All PR aside, I compared the 2016 rMBP (15 inch) to my current 2013 rMBP to my previous 2008 MBP, using Geekbench 4. It doesn't seem like $3K worth of improvement to me. Anybody able to show this in a different light?
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.
New Mac speed boosts are stagnating
- Thread starter nathan_reilly
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This is a great example of how using a single measurement like a benchmark score to quantify value is absurd.
Specifically, the Geekbench benchmark do not accurate assess all measurable, quantifiable data, and it certainly doesn't address qualitative aspects.
Without an exhaustive teardown, let's just bring up some simple examples.
What kind of screen was on the 2008 MBP? Was it Retina? As high quality as today's MBP? Which one do you prefer looking at?
What sort of disk drive was used on the 2008 MBP? Was it as fast and speed as the SSD on today's MBP?
How fast are the USB ports on the 2008 MBP compared to those on the 2016 machine?
What kind of WiFi connectivity does the 2008 MBP have compared to the 2016 machine?
I will rest my case for now, but think about the Geekbench graph you have posted and what is missing from those numbers.
Specifically, the Geekbench benchmark do not accurate assess all measurable, quantifiable data, and it certainly doesn't address qualitative aspects.
Without an exhaustive teardown, let's just bring up some simple examples.
What kind of screen was on the 2008 MBP? Was it Retina? As high quality as today's MBP? Which one do you prefer looking at?
What sort of disk drive was used on the 2008 MBP? Was it as fast and speed as the SSD on today's MBP?
How fast are the USB ports on the 2008 MBP compared to those on the 2016 machine?
What kind of WiFi connectivity does the 2008 MBP have compared to the 2016 machine?
I will rest my case for now, but think about the Geekbench graph you have posted and what is missing from those numbers.
geekbench.com: "Each CPU workload models a real-world task or application, ensuring meaningful results. These tests are complex, avoiding simple problems with straightforward memory-access patterns, and push the limits of your system."
There are other differences but I use these machines for rendering, and raw compute power matters. For sure there have been improvements, but not enough.
There are other differences but I use these machines for rendering, and raw compute power matters. For sure there have been improvements, but not enough.
Take it up with the diminishing returns on Moore's law. No amount of money you buy from a computer is going to change Intel's pace of improvement. The days of 25%+ speed improvements are gone while we are still using silicon.
Well then, take it back for a full refund. It's your money, your computer, your time.
For sure, no one -- including Apple -- can please everyone all the time.
Buy a cheap used 2013 MBP (or maybe a few Mac minis) since you just need CPU cycles.
Good luck.
For sure, no one -- including Apple -- can please everyone all the time.
Buy a cheap used 2013 MBP (or maybe a few Mac minis) since you just need CPU cycles.
Good luck.
Unfortunately, it seems that other computer manufacturer's ARE able to give 25% speed boosts. I get the whole moore law thing, but you're burning the candle at both ends when you don't use the latest silicon and get overzealous with the whole thinness mandate. Not at all worth $3K on top of what I've got now.
Well, no one is holding a gun to your head saying you need to buy one of these new MacBook Pros. You can skip this generation if the price-performance ratio isn't to your liking.
Do you buy a new car every year based on fuel economy?
I think it is foolish to use a benchmark as the main deciding point in choosing a computer, but you have very, very special needs (which you did not mention in your original inquiry) and the other functionality of these notebook computers are largely irrelevant.
I haven't played with any of these new systems at my nearby Apple Store, but someday soon I will and most likely I will say to myself, "I will skip this generation." But hey, I keep my Macs about six years on average (I have one Mac mini and one MacBook Air), so that's my normal response.
If you think you can get more value from Wintel manufacturers, you should consider switching. It's your money not ours.
If you just want to whine, no one here is stopping you. That's a pretty frequent thing to do on the Internet.
Do you buy a new car every year based on fuel economy?
I think it is foolish to use a benchmark as the main deciding point in choosing a computer, but you have very, very special needs (which you did not mention in your original inquiry) and the other functionality of these notebook computers are largely irrelevant.
I haven't played with any of these new systems at my nearby Apple Store, but someday soon I will and most likely I will say to myself, "I will skip this generation." But hey, I keep my Macs about six years on average (I have one Mac mini and one MacBook Air), so that's my normal response.
If you think you can get more value from Wintel manufacturers, you should consider switching. It's your money not ours.
If you just want to whine, no one here is stopping you. That's a pretty frequent thing to do on the Internet.
I've gotta get a new machine now (versus next year) for tax purposes. So a virtual gun.
If I drove constantly, yes I would.
These aren't very special needs. I know many people who use macs for graphics and motion animation work. I feel happily married to OSX software but enslaved to slow macs. I don't think I'm alone here.
It's clear you're guzzling the kool aid just as fast as you can.
If I drove constantly, yes I would.
These aren't very special needs. I know many people who use macs for graphics and motion animation work. I feel happily married to OSX software but enslaved to slow macs. I don't think I'm alone here.
It's clear you're guzzling the kool aid just as fast as you can.
You're not comparing the same processors. The machines you're claiming are continuing that level of speed boosts are not using the same class of processor TDP wise.
Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't buy what suits your needs (definitely get what you need) but to use the often overused phrase, you're not comparing apples to apples.
Which "other manufacturers"? They're all using the same CPUs, all subject to the same limitations of CPU speed improvements.
Was that really necessary?
That aside, with the massive SSD improvements I can't really imagine how you're not going to see significant performance gains unless your usage is entirely pegged to just CPU cycles, in which case if you're married to OSX I'd suggest building a hackintosh.
Show us specific examples of a laptop with a 25% speed boost year over year.
Or even one that would be more acceptable than what you've got in the new MBP.
Which processor is your new model equipped with?
2013 --> 2016 = not that much of "a jump" to really justify spending the money, in my opinion, UNLESS...
...you really don't care about the money, or absolutely, positively have-to-have something that the new models offer.
There seem to be numerous compromises and glitches with the 2016's that keep popping up, as well.
If you are "satisfied enough" with what you have now (and only YOU can tell us that), it might be worth holding off another year or two.
By then the "new design" will have matured some, and by then the market should be sorting itself out insofar as the connectors/potential of USB-c is concerned...
...you really don't care about the money, or absolutely, positively have-to-have something that the new models offer.
There seem to be numerous compromises and glitches with the 2016's that keep popping up, as well.
If you are "satisfied enough" with what you have now (and only YOU can tell us that), it might be worth holding off another year or two.
By then the "new design" will have matured some, and by then the market should be sorting itself out insofar as the connectors/potential of USB-c is concerned...
Again, you continue to leave out details that should have been included in your original inquiry. Look at your original post. It says NOTHING about your usage. It would have saved a lot of back-and-forth. What else have you neglected to mention?
Saying "I know many people who use macs for graphics and motion animation work" is a meaningless statement. The fact that you use a Mac for this type of work is important, but for me to say "I know many people who use macs mostly for e-mail, web surfing, light office application use" is equally, if not more so valid.
If you need the tax write off, you can still buy some used Mac minis or older MBPs since you think you aren't getting your money's worth buying a brand-new 2016 machine.
No, quite the contrary. I replace my low-end Macs every six years or so. I'd say I take small sips from a tiny paper cup and walk away for years.
You are guzzling the Kool-Aid way faster than I am. You generate far more revenue to Apple than me and as an AAPL shareholder, I applaud your patronage of Apple Inc.
In any case, you have solicited a number of answers and I hope some of these responses help you with your purchase decision.
Give yourself a nice pat on the back!
That's exactly what I would write if I published benchmarks. But it's easy to write, harder to achieve.
One problem is "pushing the limits of your system". People rarely push the limits. Therefore, computers are not optimised for the use case of "pushing the limit". MacBooks are optimised for using the smallest possible amount of energy for _typical_ use cases.
Synthetic benchmarks always cause issue, and never really show real life usage. The new MBPs are faster, in actual usage, the CPU is just one factor in determining the overall performance. Besides, is this apple's fault, they're only using what Intel gives. If you want to complain, complain to Intel that they're no innovating quick enough for you.
What I find incredible is that only now people are realizing that Haswell is/was a great CPU.
All this time, Apple was criticized for NOT upgrading from Haswell... now that id did upgrade, people are criticizing that the new CPUs are not that different... C'mon man !!!
All this time, Apple was criticized for NOT upgrading from Haswell... now that id did upgrade, people are criticizing that the new CPUs are not that different... C'mon man !!!
Indeed
I was one of them, and I was wrong. I guess I looked at Haswell and thought apple was wrong to use such an old processor, but it was (is) a great workhorse of a processor.
You ask a question and then start offending people who are answering your question.
Or now that I read it again, your question was never a question. It was a complaint about how you are unhappy that apple didn't boost speeds by 25% to your liking and then become hostile when people tried to explain to you that that's not entirely true. What a wasted thread.
Last edited: