Take it easy on me, I'm not the most technically minded. I have a mid-2014 15" 2.5 GHz Intel Core i7. I've been waiting for the new MacBook Pros as I would really like to downsize for portability (I carry a lot of equipment). Would the top spec 13" 2016 MacBook Pro be SIGNIFICANTLY slower than the machine I have? I use my laptop for editing RAW images and video files.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Would 2016 13" be slower than mid-2014 15" 2.5GHz i7
- Thread starter Dallas Pilgrim
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No. On the contrary, depending on your workload (IO, storage, CPU/GPU demands) it may end up being faster.
For editing video, it most likely is faster. Most of the software for that takes advantage of multiple cores.
Significantly so, though? It really depends on the work you're doing. If you do long, heavily edited cuts of 4K video, then it will affect you more than if you just apply a few things to a short 1080p video.
Significantly so, though? It really depends on the work you're doing. If you do long, heavily edited cuts of 4K video, then it will affect you more than if you just apply a few things to a short 1080p video.
The 15" has 4 cores, 13" only 2. So, anything processor intensive, the 15" will be up to 2x as fast. Also, if you have the nVidia graphics card in yours, that should be faster than the integrated graphics as well.
It might not be "significant", depends on what you do and what exactly that means. But, in terms of computational power, it's a downgrade. Maybe it's worth it for you for the reduced size?
It might not be "significant", depends on what you do and what exactly that means. But, in terms of computational power, it's a downgrade. Maybe it's worth it for you for the reduced size?
Uhhhh, its a very dated quad core , the top
Spec i7 in the 13 has a much higher clock speed. It'll be faster if not at least as fast
I think the experience will be similar, in my opinion. I mean, the 2014 really isn't THAT old. I mean that by probably not drop dead noticeable in day-to-day stuff. In terms of computing power, the two processors (4870HQ and 6567U), I think are a wash (We'll be able to see more details once scores start hitting geekbench, but I put my money on similar performance). If OP is looking to get out from under the 2014, I'm fairly certain the used market will never be more prosperous for folks scared of transitioning to TB3/USBc.
Here are some highlights to help weigh the options for OP:
The 2014 2.5GHz machine has 4 cores. More cores is WAY better for rendering/encoding.
The 2016 3.3GHz machine has two cores, but features higher clock
TURBO:
The 2014 machine beats the 2016 *slightly* in turbo, not by much. 2.5GHz can turbo up to 3.7GHz. The 3.3GHz can turbo up to 3.6GHz
CACHE:
The older processor has more L2/3 cache. | 2014- 256k x4, 6 MB | 2016-256k x2, 4 MB
RAM:
The new machine has faster memory. 1600MHz VS 2133MHz
POWER:
The 2016 is more energy efficient
DISPLAY:
The 2016 has slightly better retina display. You should notice more vibrant colors.
SSD:
Apple boasted in 2015 that the new generation SSD was 2.5 times faster than the 2014 models. The 2016, even faster...I can't recall the numbers off the top of my head...but if you're doing video work off the built in drive, you would see some faster performance with the new machine.
PORTS:
Every port the 2014 featured can be achieved with the 2016, if you don't mind shelling out some extra cash for needed adapters.
VIDEO:
NVIDIA 750m 2GB (2014) vs integrated Intel Iris 550 1.5GB. This area, I'm calling it a wash, in my opinion. Even in 2014, that Nvidia GPU was getting old. It debuted with the 2013 model. Some folks might be able to show specific benchmarks.
All in all, the 2014 was a solid machine. I personally have the maxed out 15" model. I personally don't see a need to upgrade at this time, it wasn't in my cards anyway as it hasn't deprecated to me yet. As you can see above, the specs don't speak to this being about speed differences. Intel/Apple are more interested in performance per watt. The 2016 isn't about huge performance gains, it's about energy consumption (and touch bar). OP, you've never seen a better time on the re-sale market. You can still command a great resale price as some folks are pretty passionate about getting their hands on 2014/2015 models (the two were very very similar). IF that computer is in good shape and you've got the money, go for it. I personally can't justify the price the latest model commands right now. Maybe in another year or two.
Last edited:
New 13" dual core will be slower than 2014 15" quad core. Technology doesn't go that fast. Except maybe in graphics cars with the 13" certainly doesn't have. If the 2014 has a graphics card it would smoke the new one badly in in graphics.
Your 2014 Geekbench 3 (64): 3607/14074
http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...-iris-only-mid-2014-retina-display-specs.html
2.4 cpu in 13" macs low power
https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=I7-6660U
The 2.9 ~3800/7300
https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=I5-6267U
Top 3.3 13" 2016 The cpu has limited results ~6500-8100 Presumably the apple version will spec at high side
https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?q=6567U
For comparison
2011 iMac 3442/10480
or
2016 HP XPS Specter with Kaby Lake i7 4099/7716
Your 2014 Geekbench 3 (64): 3607/14074
http://www.everymac.com/systems/app...-iris-only-mid-2014-retina-display-specs.html
2.4 cpu in 13" macs low power
https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=I7-6660U
The 2.9 ~3800/7300
https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?utf8=✓&q=I5-6267U
Top 3.3 13" 2016 The cpu has limited results ~6500-8100 Presumably the apple version will spec at high side
https://browser.primatelabs.com/v4/cpu/search?q=6567U
For comparison
2011 iMac 3442/10480
or
2016 HP XPS Specter with Kaby Lake i7 4099/7716
Dated? Look at the multi core Geekbench benchmarks. The 2011 Macbook Pro multi core beats the top 2015 13" Retina macbook pro. Sure, the 2016 will be faster than the 2015. But, in multi core tasks, the quad core will smoke it. Even one from 2011.
For editing, (and especially encoding) video files, the quad core will beat it. But, rawweb said it well above. In normal daily usage, the experience between the 2 won't be all that different. Certainly not SIGNIFICANTLY as the OP asked.
What you will notice more will be the bigger screen of the 15", or smaller footprint of the 13". Stuff like that. It sounds like size is a concern for you, and not money, so you won't lose much going to the 13"
Clock speed doesn't mean anything.
If you bothered to read around, you'd notice that the 4770HQ 2.2GHz chip used in the 15" 2015 has a multi-core Geekbench score of 14000. That's double the speed of the 13" (2016) with the touch bar, 6267U, 2.9 GHz, which sits around 7100.
Heck, even the non-Touch Bar version has 2.0GHz 6360U chip and the score is around 7100. Don't be fooled by 2.0 vs 2.2 vs 2.9 GHz, they mean nothing.
Even if you are not tech savvy, it's just common sense that a quad core is faster than a dual core...
15" will definitely be faster. A dual core would have to be running at something ridiculous like 5GHz to keep up.
Not at all true - even the 2012 retina 15"s are very competitive these days. Intel's advancements have stagnated significantly in recent years.
The Mid-2014 model should arguably be faster by all counts against a dual-core 13", regardless of the year. Especially with pro apps.
The 2014 quad-core 15" is still much faster than any 13" to date. Even the maxed out new 13" model. Those 2014 Haswell processors aren't much slower than today's Skylake ones so there's nothing much to even compare, the quad-core beats it hands down
this interesting as I have the exact same MacBookpro as the OP and have a maxed 13" coming next week
I will let you guys know how I go with it. Testing on Rhino, Keyshot, adobe suite etc.
Note though I did not get this to replace the 15" but to complement it for more portability and leave the 15" hooked up as a desktop, and didn't expect it to be faster either due to quad vs dual cpu.
Should be absolutely fine for short burst work