rMBP to take everywhere - 15" too bulky?

[sonyisawesome]

I love my maxed-out 13" rMBP. Couldn't ask for more. There are those of us who value that smaller form factor over having a quad-core CPU and all that jazz but still rely on it to get a lot of work done.

yes yes yes, i know how much you mac users love your stuffs...

You dont have to remind us in every single threads...

 

[PDFierro]

yes yes yes, i know how much you mac users love your stuffs...

You dont have to remind us in every single threads...

Uh, what? I was simply responding to your comment in which you said the 13" rMBP is inferior.

 

[JonathanGennick]

I love my maxed-out 13" rMBP. Couldn't ask for more. There are those of us who value that smaller form factor over having a quad-core CPU and all that jazz but still rely on it to get a lot of work done.

For myself, either machine is adequately powerful and the issue boils down to how much I want to be able to see on screen. The head part of me sees that more pixels are a benefit for the work that I do. The heart part of me just really likes the smaller form factor.

Perhaps Apple could hire The Doctor. Then they could build a machine that is 13" on the outside and 15" on the inside.

 

[nStyle]

Because 13" is an inferior product compared to 15". It's designed to be small and compact and sacrifice every other specs in doing so.

Inferior in specs but superior to some in size.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

I love my maxed-out 13" rMBP. Couldn't ask for more. There are those of us who value that smaller form factor over having a quad-core CPU and all that jazz but still rely on it to get a lot of work done.

It really does come down to where on the teeter-totter you lie. For me, I really don't like a 13" screen. The beefier specs are nice, but it's the screen real estate that gets me.

Granted I also maxed out the specs.

 

[willcapellaro]

Not a direct response to your question, and you already purchased, but I am debating the same thing and I'm sure others are too.

The 13 is such a nice machine to carry around, but the 15 is no slouch.

One thing to consider is that you always get generally slower processors with quad-core. Extra cores are not always useful—sucks that we have to choose.

I don't understand why we basically have the same CPUs we did 4-5 years ago.

 

[nStyle]

Not a direct response to your question, and you already purchased, but I am debating the same thing and I'm sure others are too.

The 13 is such a nice machine to carry around, but the 15 is no slouch.

One thing to consider is that you always get generally slower processors with quad-core. Extra cores are not always useful—sucks that we have to choose.

I don't understand why we basically have the same CPUs we did 4-5 years ago.

Because Moore's law started to become irrelevant about the same time?

Truth be told not many people are going to notice the difference in dual and quad core. If you're truly having to ask which one to get on a forum, you're probably the type that would be fine with dual core. Just saying. Those who need will always buy for their needs and those who want generally end up buying more than they need.

 

[SomeGuyDude]

Not a direct response to your question, and you already purchased, but I am debating the same thing and I'm sure others are too.

The 13 is such a nice machine to carry around, but the 15 is no slouch.

One thing to consider is that you always get generally slower processors with quad-core. Extra cores are not always useful—sucks that we have to choose.

I don't understand why we basically have the same CPUs we did 4-5 years ago.

Considering benchmarks keep going up... maybe more GHz isn't actually helping?

 

[Harrycooke]

Good afternoon,

(For those that don't want to read the detail, my main question is: Is a 15" rMBP too bulky to comfortably take with me everywhere?)

My current laptop (a 2.3kg, 14" Windows laptop) is dying, and I start Masters (in Statistics) in two-and-a-half weeks. Since everyone in the School of Mathematical Sciences uses Macs, I thought I'd buy one myself (so I can use the same software as my supervisors, etc). I'll be taking it with me nearly everywhere, including to and from uni, even though I won't be using it at uni that much because I'll have my own iMac to use at uni for Masters. I'll also be using it at home as a "desktop replacement," using one or two external monitors with it.

I chatted to one of my supervisors about my upcoming purchase, and he said that his Macbook Air (mid 2013) is fast enough everything we'll be doing for the project. However, I realise that buying a Mac is an investment, and I want to make it future-proof. Consequently, I'm leaning towards a 13" rMBP with 512GB SSD, 16GB RAM and i7-4558U 2.8GHz CPU, for portability as well as having decent grunt, the ability to run virtual machines and dual-boot (in case I need to use something Windows-based). However, I keep seeing comments essentially saying, "don't bother getting a max spec 13" rMBP, get a low or mid-range 15" rMBP instead as better value for money." This makes sense, as the 15" rMBP is far better at multi-core processing, having quad-core processors compared to the dual-cores of the 13". Also, it's not like the 15" rMBP is a 5kg Alienware brick - it's only 2kg, 300g lighter than my Windows machine.

What's my concern, then? Purely the footprint and bulk of the 15". On planes, in cars, at cafes, etc, I'd much rather a 13" laptop. But I'm worried I'll regret not having a quad-core processor in the future - I'm keen to digitize my DVD collection soon, and video encoding will be a lot quicker on a quad-core processor. Or is my future self just being impatient?

Thanks guys,
Andrew.

I've taken my Dell Inspiron 15", which is a hell of a lot bulkier than my 15" rMBP, on a plane, and it's perfectly fine (although this twot of a woman spilt her coffee on it. Luckily/Unfortunately it survived) you'll be fine with a 15"!

 

[twingo]

It's just a matter of taste. You can carry around both of them. I got the 15" because i wanted the highest possible display resolution. I am glad with it, and it is worth the money. The maxed out 13" seems to be too expensive in comparison to the 15".

 

[richard371]

Im contemplating returning my mid level 13" for the 15 top model. I really need 16GB for my VMs and my 256 SSD only has 50GB left. I wouldn't mine the 750M gpu but from what I read its not that fast of a GPU. Im just concerned about the screen issues I have been reading about and the size. I really like the size and weight of the 13. Not to mention Ill have to spend close to another 13-1400.

 

[cyberbro]

For travel, Im 13.3" type of guy!

 

[willcapellaro]

Because Moore's law started to become irrelevant about the same time?

Truth be told not many people are going to notice the difference in dual and quad core. If you're truly having to ask which one to get on a forum, you're probably the type that would be fine with dual core. Just saying. Those who need will always buy for their needs and those who want generally end up buying more than they need.

Easy on the generalizations, friend. Not sure who you're accusing of being ignorant.

 

[Badrottie]

My 15" rMBP is bit heavy for me to carry to my school. I had to bring my iPad and use it with iCloud.

 

[Fzang]

I bought a 15" rMBP and a bag that only fits my computer and nothing else. Super lightweight. Not that handy if you need books though (PDF books ftw).

 

[Giev]

I mean, from what I can gather, the 15" would take up pretty much the whole airplane tray. With no room for a drink or anything. I guess I can see how a 15" could work in a majority of places the 13" does, but the 13" sounds like the overall better option.

That Sir, is a recipe for disaster. Airplanes, and drinks next to a laptop can go wrong pretty easily. Get the 15 inch

 

[Miloh]

Not a direct response to your question, and you already purchased, but I am debating the same thing and I'm sure others are too.

The 13 is such a nice machine to carry around, but the 15 is no slouch.

One thing to consider is that you always get generally slower processors with quad-core. Extra cores are not always useful—sucks that we have to choose.

I don't understand why we basically have the same CPUs we did 4-5 years ago.

Two major reasons, the first is power draw. Once you go over 4.0Ghz the power draw of many CPUs skyrockets. AMD might brag about having 4.2Ghz Octocores, but those things draw upwards of 160W of power.

For reference, the power draw of a desktop Quad core Ivy Bridge i5 at full tilt is 75W (and it can turbo up to 4.2Ghz), most of the time it sits around 45 - 50W.

The second (which is related to the first) is thermal constraints, higher clock speeds mean more power is needed, more power translates into more heat. On a desktop quad cores can run at 3.8Ghz without breaking a sweat. The same cannot be said of laptops like the MBP, the small enclosure means that same 3.8Ghz quad core would overheat, so down to 2.2Ghz it goes. Dual cores can run at higher clock speeds because they don't generate as much heat per clock compared to quad cores.

Also keep in mind that the CPU can turbo up to higher than advertised speeds for short periods of time before reaching its thermal limit and throttling back to normal

What will determine what works best for you is the type of work the machine will be doing most of the time, and preferences like the screen size.

Unless your workload involves software that is multithreaded and can take advantage of the quad core, a dual core provides better single threaded performance (which is the majority of tasks) due to the higher clock speed that it can run at. Turboboost narrows the gap for single threaded performance between dual and quad cores quite a bit, but its still something to think about.

Of course none of this matters if you don't like the size of the 13' screen.

 

[amoda]

No, I don't think that the 15rMBP is too bulky to travel with.

I run to school (~5kms) with the 15 rMBP in my backpack, along with a change of clothes, and I find it perfectly fine. I've also traveled with it abroad and it's weight and size were easy to deal with.

I'm of the mind that in the vast majority of situations that I need a laptop, very few would allow for a Macbook Air but not a rMBP. I either can bring a laptop, or can't. In those cases I have an iPad Mini for ultra-portability.

 

[willcapellaro]

Two major reasons, the first is power draw. Once you go over 4.0Ghz the power draw of many CPUs skyrockets. AMD might brag about having 4.2Ghz Octocores, but those things draw upwards of 160W of power.

For reference, the power draw of a desktop Quad core Ivy Bridge i5 at full tilt is 75W (and it can turbo up to 4.2Ghz), most of the time it sits around 45 - 50W.

The second (which is related to the first) is thermal constraints, higher clock speeds mean more power is needed, more power translates into more heat. On a desktop quad cores can run at 3.8Ghz without breaking a sweat. The same cannot be said of laptops like the MBP, the small enclosure means that same 3.8Ghz quad core would overheat, so down to 2.2Ghz it goes. Dual cores can run at higher clock speeds because they don't generate as much heat per clock compared to quad cores.

Also keep in mind that the CPU can turbo up to higher than advertised speeds for short periods of time before reaching its thermal limit and throttling back to normal

What will determine what works best for you is the type of work the machine will be doing most of the time, and preferences like the screen size.

Unless your workload involves software that is multithreaded and can take advantage of the quad core, a dual core provides better single threaded performance (which is the majority of tasks) due to the higher clock speed that it can run at. Turboboost narrows the gap for single threaded performance between dual and quad cores quite a bit, but its still something to think about.

Of course none of this matters if you don't like the size of the 13' screen.

Useful response, appreciated.