Which mac is the better buy?

[Deanster]

I'd probably go with the 15" screen - I find the 13" to be great for portability, but becomes amazingly cramped very quickly when I want multiple documents on the screen, or for editing video, or photos, etc.

If this is going to be your main computer for several years, and you don't already know for sure that portability is your primary decision driver, I'd vote for the 15".

 

[boateng]

I am in the same situation as you. I am mainly thinking the 15inch bigger screen & more powerful CPU (with abit more expensive) over the 13inch newer & nicer screen. Ultimately, i will advise you to go for the 13inch no touch bar, save the 200 bucks and get an external monitor (if you need it in the future).

The reason is that the 2inch difference will not be noticeable if you compare to any standard desktop monitor (23inch+++).

My advise is to wait for the touch bar 13 review in the next few weeks and decide before chrismas.

True but I am not interested in the touchbar model tbh
I dont think its worth the extra money

 

[nbritton]

You want the 2015 MacBook Pro 15 with ether the 2.5GHz or 2.8GHz processor (only these two have AMD Radeon R9 M370X) and 512GB or 1024GB disk. I think the 2015 MBP 15 2.8GHz 16GB 512GB is the best bang for the buck, with student pricing it is going for $2,349. I do not recommend the 256GB, based on experience this is just too small for a device that will last you for the next 5 to 10 years.

2015 MacBook Pro 15 Student Pricing:

• 2.5GHz 512GB: $2,196
• 2.5GHz 1024GB: $2,529
• 2.8GHz 512GB: $2,349
• 2.8GHz 1024GB: $2,709 <-- I just bought this one because it's the most future proof.

Here is a performance comparison of the 2015 MBP 15 2.8GHz vs 2016 MBP 15 2.7GHz:
https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/compare/990489?baseline=925386

As you can see in the link the 2015 and 2016 are very comparable; the 2015 has the performance edge, it costs $564 less, and has ports.

Here is a performance comparison of the 2015 MBP 15 2.8GHz vs the 2016 MBP 13 base model:
https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/compare/990489?baseline=1000384

As you can see in the link the 2015 wipes the floor with the 2016 13-inch with over twice the Multi-Core performance and also faster Single-Core performance (3656 vs 4286). The 2015 MBP 15 2.5GHz 512GB is only $376 more then the 2016 MBP 13 2.0GHz 512GB 16GB... double the performance for only $376, and you get ports, a better keyboard, better speakers, and AMD Radeon graphics.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B84n60csy_WqV015bC1KV3BVMEU

Differences between the 2014 and 2015 model:

• The 2014 SSD has a PCIe 2.0 x2 interface (1,000 MB/s).
• The 2015 SSD has a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface (3,940 MB/s).

• The 2014 has a Nvidia GeForce GT 750M w/ 2GB GDDR5.
• The 2015 has a AMD Radeon R9 M370X w/ 2GB GDDR5.

• The 2014 supports two 2560x1600 displays.
• The 2015 supports two 3840x2160 displays.

• The 2014 has a 95 Wh battery.
• The 2015 has a 99.5 Wh battery.

• The 2014 has a Broadcom BCM4360 (April 2012).
• The 2015 has a Broadcom BCM43602 (June 2014, w/CPU Offloading).

• The 2014 has a idle wattage of 16.7 watts.
• The 2015 has a idle wattage of 12.7 watts.

 

[zhenya]

You want the 2015 MacBook Pro 15 with ether the 2.5GHz or 2.8GHz processor (only these two have AMD Radeon R9 M370X) and 512GB or 1024GB disk. I think the 2015 MBP 15 2.8GHz 16GB 512GB is the best bang for the buck, with student pricing it is going for $2,349. I do not recommend the 256GB, based on experience this is just too small for a device that will last you for the next 5 to 10 years.

2015 MacBook Pro 15 Student Pricing:

• 2.5GHz 512GB: $2,196
• 2.5GHz 1024GB: $2,529
• 2.8GHz 512GB: $2,349
• 2.8GHz 1024GB: $2,709 <-- I just bought this one because it's the most future proof.

Here is a performance comparison of the 2015 MBP 15 2.8GHz vs 2016 MBP 15 2.7GHz:
https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/compare/990489?baseline=925386

As you can see in the link the 2015 and 2016 are very comparable; the 2015 has the performance edge, it costs $564 less, and has ports.

Here is a performance comparison of the 2015 MBP 15 2.8GHz vs the 2016 MBP 13 base model:
https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/compare/990489?baseline=1000384

As you can see in the link the 2015 wipes the floor with the 2016 13-inch with over twice the Multi-Core performance and also faster Single-Core performance (3656 vs 4286). The 2015 MBP 15 2.5GHz 512GB is only $376 more then the 2016 MBP 13 2.0GHz 512GB 16GB... double the performance for only $376, and you get ports, a better keyboard, better speakers, and AMD Radeon graphics.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B84n60csy_WqV015bC1KV3BVMEU

Differences between the 2014 and 2015 model:

• The 2014 SSD has a PCIe 2.0 x2 interface (1,000 MB/s).
• The 2015 SSD has a PCIe 3.0 x4 interface (3,940 MB/s).

• The 2014 has a Nvidia GeForce GT 750M w/ 2GB GDDR5.
• The 2015 has a AMD Radeon R9 M370X w/ 2GB GDDR5.

• The 2014 supports two 2560x1600 displays.
• The 2015 supports two 3840x2160 displays.

• The 2014 has a 95 Wh battery.
• The 2015 has a 99.5 Wh battery.

• The 2014 has a Broadcom BCM4360 (April 2012).
• The 2015 has a Broadcom BCM43602 (June 2014, w/CPU Offloading).

• The 2014 has a idle wattage of 16.7 watts.
• The 2015 has a idle wattage of 12.7 watts.

And absolutely none of this matters for how he describes his use. He will literally never notice one bit of difference between any of the machines he is looking at power-wise.

You should decide which form factor you want - screen size vs. battery life and portability, and how much storage space you are willing to pay for. Everything else is inconsequential.

 

[bobosing316]

And absolutely none of this matters for how he describes his use. He will literally never notice one bit of difference between any of the machines he is looking at power-wise.

You should decide which form factor you want - screen size vs. battery life and portability, and how much storage space you are willing to pay for. Everything else is inconsequential.

This is the point. Maybe he just want someone to justify to spend that few extra hundred dollars for that over kill machine (for his daily use).

 

[boateng]

This is the point. Maybe he just want someone to justify to spend that few extra hundred dollars for that over kill machine (for his daily use).

Not at all

The bigger screen is what tempted me to get the 15' but as many have said I can just buy an external monitor to hook up the 13'

 

[nbritton]

I am in the same situation as you. I am mainly thinking the 15inch bigger screen & more powerful CPU (with abit more expensive) over the 13inch newer & nicer screen. Ultimately, i will advise you to go for the 13inch no touch bar, save the 200 bucks and get an external monitor (if you need it in the future).

The reason is that the 2inch difference will not be noticeable if you compare to any standard desktop monitor (23inch+++).

The 2015 MBP 15 can support two 4K displays, and it can do this natively without dongle adapters using it's two built-in Mini DisplayPort connections. It also in-theory should be able to support triple monitors if you also use the HDMI. It also works great with the Plugables 4K USB 3.0 Adapter which enables the 2015 MacBook Pro 15 to support five monitors without any additional hardware or converter dongles. The 15-inch gives you a lot more flexibility and future proofing.

 

[boateng]

And absolutely none of this matters for how he describes his use. He will literally never notice one bit of difference between any of the machines he is looking at power-wise.

You should decide which form factor you want - screen size vs. battery life and portability, and how much storage space you are willing to pay for. Everything else is inconsequential.

Yes
The screen size is what matters to me so maybe just get the 13 and buy an external monitor
Portability doesnt matter to me at all as I rarely ever take the machine to uni or elsewhere

 

[nbritton]

The weight of the 2015 MBP 15 versus the 2016 MBP 13 is only 1.47 pounds. It's really not that much bigger to cause you any actual inconvenience. You'll need a backpack to carry the 13-inch and when it's in the backpack or sitting on the table you won't notice the weight or size. If you want to know what 1 pound feels like go pick up a pound of beef or a 16oz can of beans. It's really not that much EXTRA weight.

Really the only use case where the 13-inch makes sense is if you are sitting on the couch with the computer in your lap. But if that's your default use case then a MacBook 12-inch would be even better for that. For couch surfing I have an iPad Air 2 and iPad Mini 4. I can tell you from years and years of experience that real work is rarely done from the couch, the majority of the time you will be sitting at a desk or table.

Furthermore, before you decide I implore you to visit your local Apple store and experience them in person. After playing with the new MBP in person I realized I dislike the new style keyboard. This was important factor in choosing to buy a 2015 model.

 

[zhenya]

The weight of the 2015 MBP 15 versus the 2016 MBP 13 is only 1.47 pounds. It's really not that much bigger to cause you any actual inconvenience. You'll need a backpack to carry the 13-inch and when it's in the backpack or sitting on the table you won't notice the weight or size. If you want to know what 1 pound feels like go pick up a pound of beef or a 16oz can of beans. It's really not that much EXTRA weight.

Really the only use case where the 13-inch makes sense is if you are sitting on the couch with the computer in your lap. But if that's your standard use case then a MacBook 12-inch would be even better for that.

Furthermore, before you decide I implore you to visit your local Apple store and experience them in person. After playing with the new MBP in person I realized I dislike the new style keyboard. This was important factor in choosing to buy a 2015 model.

I disagree. Somewhere around 3lbs, and the total volume of the new 13" MBP, the device really starts to disappear into the weight of the bag. Not quite to the point of my 12" rMB - but close. It's a big difference when you are moving it day in and day out. A 4.5lb 15" laptop is something that you consciously take with you. A ~3lb device in a much smaller footprint starts to go along with you as a matter of course.

 

[nbritton]

I disagree. Somewhere around 3lbs, and the total volume of the new 13" MBP, the device really starts to disappear into the weight of the bag. Not quite to the point of my 12" rMB - but close. It's a big difference when you are moving it day in and day out. A 4.5lb 15" laptop is something that you consciously take with you. A ~3lb device in a much smaller footprint starts to go along with you as a matter of course.

I have never once thought that the weight of the 15 was too much, I carry my 2014 MBP 15 to work with me every day in my laptop bag that I carry by hand. That said, I'm a 6'3" muscular guy. I remember the days when laptops weighed 20 pounds... it's all about perspective. If you think that weight or size might be an issue then visit your Apple store and compare them, pick them up, hold them, play with them, test the keyboard, test the speakers, compare display sizes.

 

[monkeydax]

You might actually find the 2016 15" to be a less "smooth" experience than the 2016 13" or the 2015 15". I use the term Smooth loosely.

The 2016 15" has two different graphics processors, one built into the CPU and the other being a discreet unit.

Actually this was a concern I was thinking about. Will the day to day basic task performance of the 2016 15" MBP be worse-off than the 2015 since it doesn't have that powerful Iris Pro iGPU anymore?


Also, does that mean a base i7-6700HQ (2.6GHz) processor is going to be less powerful than the previous gen i7-4870HQ (2.5Ghz) powerful? Anyone has ideas on that?

 

[nbritton]

Actually this was a concern I was thinking about. Will the day to day basic task performance of the 2016 15" MBP be worse-off than the 2015 since it doesn't have that powerful Iris Pro iGPU anymore?


Also, does that mean a base i7-6700HQ (2.6GHz) processor is going to be less powerful than the previous gen i7-4870HQ (2.5Ghz) powerful? Anyone has ideas on that?

The i7-4870HQ has a PassMark CPU score of 9353*. This CPU was launched Q3'14 @ $434.
The i7-6700HQ has a PassMark CPU score of 8040*. This CPU was launched Q3'15 @ $378.
*Higher is better.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B84n60csy_WqV015bC1KV3BVMEU

 

[monkeydax]

The i7-4870HQ has a PassMark CPU score of 9353*. This CPU was launched Q3'14 @ $434.
The i7-6700HQ has a PassMark CPU score of 8040*. This CPU was launched Q3'15 @ $378.
*Higher is better.

Yeah i did see this too from your excel sheet as well as the PassMark CPU scores. Are these conclusive of the performance? I'm surprised the new one has significantly lower scores.

Also, what about graphics performance on basic tasks? Are we likely to see more consistent performance from the Iris Pro vs the Intel HD Graphics 530? Or probably unnoticeable?
[doublepost=1478790174][/doublepost]I myself am considering on whether to get the 15" MBP with the 2.5GHz CPU vs the new base 16 15"MBPt. I'm not sure I can justify the price premium, and whether I will actually be losing out any CPU performance with that $400 price premium?

 

[xb2003]

Benchmarks don't always show everything, so we're (me not included) going to have to get our hands on the machine to be sure. But on paper, the 2016 would appear to be less powerful (without respect to the dGPU) than the 2015.

 

[nbritton]

Yeah i did see this too from your excel sheet as well as the PassMark CPU scores. Are these conclusive of the performance? I'm surprised the new one has significantly lower scores.

Also, what about graphics performance on basic tasks? Are we likely to see more consistent performance from the Iris Pro vs the Intel HD Graphics 530? Or probably unnoticeable?
[doublepost=1478790174][/doublepost]I myself am considering on whether to get the 15" MBP with the 2.5GHz CPU vs the new base 16 15"MBPt. I'm not sure I can justify the price premium, and whether I will actually be losing out any CPU performance with that $400 price premium?

The scores in the spreadsheet are PassMark scores, they all came directly from PassMark's website here: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

They are conclusive with regards to processor performance and the results are directly comparable. It doesn't directly measure overall system performance, but processor performance is a good indicator to get a general sense of overall system performance. Another benchmark which takes into account more metrics is Geekbench, and you can find those here: https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=MacBookPro12,1+i7-6820HQ

I'm not sure what you mean for graphics performance of the Intel devices. I have never had an issue with them for basic tasks, even the graphics in my base model Early 2011 MBP 15 is suitable for everyday 2D things. The only issue you really run into is if you want to game or use it for rendering. The 2015 MBP 15 will run GTA 5 at around 40 fps.

 

[boateng]

Think ve made my mind up

Gonna go for the 15' 2015 model.

 

[paaj]

Yes
The screen size is what matters to me so maybe just get the 13 and buy an external monitor
Portability doesnt matter to me at all as I rarely ever take the machine to uni or elsewhere

Get a Mac Mini and save a lot, though you may want wait for a possible early 2017 renewal

 

[nbritton]

Think ve made my mind up

Gonna go for the 15' 2015 model.

I have some experience working as a paralegal and I can definitely tell you that it will meet all of your needs as a law student and also in the future once you become an attorney. I use a 2014 MBP at work (I'm a computer engineer), but at home I still use my 2011 MBP daily because it's still a very capable machine. Your 2015 might easily last you 10 years with proper care. I just bought a fully maxed out 2015 myself, the value proposition for the 2016 just isn't there. Less performance, less ports, way more money... I'll pass. I think Apple is taking the right direction with the USB-C ports, but they are probably 5 years ahead of the curve. Around 50 billion USB devices with the Type-A port already exist and manufacturers are going to continue using the Type-A port for a long time because the Bill of Materials cost is less than a USB-C connector. Most devices don't even need more then USB 3.0 speed, which is 640MB/s, heck I can run a 4K monitor over USB 3.0. I want my ports, and the 2015 has all the I/O you could ever want: https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/Thunderbolt/Dock/OWC/Thunderbolt2-Dock/

 

[blesss]

And absolutely none of this matters for how he describes his use. He will literally never notice one bit of difference between any of the machines he is looking at power-wise.

You should decide which form factor you want - screen size vs. battery life and portability, and how much storage space you are willing to pay for. Everything else is inconsequential.

for a similar use case (pdfs, safari, office, itunes/spotify etc), how would you say the 2016 m5 rMB compares to the mbp 13" 2016 sans touchbar, both now and 3-4 years down the road?

 

[nbritton]

for a similar use case (pdfs, safari, office, itunes/spotify etc), how would you say the 2016 m5 rMB compares to the mbp 13" 2016 sans touchbar, both now and 3-4 years down the road?

My Early 2011 MBP 15 is faster than all of them, its PassMark score is 5,574. It might be too slow for me because I'm use to very snappy systems, but for a normal person it might be acceptable. They will feel slow in 3 to 4 years time. Have you tried the keyboard on these new systems? Don't place an order for one of these until you've actually typed on it. If you plan to use it for drafting pleadings and briefings or writing other lengthy documents then the 2015 is definitely the way to go, unless you actually like the 2016 keyboard. You really do need to feel it before you pull the trigger on a 2016. To me the new keyboard is off-putting.

Model Cost CPU-Type PassMark-Score GHz Ram Disk
16 MB 12 $1,221.00 m3-6Y30 3056 1.1 2 7 8 256
16 MB 12 $1,503.00 m5-6Y54 3242 1.2 2 7 8 512
16 MB 12 $1,456.00 m7-6Y75 3551 1.3 2 7 8 256
16 MB 12 $1,644.00 m7-6Y75 3551 1.3 2 7 8 512
16 MBP 13 $1,409.00 i5-6360U 3780 2 2 15 8 256
16 MBP 13 $1,597.00 i5-6360U 3780 2 2 15 16 256
16 MBP 13 $1,597.00 i5-6360U 3780 2 2 15 8 512
16 MBP 13 $1,785.00 i5-6360U 3780 2 2 15 16 512
16 MBP 13 $1,973.00 i5-6360U 3780 2 2 15 8 1024
16 MBP 13 $2,161.00 i5-6360U 3780 2 2 15 16 1024
16 MBP 13 $1,691.00 i7-6660U 4754 2.4 2 15 8 256
16 MBP 13 $1,879.00 i7-6660U 4754 2.4 2 15 16 256
16 MBP 13 $1,879.00 i7-6660U 4754 2.4 2 15 8 512
16 MBP 13 $2,067.00 i7-6660U 4754 2.4 2 15 16 512
16 MBP 13 $2,255.00 i7-6660U 4754 2.4 2 15 8 1024
16 MBP 13 $2,443.00 i7-6660U 4754 2.4 2 15 16 1024

 

[boateng]

I have some experience working as a paralegal and I can definitely tell you that it will meet all of your needs as a law student and also in the future once you become an attorney. I use a 2014 MBP at work (I'm a computer engineer), but at home I still use my 2011 MBP daily because it's still a very capable machine. Your 2015 might easily last you 10 years with proper care. I just bought a fully maxed out 2015 myself, the value proposition for the 2016 just isn't there. Less performance, less ports, way more money... I'll pass. I think Apple is taking the right direction with the USB-C ports, but they are probably 5 years ahead of the curve. Around 50 billion USB devices with the Type-A port already exist and manufacturers are going to continue using the Type-A port for a long time because the Bill of Materials cost is less than a USB-C connector. Most devices don't even need more then USB 3.0 speed, which is 640MB/s, heck I can run a 4K monitor over USB 3.0. I want my ports, and the 2015 has all the I/O you could ever want: https://eshop.macsales.com/shop/Thunderbolt/Dock/OWC/Thunderbolt2-Dock/

I know this may sound like the most stupidest question ever but is the 'USB - C' just one of the USB Port...or is it faster than the normal usb port?
[doublepost=1478819094][/doublepost]Does the 2015 15' have a USB C port?

 

[nbritton]

I know this may sound like the most stupidest question ever but is the 'USB - C' just one of the USB Port...or is it faster than the normal usb port?

USB-C is up to 10 Gbps (1250 Megabytes/s) whereas USB 3.0 is up to 5 Gbps (625 Megabytes/s). Thunderbolt 2 is up to 20 Gbps (2500 Megabytes/s) whereas Thunderbolt 3 is up to 40 Gbps (5000 Megabytes/s). Don't be concerned with the speeds, even the "slow" USB 3.0 at only 625 MB/s is fast enough for 99.9% of your needs. For instance, a USB keyboard and mouse only need 1.5 MB/s. You printer is probably only USB 2.0 (60 MB/s). Most spinning disk drives top out at 150 MB/s, there is more then enough head room with USB 3.0. Almost no consumer technologies can approach those speed limits, it's mostly a marketing gimmick to get people to keep buying the newest stuff. If you truly needed that kind of speed you would probably be looking at desktop systems with dedicated PCIe hardware, because just because a bus is rated for 40 Gbps doesn't mean the rest of the system is fast enough to keep up with that.

 

[zhenya]

for a similar use case (pdfs, safari, office, itunes/spotify etc), how would you say the 2016 m5 rMB compares to the mbp 13" 2016 sans touchbar, both now and 3-4 years down the road?

My 2015 rMB with the m5 is perfectly acceptable with that kind of use for me. It's a fantastic portable machine. Great screen, great touchpad, and I happen to really like the keyboard. For light duty you shouldn't notice much difference between one of these and a regular MBP because the m5 chip throttles up very quickly to similar speeds as the more powerful chip - it just can't sustain it for very long - but all of the kind of use you list is 'bursty' in nature so will be handled fine. The comparison with the 2011 machine above is not terribly helpful, IMO, because the MacBook has a much faster SSD and memory subsystem which is a lot of what makes a device 'feel' fast.

USB-C is up to 10 Gbps (1250 Megabytes/s) whereas USB 3.0 is up to 5 Gbps (625 Megabytes/s). Thunderbolt 2 is up to 20 Gbps (2500 Megabytes/s) whereas Thunderbolt 3 is up to 40 Gbps (5000 Megabytes/s). Don't be concerned with the speeds, even the "slow" USB 3.0 at only 625 MB/s is fast enough for 99.9% of your needs. For instance, a USB keyboard and mouse only need 1.5 MB/s. You printer is probably only USB 2.0 (60 MB/s). Most spinning disk drives top out at 150 MB/s, there is more then enough head room with USB 3.0. Almost no customer technologies can approach those speed limits, it's mostly a marketing gimmick to get people to keep buying the newest stuff. If you truly needed that kind of speed you would be using a desktop system with dedicated PCIe hardware.

Just a clarification. USB-C is merely a connector format. It can carry a variety of protocols - the rMB carries usb 3.1 Gen 1 which is 5Gbps. The MBP's carry a combined connection over that USB-C port - USB 3.1 Gen 2 at 10Gbps, and Thunderbolt 3 which is 20 or 40Gbps depending on the type of cable you use.

 

[oneMadRssn]

I am a law student and I need a new mac

A 13" Macbook Air loyally served me perfectly during law school. If money is not much of a concern, I suggest the 12" rMB.

From my experience, (1) battery life, (2) weight, and (3) resolution are most important factors for a law student.

Battery life must be at least 6-8 hours for normal note-taking and word processing use.

Weight has be to be as small as possible. The lighter the computer, the more likely you will have it with you. Weight includes the weight of the power brick which you are likely to have with you in your bag all the time. For this reason, I would suggest not getting the 15" MBP, as it has a pretty hefty power brick.

Screen size does not matter, but having a better resolution helps. It's not about having a big screen, it's about being able to see two standard-size papers side by side. You will want to have a PDF document and a Word document side by side. You will want to have whatever legal research website you use with case law in a browser and a Word document side by side. So you need enough horizontal resolution to do that. The 13" MBA was almost good enough, but not quite. The 12" rMB I think has a high enough resolution to do this easily. I think any 13" MBP will certainly have enough.