where the President says:

"My God".

"It happened before, it will happen again ... it's just a question of WHEN." - Charlton Heston

The MBP is on the cusp of a major redesign and upgrade.

Now is not the time to buy a MBP.

You refer to non-retina MBPs?
RMBP was just released this month.

I would disagree. If a design is stable, I tend to choose it over the first generation of a new design. They did implement the updated trackpad. Historically Apple doesn't make hardware tweaks like that if they're about to redesign something. They just roll it into the redesign. I don't think you'll see anything of the sort in less than a year and quite possibly 2.

MBP was last updated June 2012, so it should be updated. However, it may not be updated since Apple shifted to the (13" and 15") RMBP as its main notebook.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

No, I'm saying that the difference is between a gamer and an extreme gamer is irrelevant. Apple certainly can handle technical hardware. They do it all the time, but they have no financial interest in low profit gaming hardware. It would lower their ASP and their profit margins. Even worse, gaming hardware/software does little to advance computers in the direction they need to go.

You and others that simply have no interest in gaming area always acting like no else games. The sheer ignorance on these forums and among Mac users in general who think the entire world revolves around them and them alone never fails to amaze me. And when i say it would cost Apple next to nothing to do it (relative to their insane profits), it would benefit them just to get their feet in as many markets as possible. Watches, yes? Gaming hardware, no? That's ridiculous. Who even WEARS a fracking watch in 2015? Throw in how they abandoned the pro markets, abandoned the server markets and made OSX look like a kindergartner's crayon dream and I have to wonder if Apple is becoming nothing less than a full time phone company. Apple was actually shocked that people were even gaming on the iPhone and only embraced it much later when they realized it was a gold mine. I'm not asking for an Apple gaming console. I'm asking simply for a decent GPU in ONE model Mac (e.g. a Mac Pro with a regular motherboard and a good GPU or even a Mac Mini with a good GPU). That would cost them almost nothing to do (since people would be paying for it by buying them and it's all off-the-shelf parts) and would fill a HUGE VOID in the lineup.

But no, queue the line of Mac fanatics that don't understand how to have fun on a computer and how we don't need anything but Twits and Facebookers and a browser and nothing else in life. (those people don't need a Mac; a 3rd gen iPhone would suffice them for the rest of their lives).

 

[carlgo]

Enjoyable rant. If all social media disappeared tomorrow would the world be:

A. Better


B Worse

The watch may turn out to be Apple's most useful product and the only one that we wish was thinner.

Yeah, why not market to gamers and Pros as well?

 

[cwt1nospam]

You and others that simply have no interest in gaming area always acting like no else games. The sheer ignorance on these forums and among Mac users in general who think the entire world revolves around them and them alone never fails to amaze me. And when i say it would cost Apple next to nothing to do it (relative to their insane profits), it would benefit them just to get their feet in as many markets as possible. Watches, yes? Gaming hardware, no? That's ridiculous.

No, it's your ignorance that's showing here. Gaming hardware is ridiculously cheap. Apple doesn't cater to low profit markets. Full stop.

Watches are high profit. Apple will probably make more profit just selling watch bands than they could selling gaming rigs, and watches won't cut into their high profit computer sales the way gaming rigs would.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

No, it's your ignorance that's showing here. Gaming hardware is ridiculously cheap. Apple doesn't cater to low profit markets. Full stop.

If they're so "ridiculously cheap" then why does Apple use GPUs with the power of cards 4 years ago and then charge over $2k for their "desktop" iMacs with those cards?

I don't call over $1k for a 4k graphics gaming card "cheap", BTW (http://www.pcgamer.com/the-best-graphics-cards/) And even the more reasonable priced non-4k cards need a full sized slot to use them. Apple used to at least offer the Mac Pro with such slots. Now they use custom slots so you cannot turn a Mac Pro into a gaming PC if you wanted to without a thunderbolt slot kit.

Watches are high profit. Apple will probably make more profit just selling watch bands than they could selling gaming rigs, and watches won't cut into their high profit computer sales the way gaming rigs would.

Watch bands.... I wonder what this common core teaches these days.

 

[cwt1nospam]

If they're so "ridiculously cheap" then why does Apple use GPUs with the power of cards 4 years ago and then charge over $2k for their "desktop" iMacs with those cards?

I don't call over $1k for a 4k graphics gaming card "cheap", BTW (http://www.pcgamer.com/the-best-graphics-cards/) And even the more reasonable priced non-4k cards need a full sized slot to use them. Apple used to at least offer the Mac Pro with such slots. Now they use custom slots so you cannot turn a Mac Pro into a gaming PC if you wanted to without a thunderbolt slot kit.

You're so obsessed with gaming that you can't see that there's no business case for Apple to cater to gamers. Apple doesn't make graphics cards, they make computers. Sure, gamers will spend money on the graphics card, but at the expense of the thing that Apple makes: the computer! And speaking of graphics cards, the AMD Radeon R9 M370X in the new Macbook Pros is new this year.

You prove my point by complaining about Thunderbolt. It's the fastest port available, so you'd think that gamers would love it, but no! It's too expensive! And let's just forget that if gamers weren't cheap, graphics card manufacturers would be building gaming cards for those custom slots.

 

[cwt1nospam]

Watch bands.... I wonder what this common core teaches these days.

Wow. Math challenged much? The point is that while watch bands are relatively inexpensive, their profit margin is much higher than gaming gear and Apple will sell many more of them, so the total profit will be higher. Adding to this equation we have the downstream affect of selling a gaming system that might also be used for web browsing and email, for example. This will eliminate some sales of higher end Macs, further eroding profits.

Catering to gamers would be a bad business decision for Apple, and they know it. If you want them to make gaming gear, then you first need to make gaming gear highly profitable. That's how the free market works. So get all your gaming friends to spend thousands of dollars on the computer before spending a thousand on a graphics card, then repeat. In a few years, when it becomes apparent that there's a lot of money to be made in gaming, Apple will notices.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

The point is that while watch bands are relatively inexpensive, their profit margin is much higher

Maybe Apple should get into the clothing/textile business if their margins are so high as you claim. Maybe they could bring back the entire industry to the US while they're at it since it's so so darn profitable. Apple underwear, Apple shoelaces, Apple sun dresses, Apple biking shorts....

Besides, to even sell a single watch band, Apple has to first sell a watch and that watch requires yet another device (a newer iPhone) to even fully function. That same watch already comes with a watch band. Just how many extra watch bands do you expect Apple to sell? The mere idea that replacement or alternate watch bands could make more money than a potentially best selling Mac model is absurd, IMO. Apple sells a lot of "highly profitable" dongles for their computers by making computer that REQUIRE a dongle to even function for any external device, but I don't hear about Apple's profit margins hinging on dongles. A dongle is not a potential new market like a watch is. A watch band is an accessory not a new market.

PC gaming is already a market and that market is almost entirely going to Microsoft simply due to Apple not making the slightest efforts to take a share of that pie. You seem worried Apple might not sell an iMac if they offered another iMac with a good gaming card and perhaps a bit more airflow (like that makes sense; you can't cannibalize the same line; it's a configurable option) and yet you don't seem the SLIGHTEST bit concerned that the same person might not buy a Mac AT ALL because that Mac doesn't fit all their needs. Most people do not want to buy TWO COMPUTERS when ONE will do just fine. They don't have the space for it nor do they want to spend twice (or more) the money to deal with them and two sets of software.

Apple has a huge advantage that they can have Windows run on their computer hardware also. This sells a lot of Macs that would have otherwise sold PC hardware. But how many sales do they lose due to poor hardware configurations? Who wants a Mac with ONE USB port that is also the power port? That was one of the most asinine configuration decisions I've EVER seen from Apple. They switched from NVidia to AMD with the latest iMac 5k models. I see a thread with almost universal HATRED of the new model configuration (i.e. AMDs run LOUD and HOT and that makes an iMac unpleasant to use). They switched from solid state drives (and then new ones are quite spiffy) BACK to spinning hard drives! Whose decision was THAT? Finally, there's Yosemite. (enough said about Yosemite).

Apple fanatics try to paint Apple as infallible but I'm seeing just the opposite. They are making money hand over fist in the iOS realm but slowly destroying their own Macintosh lineups. Maybe it's intentional even. But whatever the reasons, here's a Mac user from the entire last decade that's seriously questioning whether his next computer will even be a Mac and it's do to terrible decisions from Apple to purposely make low-value slow miserable Macs instead of the ultra-fast top-of-the-line models we used to get. Maybe it was overpriced to make a Mac Pro into a gaming machine, but you COULD do it if you were willing to spend the money on the Mac Pro and a good GPU.

Right now 4k gaming is just getting started and the lines between television and monitors has blurred into one and the same. With 4k comes new opportunities. The 5k iMac gave me some hope that Apple was giving serious thought into getting serious about high-end video early one instead of trying to catch up to everyone else, but this new release of slower iMac 5ks with slow hard drives tells me otherwise.

than gaming gear and Apple will sell many more of them, so the total profit will be higher. Adding to this equation we have the downstream affect of selling a gaming system that might also be used for web browsing and email, for example. This will eliminate some sales of higher end Macs, further eroding profits.

I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense. I'm talking about a high-end gaming PC selling around $2k and you're talking about mass market game consoles like the XBox.

Catering to gamers would be a bad business decision for Apple, and they know it.

They're already catering to gamers on iOS devices. Was that a bad business decision? According to you, yes.

If you want them to make gaming gear, then you first need to make gaming gear highly profitable. That's how the free market works. So get all your gaming friends to spend thousands of dollars on the computer before spending a thousand on a graphics card, then repeat. In a few years, when it becomes apparent that there's a lot of money to be made in gaming, Apple will notices.

Need to make gaming gear highly profitable??? WTF!? Yeah, NVidia makes highly unprofitable gear.

Apple is largely a reseller when it comes to Macs. They don't MAKE CPUs or GPUs or drive controllers. They buy them from others or have them made for them. They make cute cases and OSX sells those computers for FAR more than they're worth since you cannot buy an OSX capable machine from anyone else. EVERYTHING Apple sells is highly profitable or they wouldn't sell it. Offering more configuration options is not something that would harm Apple in the slightest. The fact you keep arguing against something that is a SIMPLE FACT tells me you're more interested in arguing even when you don't have a leg to stand on. In short, you're just wasting my time.

 

[cwt1nospam]

Ok, I'll try to make this clear enough that even you can understand:

1. Apple makes more profit selling Macs than most of, if not all of, the rest of the PC makers combined.
2. Apple makes more profit selling iPhones than all of the other smart phone makers combined.
3. The point about selling watch bands is that not only are they more profitable than gaming gear, there's nothing Apple needs to do to its hardware (like using "standard" slots) to sell them.
4. Yes, PC gaming is a market. One with very little profit, most of which goes to the graphics card makers, NOT Microsoft or PC makers. Once again, Apple doesn't make graphics cards.
5. More people want fewer cords sticking out of their computers than want gaming rigs. Case in point: Intel's Skylake is geared towards wireless computing: no cables to drive monitors any more! Many people can't wait.
6. I encourage you to sell your Mac and buy a PC. You're exactly the type who would turn a Mac into a PC. The rest of us buy Mac's in part because they're NOT PCs.
7. Macs are not slow. They're typically faster than PCs at the same clock speed. Your obsession with graphics cards is coloring your perception here.
8. The iMac is intended for casual home users. Want to beef it up? There is a build to order option. Add an SSD.
9. Those high end gaming PCs still have low margins and you're comparing them with Apple's low end! Be serious.
10. If by catering to gamers you mean allowing them in the App store, then sure. Other than that, no. The iPhone is not built for gaming. It's incidental that it's capable of gaming.
11. Once again, Nvidia is a graphics card maker. Name a PC maker that's making good profits selling gaming PCs. (Hint: since none of them have good profit margins, you can't!)
12. "EVERYTHING Apple sells is highly profitable or they wouldn't sell it." — Exactly my point, and the reason they don't sell gaming gear.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Ok, I'll try to make this clear enough that even you can understand:

1. Apple makes more profit selling Macs than most of, if not all of, the rest of the PC makers combined.
2. Apple makes more profit selling iPhones than all of the other smart phone makers combined.
3. The point about selling watch bands is that not only are they more profitable than gaming gear, there's nothing Apple needs to do to its hardware (like using "standard" slots) to sell them.
4. Yes, PC gaming is a market. One with very little profit, most of which goes to the graphics card makers, NOT Microsoft or PC makers. Once again, Apple doesn't make graphics cards.
5. More people want fewer cords sticking out of their computers than want gaming rigs. Case in point: Intel's Skylake is geared towards wireless computing: no cables to drive monitors any more! Many people can't wait.
6. I encourage you to sell your Mac and buy a PC. You're exactly the type who would turn a Mac into a PC. The rest of us buy Mac's in part because they're NOT PCs.
7. Macs are not slow. They're typically faster than PCs at the same clock speed. Your obsession with graphics cards is coloring your perception here.
8. The iMac is intended for casual home users. Want to beef it up? There is a build to order option. Add an SSD.
9. Those high end gaming PCs still have low margins and you're comparing them with Apple's low end! Be serious.
10. If by catering to gamers you mean allowing them in the App store, then sure. Other than that, no. The iPhone is not built for gaming. It's incidental that it's capable of gaming.
11. Once again, Nvidia is a graphics card maker. Name a PC maker that's making good profits selling gaming PCs. (Hint: since none of them have good profit margins, you can't!)
12. "EVERYTHING Apple sells is highly profitable or they wouldn't sell it." — Exactly my point, and the reason they don't sell gaming gear.

This just says you're not listening, never were listening and never intended to listen to anyone but yourself in the mirror.

The fact you seem to think I'd like a PC tells me you know absolutely NOTHING about me or anything else because I had a PC and I don't like the OS at all. Thati s precisely why I want a Mac with a decent GPU in it. I couldn't care less if it's called a "gaming" computer or anything else. The GPU simply shouldn't be a total POS like most of them are. I don't need perfect performance and I don't want to run Windows (most games I want are available for the Mac), but I shouldn't have to put up with 640x480 to play a game in 2015 on a brand new 2015 $2000+ computer. That is RIDICULOUS. It's SAD SAD SAD you cannot seem to see, let alone grasp such BASIC concept because you're too busy trying to be Apple's #1 fan.