I have a 2016 MacBook Pro and the XPS 15. I had none of those problems on the XPS.
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 XPS 15 absolutely crushes MBP
- Thread starter grennis
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have a 2016 MacBook Pro and the XPS 15. I had none of those problems on the XPS.
Neither did I, though I own a MBPtb now.
According to notebookcheck, and a few other reliable sources, the 1050 provides 45% increase in gpu performance. Therefore, the amd 460, which is marginally more powerful than the 960m, is not the near equal of the 1050.
Maybe people are referring to older benchmarks, which are not indicative of a final product.
I am afraid you must be misreading something. Notebookchecks 3dmark results on 460 Pro are a bit confusing, because its not clear whether its the Graphics Scores or Standard Scores. I assume that its Graphics Scores, because its consistent with what I get for my 460 Pro. Then, looking at notebook check results:
FireStrike: 4616 (Pro 460) vs. 5784 (1050 GTX) — 25% increase
Cloud Gate: 27623 (Pro 460) vs. 35884 (1050 GTX) - 30% difference
The difference will be most likely smaller on DX12 or Vulkan benchmarks, but I couldn't find a Time Spy result for 1050 GTX. The desktop 1050 Ti GTX seems to bench around 2200 in Time Spy (Graphics Score). My 460 with newest drivers benches 1500. I'd expect the mobile 1050 to bench around 1800 at best.
You are listing two difference benchmarks, and using that as your baseline? I listed one source above, which is notebook check itself, and they stated a 45% increase OVER the 960m (not the amd 460). So assuming the 460 is 10-15% better than the 960m, then your benchmarks would make sense. Someone else in this thread essentially stated that the 460 was equal to the 1050, which it is not.
Assuming the Dell XPS 15 with the 1050m is plugged in, and not running on battery, it should bench close or equal to the desktop counterpart. That is one of the big deals of the pascal generation. I have not looked at the difference between the 1050 and the 1050 TI.
That being said, the DX12 will be a big deal for Windows 10 computers, most likely narrowing the gap. But the MBPs will still be using OpenGl, so they won't see the same improvement, if anything the gap may widen. Now, this doesn't take into consideration any native app based on Metal. I am sure that could make a difference, but the 1050 will remain the more powerful card.
Again, I don't really see it making a big difference in anything but gaming, and the MacBooks are poor gaming machines, comparatively.
I wonder where I have read this before over the last decade...
Does not mean it is not true now but I look on and it seems to me Apple will be fine.
The benchmarks come from http://www.notebookcheck.net
http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-GTX-1050-Notebook.178614.0.html: "The GeForce GTX 960M is beaten by around 30%, so the GTX 1050 is comparable to a GTX 965M in general."
Completely agreed.
Well, there is also Metal. And OpenGL on OS X works a bit differently than on Windows... can't really compare the driver implementations directly. I didn't do any Valley benchmarks on Windows, maybe I should run them to know how the Windows implementation compares to the OS X one.
Ahh, my bad, I didn't realize we were comparing it to the 965m.
Metal is great, though I doubt major apps like the adobe suite, etc will take advantage of it anytime soon. AAA games (such as COD, Overwatch, Rise of the Tomb Raider) won't be utilizing metal.
I would be curious to see the difference in OpenGL on Windows vs OSx.
Well....it is a Mac only software. So, um, what does that mean?
The xps 15 is more powerful based on pure numbers.
That doesn't include differences in OS, etc, which is where Final Cut Pro would come into play. Final Cut Pro may be the better program, but that isn't an OS issue.
I read, somewhere, the top end 15in Mbp can't edit 4k video, well, in adobe premiere. It can in Final Cut Pro. The 16gb is the limiting factor.
The dell doesn't have that limit.
Also, I have the the MBP, and I sold my xps 15 9550.
Quoted for truth. When the 2016 MBPs were announced, I said "nope" and purchased a Dell XPS 13 from my local Microsoft store. I really loved the virtually non-existent screen bezels and was excited to give Windows 10 a real go. I had the computer for about two weeks. One thing that drove me nuts was the screen contrast on the XPS 13 making everything look very washed out, no matter how I calibrated it. I've read that this is also the case with the XPS 15 and is hardware related with the 4K touch screen, so calibrating it doesn't completely solve the problem. But the ultimate deal breaker for me was the track pad gestures (or lack thereof) and the significantly less efficient scrolling, when compared to the track pad on my 2015 15" MBP.
I ended up trying out and purchasing the 13" tMBP and returned the XPS 13. I couldn't be happier with the decision. However, I must admit that I actually enjoyed the Windows 10 experience. Microsoft has come a long way with that OS and it was extremely fluid and easy to work with. But the available hardware options for Windows 10 machines simply don't cut it. After having given the XPS a real shot, I'll gladly pay a higher price ($300 more, in my case) to get a similar specked Mac.
Last edited:
That seems to be the focus of this thread, despite only mattering for gaming and 4k video editing on premiere.
If specs were everything I wouldn't have sold my xps 15....
This is not the first time this discussion has occurred either. Many times specs on a PC out perform an Apple machine however there are so many other variables to consider, and for me when I do, a Dell computer is likely never to win. MS may be close, but they still don't offer the same support or experience.
Check out this video and link
https://www.tonymacx86.com/threads/dell-xps-15-9550-sierra-support.209526/
For me, the question nowadays is "How well does macOS Sierra run"
How well does anything run Sierra...
Real world results is what matters, not numbers on a piece of paper. You can't get a faster video editing laptop than the MBP.
That is where you guys are wrong here. Macs are not just about numbers! That has never been the case. What does that mean? it means optimized software on the Mac performs better. SHOCKING!
Oh and BTW, the numbers of the XPS are actually SMALLER (2.6Ghz vs 2.7Ghz in the 2016 MBP).
The 4K issue is Adobe's problem not Apples. As you said, FCPX does support 4K editing. So the laptop is CAPABLE of that. Adobe just needs to get the **** together.
You guys really need to understand something. FCPX and other Mac software runs better on OpenCL. AMD video cards are MUCH MUCH better in this area than NVIDIA cards. My 4GB GTX980 does worse on OpenCL vs the AMD HD 7950.
NVIDIA is better at CUDA, which is why the Dell won on the Premiere Pro tests in the video. AMD is better at OpenCL which is what FCPX uses.
It really irritates me when people want NVIDIA in these laptops. I prefer AMD for production, NVIDIA for gaming. These are not gaming laptops. NVIDIA does not belong in these systems until Apple changes to use CUDA instead.
[doublepost=1484285902][/doublepost]
If I am buying a laptop now, I compare it with the products available now.
That is like saying "Why compare benchmarks with the GTX 1080 when the GTX 11xx series is coming out soon!"
This entire Kaby Lake obsession needs to stop. it isn't a 2,000% performance increase. It is not even a 25% increase. It is a 25% increase from FOUR YEARS AGO.
By the time the new XPS comes out, why would we compare it with the 2016 Macbook Pro when we will have a 2017 Macbook Pro coming out?
Last edited:
The new xps is available for order now and delivering in 12 days. Its relevant to compare to todays macbook. We just dont have any vids yet. See?
So it will run el cap but has issues with sierra, plus it doesn't work out of the box with it and you can't just update without dicking about. Not great if you just want a laptop for macOS. I rate it 2/10 for running macOS. LOL