Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Waiting for Skylake MBP thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I couldn't see using a rMBP at any resolution other than the "best for display" one; things become blurry when using a scaled one.

But a higher native resolution could mean a larger "best" resolution. 1200x800 on the 13" did seem a bit limiting to me sometimes, no matter how beautiful and crisp the text and graphics looked.
 
15" screen; reduce the bezel making the case smaller;
1.5 or 2TB SSD
32GB option
Magsafe
TB3/USB-C, SD card, at least one USB-A
Lighter
 
Baldrake said:
They won't increase the resolution unless the physical screen also increases in size. Higher resolution in the same screen space will start to make text and UI elements uncomfortably small.
Click to expand...
4k at 15 inch is absolutely no problem. I was sceptical myself first, but after some first-hand experiences, I've been convinced that this is feasible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StandardFlint
ThisBougieLife said:
I couldn't see using a rMBP at any resolution other than the "best for display" one; things become blurry when using a scaled one.

But a higher native resolution could mean a larger "best" resolution. 1200x800 on the 13" did seem a bit limiting to me sometimes, no matter how beautiful and crisp the text and graphics looked.
Click to expand...

Is anything actually blurry when the UI is scaled down in size smaller than "best for display"? I can envision an app using 2x bitmap elements which are scaled UP being slightly blurry (if it works that way) but always figured you could scale down without issue.

As someone with the "hi-res" antiglare screen on the 2011 MBP, I'm used to the native 1680x1050 whereas the "best for display" on the rMBP is effectively 1440x900 (doubled), so it'd be a loss of screen real estate at that resolution.
 
ThisBougieLife said:
I couldn't see using a rMBP at any resolution other than the "best for display" one; things become blurry when using a scaled one.

But a higher native resolution could mean a larger "best" resolution. 1200x800 on the 13" did seem a bit limiting to me sometimes, no matter how beautiful and crisp the text and graphics looked.
Click to expand...

I primarily use a rMB (12" screen) at 2304 x 1440 and that is not anywhere near the limit of what is comfortable for my eyes.
 
I decided to wait (..obviously still waiting) to upgrade to the retina mbp when they were first released because I couldn't stand how big everything was and how small the screen felt when using the "best for display"-mode, being used to having the old so called "Hi-res display" (1680x1050) on my mid 2010 15" MBP.
Hopefully, that's what they're doubling now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fastasleep
Where are the damn rumours? Is it normal to not have any new rumours a month or two ahead of release?
 
I hope they will use at least a 3360x2100 display (if not 3840x2400) on the 15". Not only do we get more space using the "best for display" setting but the current MBP at only 221 PPI is just too low. Compare it to something like the Surface Pro 4 with 267 PPI and the MBP will look really old and pixely.

Apple has shown that they don't care about proper scaling with the 12" MacBook and the iPhone 6 Plus. The MacBook has a 2304x1440 screen, yet the standard setting is to render at 2560x1600 and downscale to fit the screen. This puts the MacBook at a virtual 252 PPI. This is why I have hope that we will get a 3360x2100 15.4" screen since that is 257 PPI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fastasleep, StandardFlint and Sneakz
Voley said:
So people will benchmark and see 30% cpu performance drop compared to 2015 model? Makes no sense, it will be 28W.
Click to expand...
These are the geekbench results for 2015 models:
mba -> broadwell 15W cpu
mpb -> broadwell 28W cpu

| single core | multi core |
| 32bit | 64bit | 32bit | 64bit |
i5 13" mba 2505 2772 4984 5630
i7 13" mba 2890 3233 6012 6870
i5 13" mbp 2887 3201 6059 6876
i7 13" mbp 3097 3436 6468 7362

(formatting with blank spaces doesn't work, sorry...)

The top i7 15W cpu (2.2GHz) is already equal to the base i5 28W cpu (2,7GHz).
30% difference is only when you compare low-end mba (1.6GHz) with top-end mbp (3,1GHz).

As a comparison i put here the results for 2016 skylake-M macbook, (~5W cpu):

M3 12" mb 2276 2497 4422 5002
M7 12" mb 2681 2983 5660 6471

The top 2016 mb even beats the low-end 2015 mba.

I say it will be 15W.
time will tell.
peace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dukeOfPrunes
pegamoos said:
These are the geekbench results for 2015 models:
mba -> broadwell 15W cpu
mpb -> broadwell 28W cpu

| single core | multi core |
| 32bit | 64bit | 32bit | 64bit |
i5 13" mba 2505 2772 4984 5630
i7 13" mba 2890 3233 6012 6870
i5 13" mbp 2887 3201 6059 6876
i7 13" mbp 3097 3436 6468 7362

The top i7 15W cpu (2.2GHz) is already equal to the base i5 28W cpu (2,7GHz).
30% difference is only when you compare low-end mba (1.6GHz) with top-end mbp (3,1GHz).

As a comparison i put here the results for 2016 skylake-M macbook, (~5W cpu):

M3 12" mb 2276 2497 4422 5002
M7 12" mb 2681 2983 5660 6471

The top 2016 mb even beats the low-end 2015 mba.

I say it will be 15W.
time will tell.
peace.
Click to expand...
i hope you're wrong :(
 
pegamoos said:
These are the geekbench results for 2015 models:
mba -> broadwell 15W cpu
mpb -> broadwell 28W cpu

| single core | multi core |
| 32bit | 64bit | 32bit | 64bit |
i5 13" mba 2505 2772 4984 5630
i7 13" mba 2890 3233 6012 6870
i5 13" mbp 2887 3201 6059 6876
i7 13" mbp 3097 3436 6468 7362

(formatting with blank spaces doesn't work, sorry...)

The top i7 15W cpu (2.2GHz) is already equal to the base i5 28W cpu (2,7GHz).
30% difference is only when you compare low-end mba (1.6GHz) with top-end mbp (3,1GHz).

As a comparison i put here the results for 2016 skylake-M macbook, (~5W cpu):

M3 12" mb 2276 2497 4422 5002
M7 12" mb 2681 2983 5660 6471

The top 2016 mb even beats the low-end 2015 mba.

I say it will be 15W.
time will tell.
peace.
Click to expand...

Geekbench is not a good way to compare CPUs of different TDP and cooling systems because it doesn't measure the performance under sustained load. The 5W m7 is faster than a 15W i5 at first but it will be a lot slower when the m7 starts to throttle because there is no cooling fan. The same thing happens when you compare 15W to the 28W CPUs that are designed to handle higher computational loads. Still, the performance of 15W chips are not too far from 28W chips but it is a noticable difference under sustained load.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: infinitejest
GubbyMan said:
Geekbench is not a good way to compare CPUs of different TDP and cooling systems because it doesn't measure the performance under sustained load. The 5W m7 is faster than a 15W i5 at first but it will be a lot slower when the m7 starts to throttle because there is no cooling fan. The same thing happens when you compare 15W to 28W CPUs. Still, the performance of 15W chips are not too far from 28W chips but it is a noticable difference under sustained load.
Click to expand...
i agree with you for the fanless systems, but both the current mba and the mbp don't throttle because of overheating, afaik. can you provide data do confirm what you say?
i suppose the cooling unit is designed to dissipate the max TDP heat continuously (except, say, ambient air is >40°C to begin with).
 
Especially when gaming and the Iris chip is getting used. I went to a retailer and checked out the new rMB and did run Geekbench 10 times. After the 4th time the scores started to go down. After the 8th or so time it was at a low point about 30% below it's 1st value and wouldnt go down any further. Wasnt really hot but very warm. I'd imagine using the Core-m i7 would start sooner with the throtteling as it generated more heat due to more Ghz.

Still an impressive piece of technology. Just 300-500 bucks too high.

GubbyMan said:
Geekbench is not a good way to compare CPUs of different TDP and cooling systems because it doesn't measure the performance under sustained load. The 5W m7 is faster than a 15W i5 at first but it will be a lot slower when the m7 starts to throttle because there is no cooling fan. The same thing happens when you compare 15W to the 28W CPUs that are designed to handle higher computational loads. Still, the performance of 15W chips are not too far from 28W chips but it is a noticable difference under sustained load.
Click to expand...
 
Baldrake said:
They won't increase the resolution unless the physical screen also increases in size. Higher resolution in the same screen space will start to make text and UI elements uncomfortably small.
Click to expand...

You still don't understand that higher pixel density doesn't necessarily mean smaller icons and text, or what ?
 
pegamoos said:
i agree with you for the fanless systems, but both the current mba and the mbp don't throttle because of overheating, afaik. can you provide data do confirm what you say?
i suppose the cooling unit is designed to dissipate the max TDP heat continuously (except, say, ambient air is >40°C to begin with).
Click to expand...

I just assumed that MBA would throttle under heavy load, you're probably right about that.

Edit: I just remembered, turbo boost will be able to run at faster clock rates for a longer time with better cooling systems. So maybe the 15W CPUs are scoring that high because they can use turbo boost before the chip overheats and have to use normal clock speed?
 
Arthur75 said:
You still don't understand that higher pixel density doesn't necessarily mean smaller icons and text, or what ?
Click to expand...

But it does mean smaller icons and text. Lets say Apple releases the 15" MBP with a 4K display, using HiDPI it will have a desktop space that looks like 1920x1200 while the current MBP has a desktop space that looks like 1440x900.

Of course, you could lower the resolution to render at 2880x1800 to get the same size of the elements as the current model but that would just upscale to the 4K display which means you will get lower details and wasted resolution.

Apple can also introduce a new HiDPI x3 like they did with the iPhone 6 Plus but that would mean that developers will need to update their apps again to support the new resolutions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Baldrake
Smaller icons and text if nothing changes, but not inherently. Apple can scale the icons and text however they wish independent of the resolution. Like saying icons are 10 points in height, but a "point" would not necessarily be 1:1 with a pixel. It could be 3:1, etc. This way you decouple your icons from the physical screen resolution
 
  • Like
Reactions: fastasleep and GubbyMan
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back