Simple question 2015 or 2016

[medinagu1]

Thanks in advance everybody-

Simple question: 2015 Macbook 1.1Ghz 256GB for $897 out the door OR 2016 Macbook m5 512GB for $1376 out the door? Money does matter but both are affordable. I don't do any video editing or gaming if that helps.

TIA

 

[KPOM]

Thanks in advance everybody-

Simple question: 2015 Macbook 1.1Ghz 256GB for $897 out the door OR 2016 Macbook m5 512GB for $1376 out the door? Money does matter but both are affordable. I don't do any video editing or gaming if that helps.

TIA

If price is no object the 2016 no contest. It is noticeably faster and gets better battery life.

 

[mathpunk]

I am quite happy with my 2015 1.1Ghz. If it were me, I would take the 2015 and use part of the difference for the Applecare extended warranty.

 

[viperGTS]

Sorry to be off topic, but where did you find the 2016 at that price?

 

[Spink10]

Thanks in advance everybody-

Simple question: 2015 Macbook 1.1Ghz 256GB for $897 out the door OR 2016 Macbook m5 512GB for $1376 out the door? Money does matter but both are affordable. I don't do any video editing or gaming if that helps.

TIA

2015 based on your needs.

 

[boltjames]

If price is no object the 2016 no contest. It is noticeably faster and gets better battery life.

Stop.

It is not "noticeably faster" unless it is stressed to the max as most users would never, ever do.

BJ

 

[KPOM]

Stop.

It is not "noticeably faster" unless it is stressed to the max as most users would never, ever do.

BJ

From my everyday use, the 2016 is noticeably faster in the following circumstances:
- Copying large files to/from the drive
- Leaving multiple tabs open in Safari (it throttles a bit less since Skylake made some architectural improvements)
- Opening and closing a virtual machine.

The OP's question isn't whether someone who already has a 2015 should update to the 2016. It's whether the 2016 is worth the incremental cost to the buyer. Note he is comparing last year's base model to this year's m5. There are demonstrable differences between this year's m3 and m5.

To the OP, here are some "real world" test results that include last year's models and this year's models in Aperture, iMovie, Final Cut Pro X, GarageBand, and Logic Pro.
https://img.macg.co/2016/5/macgpic-1462873410-5201476212354-sc-jpt.jpg

 

[ShionoyaTamaki]

Thanks in advance everybody-

Simple question: 2015 Macbook 1.1Ghz 256GB for $897 out the door OR 2016 Macbook m5 512GB for $1376 out the door? Money does matter but both are affordable. I don't do any video editing or gaming if that helps.

TIA

2016 1.2 m5 model is 30% faster than 2015 1.1 model, has 1 hr extra battery capacity, faster ssd and double the storage. Up to you if that is worth an extra 400-500, but money is no issue for you so isn't the choice obvious?

 

[Trey M]

Really comes down to your preference OP. Even if money isn't an option, it's still worth noting that it's a $500 difference.

Interesting you posted the more expensive model with a 512 SSD....really comes down to how much do you value SSD space. If you can live with no issues with the 256 SSD, I don't really see the need to go for the 2016 model. It's better but absolutely not $500 better. Need SSD space, get the m5. If you can happily live without 512GB, get the base and enjoy the great deal you got.

 

[Spink10]

2016 1.2 m5 model is 30% faster than 2015 1.1 model, has 1 hr extra battery capacity, faster ssd and double the storage. Up to you if that is worth an extra 400-500, but money is no issue for you so isn't the choice obvious?

I like your logic...if money doesn't matter OP wouldn't be asking question...go 2015!

 

[boltjames]

From my everyday use, the 2016 is noticeably faster in the following circumstances:
- Copying large files to/from the drive
- Leaving multiple tabs open in Safari (it throttles a bit less since Skylake made some architectural improvements)
- Opening and closing a virtual machine.

Thank you.

Had your original post said it that way I wouldn't have been compelled to respond. "Noticeably faster" under a few scattered circumstances is vastly different than "noticeably faster all the time" (which it is not).

The OP specifically called out he is not a hardcore user, he should clearly be told that the better play is the 2015 machine at almost 40% less cost.

BJ

 

[KPOM]

Thank you.

Had your original post said it that way I wouldn't have been compelled to respond. "Noticeably faster" under a few scattered circumstances is vastly different than "noticeably faster all the time" (which it is not).

The OP specifically called out he is not a hardcore user, he should clearly be told that the better play is the 2015 machine at almost 40% less cost.

BJ

Remember "noticeably faster" is not the same as "dramatically faster." AnandTech once described 10% as the threshold of noticeability. Whether the 2016 is $500 better is up to the OP, but also remember some of that difference is the storage space.

 

[deeddawg]

really comes down to how much do you value SSD space

A drastically oversized SSD is a big waste of money.

 

[boltjames]

Remember "noticeably faster" is not the same as "dramatically faster." AnandTech once described 10% as the threshold of noticeability. Whether the 2016 is $500 better is up to the OP, but also remember some of that difference is the storage space.

Sure, I get that.

I think what we're both saying is that the 2015 RMB vs. the 2016 RMB's Skylake processor boost is negligible for typical notebook users but can be felt if one is stressing their notebook with virtual machines, heavy multitasking, big file management, etc.

For me, since I bought my RMB to be thin and light travel partner and since I take full advantage of current day offline technologies, I don't need a 2016 to be productive. For those looking to the RMB to be a serious desktop replacement and/or who still rely on gangs of wires and old peripherals a 2016 would be a wise choice.

BJ

 

[Trey M]

A drastically oversized SSD is a big waste of money.

Lol, maybe for you?

I fully utilize the 500GB in one of my machines, think I have like 15 GB left. And yes I sync my stuff in the cloud and via external drives. But you can't beat local storage. Just because you would never use 500GB doesn't mean others won't. Video professionals in particular use massive amounts of data.

You can certainly argue that Apple SSDs are overpriced. But arguing that 500GB is "oversized" is laughable.

 

[deeddawg]

arguing that 500GB is "oversized" is laughable.

That's not what I said; you've misunderstood.

Perhaps it'd be clearer to say "A drastically oversized (to one's needs) SSD is a big waste of money."

OP asked about a 2015 256GB model vs a 2016 512GB model that's $500 more expensive. Presumably OP's storage needs fit within 256GB else he'd not consider that option. Paying a bunch of extra money if he has no need for the extra SSD space is a waste of money.

Obviously, it's worthwhile to buy the storage space you need. That's why I own the 512GB model, for my usage the 256GB SSD model wasn't sufficient.

 

[Trey M]

That's not what I said; you've misunderstood.

Perhaps it'd be clearer to say "A drastically oversized (to one's needs) SSD is a big waste of money."

OP asked about a 2015 256GB model vs a 2016 512GB model that's $500 more expensive. Presumably OP's storage needs fit within 256GB else he'd not consider that option. Paying a bunch of extra money if he has no need for the extra SSD space is a waste of money.

Obviously, it's worthwhile to buy the storage space you need. That's why I own the 512GB model, for my usage the 256GB SSD model wasn't sufficient.

Fair enough I did misunderstand your initial post because it wasn't clear you were referring to the OP.

However you're assuming that the OP doesn't need >256GB just because he's considering that option. I think you're making too many assumptions. If I was in his shoes, I might swing for the 256GB even though I would use and prefer 512GB because the price difference is so significant. So I don't think it's fair to assume he has no potential use for the larger SSD just because he's considering a cheaper option. He could have 2 laptops and not need as much storage in the other. Or could afford an external drive with the $500 he's saving.

Other than that, not sure what you added here other than repeating the argument I already made above.

 

[deeddawg]

I don't think it's fair to assume he has no potential use for the larger SSD just because he's considering a cheaper option.

I made no such assumption.

Rather than continue to add noise to the thread, I suggest that if you're still not understanding my post that you send a PM and I'll be glad to clarify for you.