What are the difference between a 2014 and 2015 MBP? 15

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by jerryk, May 27, 2016.

  1. jerryk macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #1
    I thought I read that the 2014 and 2015 MBP 15" units are the same, but I see the Apple store wants $90 more for a refurbed 2015. Can anyone tell me the differences.

    Also, can anyone comment on my thinking of 13 inch versus 15 inch. I want more memory and disk, and if get a 13 inch with 16 GB and a 512 GB drive the prices really shoots up. Adding the 512 GB to the 15 inch goes up, but not extremely. I prefer the size of the 13 inch, but can "tolerate" with the 15 inch.
     
  2. emilioestevez Suspended

    emilioestevez

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    #2
    The 2015 has a faster SSD, but a worse dGPU (although both have 2 GB vRAM). It also has the Force Touch trackpad.

    Also, the 2015 cannot run Windows 7 in Boot Camp (only 8 and 10).
     
  3. Aditya_S macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2016
    #3
    Why did they put in a worse dGPU? Also are the CPUs the exact same or slightly better on the 2015?
     
  4. jerryk thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #4

    Thanks. More questions (of course).

    Does the change in SSD performance make a noticeable difference?

    Also, the dGPU is an option, correct? (Sorry, I have only owned at 13 inch Mac Book Pros.) I believe the 15" models I am looking at are pretty basic. So I am assuming basic graphics with no dGPU. Is that correct?

    Do either of these years have any issues with running windows 10 in Parallels?
     
  5. RoboWarriorSr macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    #5
    It's a worse GPU for gaming, the AMD GPU is specifically chosen since it can handle a 5K display and has significantly improved importance for Apple Professional software like Final Cut Pro X. CPU is otherwise identical.
     
  6. Aditya_S macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2016
    #6
    So it is better for video editing but not for gaming, correct?
     
  7. RoboWarriorSr macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    #7
    Yes especially if the program utilized OpenCL. Though a number of games seem to show improved graphic performance over the 750m. It seems highly dependent though. For example, the AMD card is able to play Witcher 3 according to a few users while the 750m struggle.
     
  8. Aditya_S macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2016
    #8
    If the 2016 MBPs are underwhelming, is the 2015 MBP still worth it?
     
  9. emilioestevez Suspended

    emilioestevez

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2015
    #9
    You won't be able to tell the difference in speed unless you're moving HUGE files. Both SSDs are lightning fast. My 2014 boots up and is ready for login in less than 5 seconds.

    Yes, the base 15" features Iris Pro graphics that are integrated. They're really capable graphics, too.

    Parallels can run Win 10 easily on a 15" model. Even though the 2015 doesn't support Win 7 via Boot Camp, you can still run it just fine in Parallels or VMware.
     
  10. duervo macrumors 68000

    duervo

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    #10
    That's a huge "if". I think the odds of a 2016 MBP being "underwhelming" are small. I also think that it really depends on what the customer's expected usage would be.

    Some other "if's":

    If they don't use anything that would really take advantage of any new tech that may be introduced with a 2016, then yes the 2015 will probably still be worth it (refurb, of course.) (and such a scenario would have the 2016 be "underwhelming" to that person.)

    If any new tech that is introduced has a significant positive impact on their use, then the comparative worth of a 2015 will appropriately diminished. (And such a scenario would probably have the 2016 be "overwhelming" to that person.)
     
  11. MRxROBOT, May 28, 2016
    Last edited: May 28, 2016

    MRxROBOT macrumors 6502

    MRxROBOT

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2016
    Location:
    1011100110
    #11
    Edit: My thoughts are regarding the dGPU models as you mentioned that the price doesn't increase by much when adding 512GB to the 15". I also saw discourse in regards to the 750m vs R9 370x, I must have glossed over your second post. If you are considering the base models, only the 2014 and 2015 are available in the refurb store so jump down to the last paragraph and ignore the bits about the dGPU.

    --------------

    If you are considering the Mid 2014 15.4” MacBook Pro for the purpose of savings than you should really take a look at the Late 2013 models in the Refurb store which offer even further savings. They are the same computer. With that said the Mid 2015 has key upgrades over the 2014 you should consider.

    Mid 2015 > Mid 2014

    Mid 2014 = Late 2013

    Late 2013 > Early 2013

    The Late 2013 was a substantial upgrade to the 15.4” MacBook Pro. The processors were upgraded to “Haswell” architecture, The graphics cards were upgraded to the more powerful NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M graphics processor with dedicated GDDR5 memory alongside the "integrated" Iris Pro 5200 graphics processor. "Early 2013" models have 3-stream 802.11a/b/g/n Wi-Fi and two "Thunderbolt" ports whereas the "Late 2013" models have faster 802.11ac Wi-Fi and two faster "Thunderbolt 2" ports. Storage was upgraded from SATA 6Gb/s to the significantly faster PCIe interface.

    The Late 2013 and Mid 2014 are the same computer, both using the 11,3 identifier. Both using the Intel quad core “Haswell” processors and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 750M graphics processor with dedicated GDDR5 memory alongside the "integrated" Iris Pro 5200 graphics processor. Other than the differing clockspeed, they are one and the same computer.

    The differences between the Mid 2014 and the Mid 2015 are more subtle than those between the Early 2013 and Late 2013 but there were key upgrades made. The Intel quad core “Haswell” processors remained. The graphics card was upgraded to the AMD Radeon R9 M370X with 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 SDRAM which is notably faster in OpenCL hardware accelerated tasks. The newer models can support a larger external display up to 5120x2160 at 60 Hz via Thunderbolt 2. A notable difference is that across all capacities the SSD was upgraded from PCIe 2.0 x2 to PCIe 2.0 x4, delivering literally double the throughput. The "Mid-2014" models (as well as earlier ones) have a "no button" trackpad with "inertial scrolling" support, whereas the "Mid-2015" models have a more advanced "Force Touch" trackpad. The battery was increased from 95W Hr to 99.5 W Hr, with Apple claiming an additional hour of battery life.
     
  12. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #12
    Worse is subjective. AMD is stronger on GPU compute. Unless you're running CUDA. Which Apple is actively trying to kill and replace with OpenCL as OpenCL is cross platform.
     
  13. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #13
    Depends on your needs, I think the performance is largely similar to both models. I think for overall satisfaction a faster SSD will give you a better user experience but in all honesty (depending on the task) Both machines should perform similarly.
     
  14. Aditya_S macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2016
    #14
    I'm only asking because I'm worried Apple is going to remove all USB A ports, and all my devices will be useless without an adapter. If this happens I would be forced to buy the 2015
     
  15. RoboWarriorSr macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2013
    #15
    It should be important to note the 5K external display support is only with the AMD graphic card, the Iris Pro only has support for 4K, though I'm getting conflicting information whether it supports 60 Hz as the 5100 doesn't while the 6100 does. Though technically the 5200 should be able to due to the 128 MB eDRAM.
     
  16. jerryk thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #16
    There are usb C to usb A cables available for a few dollars.
     
  17. curmudgeonette macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Location:
    California
    #17
    USB-C to USB-B cables are probably more appropriate for hooking up old devices. In the original USB design, the A connector was generally meant to be the host end, and the B is the accessory device.

    (A USB-C to USB-A cable would be more for hooking a new device to an old computer.)
     
  18. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #18
    As noted, if they do, then you'll have to do, what current MacBook owners do. Get a dongle and/or dock.
     
  19. jerryk thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2011
    Location:
    SF Bay Area
    #19
    So to connect USB thumb drive or similarly plugged device I would need a dock? That does not seem right. Seems like you would just need a C to A OTG cable. Having to carry a dock would be a disaster for the on the go user.

    I hope if Apple does go with USB C only they do like some of the windows manufactures and put 3 of them on their units and let you charge the computer from any port and connect things like external GPUs.
     

Share This Page