Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by SHEEPOS, Jun 26, 2015.
I found both at the same prise
The 15 inch is a quad core processor so (assuming your software use multicores) it's at least 2x as powerful. The graphics in the IRIS Pro are better than the 6100 IRIS in the 13 inch by some margin. The SSD in the 13 inch is much faster but the one in the 15 inch is still very fast.
However if you don't use the power it'll make very little difference to you which you get for basic uses.
Depending on what you're doing, quad core 15" MBP would be better plus as noted the GPU is superior as well. I like the fact that the 15" has more screen real estate as well.
Quads vs dual, there isn't really a comparison to be made.
It all depends on what you do with it though.
both cost the same
What do you actually do with a computer? If you don't need the power, you won't notice a difference between the two, so asking about power is pointless. Do you value portability? Some argue that the 15" is too big/heavy to carry around all day (I disagree).
Agreed, the 15" may be faster as noted (depending on your task).
Do you want a larger (but faster) laptop or do you want a smaller one?
The decision is your to be made. Members here listed some of the advantages, but ultimately its your money and your decision.
Not *quite* twice as powerful, as the dual is clocked higher. But yes, assuming you are running multithreaded software, it is up to say 1.6-2x as fast, depending on the application.
The other thing is the GPU. That will potentially make a very big difference, or may make zero difference depending on whether your application uses the GPU.
The big question IMHO though is whether you want a more portable machine or not.
If you don't NEED the power in the 15" machine, the 13" is much easier to carry around, the screen is great, the battery life will be better (especially on a 15" with a dGPU in it), and it's still a very capable machine.
If you aren't rendering video all day or gaming, the 13" machine will be more than enough, newer, better battery life and more portable.
If you're looking for something you don't care about lugging about so much (i.e., a desktop replacement type machine that only occasionally moves) the 15" machine will be a lot more suitable.
My old 15" MBP (non retina) still smokes my brand new 13" machine CPU wise and probably GPU as well. I much prefer the 13" machine though. As a portable, it feels more appropriately sized and the battery life is just awesome.
I also disagree. The 15' rMBP is the same weight as the old 13" cMBP, yet twice as powerful. Plus, the only time the footprint of my rMBP has been a problem is on a plane which I don't do too often. I carry mine in my backpack almost everywhere I go. I'm also a student who takes transit by choice, so I walk a lot and it doesn't even bother my back/shoulders at all.
Not quite twice as powerful, that's right. It's only slightly more powerful in single threaded tasks.
The 2.3GHz quad core i7-4850HQ still trashes the 2.7GHz i5-5257U because in single core, the quad core operates at 3.5GHz while the dual core can only operate at 3.1GHz.
the 15" macbook late 2013 clocked at 2.0 ghz turbo boost up to 3.2
For me the additional screen size is the most important variable, I used to have the 13 and it wasn't big enough for Xcode and Lightroom