Ok i'll try that. But still it would be interesting to know if the M7 can handle this similar "lag-free" as the rMBP.
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.
MacBook (m3, m5, m7) Performance Compared to Recent Airs and Pros (Chart)
- Thread starter helloitsme
- Start date
-
- Tags
- benchmark
- Sort by reaction score
Ok i'll try that. But still it would be interesting to know if the M7 can handle this similar "lag-free" as the rMBP.
Checked the PDF (in Safari) on my MBPr 13" 2.8i7 (2013) and it lags too... I don´t believe that it is a Core M problem. I have seen some videos on YouTube where people use the MacBook for light gaming...
Have you tried opening it in Preview?
Would be interesting to hear if the lag is precent there as well.
Just tried opening it in Safari on the '15 1.2, laggy in Safari.
Can't say cos I was testing this in a store without the ability to install programs.
But I tested it on a 13" rMBP too and it doesn't lag or just minimal as on the 15". But not as much by a fare bit like on the MBs.
Thought it was like some describe it with graphic intense websites. But maybe it's just a bad exported pdf. Don't you guys have this with other PDFs?
I'm really considering this m7 too now to trade in for my 2015 i5 13"MBP. Those with the m7, doing your typical days of work (whatever it may be) are you seeing 10 hours of battery life? I do a lot with web stuff so I'm always in chrome and safari with multilevel Windows, Tabs, Users (and virtual desktops/spaces open). Chrome is typically the culprit randomly causing my computer to hit max processor due to some random thing (most likely flash). I've seen my MBP last about 5-6 hours of the work day just randomly testing it here and there. So I wasn't excited about that knowing that if I had to work offsite for a day, I still would have to bring a power brick. This isn't the case with my iPad Pro. I had that working at Google's Mountainview campus for some meetings where the wifi wasn't the strongest (bad room I was in) and the iPad Pro was a champ all day!
Bad thing about an iPad though is the whole mobile browser thing. Ugh... What a shame.
Bad thing about an iPad though is the whole mobile browser thing. Ugh... What a shame.
There is no way a rMB will last you 10 hours with your use, especially with Chrome. Last years rMB has significantly shorter battery life than the 2015 rMBP 13", but this years model is supposed to be better. So i'd say you can probably expect around the same battery life from a 2016 rMB as your current 13 rMBP.
Thanks for the confirmation on the fact that Chrome is a total hog... It's funny how when people ask me about how I use a computer they just automatically say "oh, you just use the web, it'll last forever!" Uh huh...
This is where I think the Chromebook pixel would then work out for me... BUT, I also do photos and videos for about 20% of my job too. And then now the Pixel wouldn't be able to do any of that!
THEN, I'm always in video hangouts. Thanks Apple for the 480p camera. I guess I'll have to wait then to see what the 2016 MBP brings.
I'm sure there a bunch of people here too who are looking for that. So for now, it's 13"MBP and iPadPro.
Everywhere I read, tech blogs & forums, people mention always using Chrome, and usually with tons of tabs open, and then say something like "yeah I know it's a drain and it's poorly optimized and probably the cause for my 5-6 hours of battery life..."
Why use it then? I don't understand using a piece of software that is abnormally affecting performance and battery. I use Safari solely and get very good battery life. On my old MBA, I tried using chrome a couple times and immediately the fans kicked on and it got extremely hot. Not warm, hot. And all I was doing was doing math homework.
Because a lot of the work I use requires multiple users logged into Chrome. With each user there are a specific set of extensions that need to be run that are specific to that user's account. Managing multiple Google accounts in one browser isn't ideal and frankly is not user friendly. But having each account as a full user that's in its own specific window works much better.
I do prefer safari for my personal browsing needs but when I need to test how things are working from one user to another, I go to chrome. Plus having a window for work dedicated stuff is easier to pay attention to then wondering if Macrumors is really being accessed from my work vs personal google accounts.
Fair enoughBecause a lot of the work I use requires multiple users logged into Chrome. With each user there are a specific set of extensions that need to be run that are specific to that user's account. Managing multiple Google accounts in one browser isn't ideal and frankly is not user friendly. But having each account as a full user that's in its own specific window works much better.
I do prefer safari for my personal browsing needs but when I need to test how things are working from one user to another, I go to chrome. Plus having a window for work dedicated stuff is easier to pay attention to then wondering if Macrumors is really being accessed from my work vs personal google accounts.
Isn't Firefox close to Chrome?Fair enough
Don't really play too much with Firefox. But I doubt the Google Chrome store extensions would be compatible.
Yeah I guess the chrome store is unparalleled compared to the other browsers.Don't really play too much with Firefox. But I doubt the Google Chrome store extensions would be compatible.
Did a Handbrake 1080 MP4 export test
MacBook m3: 1:21
MacBook Air 13" i5: 1:17
The m5 and m7 are anywhere from 25 to 30 percent faster than the m3. So the benchmarks appear accurate. The MacBook m5 and m7 are indeed faster than any i5 MacBook Air, at least at this test. The m3 MacBook is marginally slower than an i5 Air.
MacBook m3: 1:21
MacBook Air 13" i5: 1:17
The m5 and m7 are anywhere from 25 to 30 percent faster than the m3. So the benchmarks appear accurate. The MacBook m5 and m7 are indeed faster than any i5 MacBook Air, at least at this test. The m3 MacBook is marginally slower than an i5 Air.
Where did you get these numbers from? I did some calculations myself a couple of weeks ago and the average Geekbench for the m3 was 2269 single core and 4440 multi core on 32-bit. These were the average scores calculated of a total of about 50 individual scores.
The Macbook Air 2012 i5 has a score of 2276 single and 4562 multi core (source).
So something is not right here.
With all these comparisons being thrown around, i figured i'd do my own little test. My father owns a Surface Pro 4 with the m3 processor, the exact same that's in the rMB m3.
From what we've seen from tests of the 2016 Macbooks, they draw roughly 7-9w under full CPU load, throttle to 1.9-2.1 ghz and reach temps of 90-100c. All of this while encoding a video sample using Handbrake and monitoring with Intel Power Gadget.
So i decided to run the same test on the SP4, using handbrake to encode a 4k video sample and recording temps, cpu speed and power draw with Intel Power Gadget. While it boosted to the same 2.0 ghz dual core (as is max for the m3) and used the same 7-9w power, it reached a max temperature of..... 54c during the 10 minutes i let it run! That's a huge difference, and mostly due to the heatsink Microsoft put in there. The SP4 is 8.5mm thick and weighs 766g, but without a keyboard. So with a keyboard it is comparable to the Macbook in thickness and weight (1058g/13.1mm).
This makes me wish Apple made the rMB a millimeter or two thicker to make space for a heatsink like on the SP4, thus eliminating throttling and allowing great, sustained performance like the i5/i7 rMBPs.
Finally, i am in no way saying the SP4 is the better device, as i have owned one and had quite a few issues with it, and went back to a rMBP which i currently use. I'm simply saying i wished Apple would've given the Macbook a cooling solution similar to the SP4.
TL;DR
Macbook (m5/m7)
- Throttled CPU speed: 1.9-2.1 ghz (max dual core turbo speed: 2.4ghz/2.9ghz)
- CPU power draw: 7-9w
- CPU max temp: 90-100c
SP4 m3
- Throttled CPU speed: 2.0ghz (max dual core turbo speed: 2.0ghz)
- CPU power draw: 7-9w
- CPU max temp: 54c
From what we've seen from tests of the 2016 Macbooks, they draw roughly 7-9w under full CPU load, throttle to 1.9-2.1 ghz and reach temps of 90-100c. All of this while encoding a video sample using Handbrake and monitoring with Intel Power Gadget.
So i decided to run the same test on the SP4, using handbrake to encode a 4k video sample and recording temps, cpu speed and power draw with Intel Power Gadget. While it boosted to the same 2.0 ghz dual core (as is max for the m3) and used the same 7-9w power, it reached a max temperature of..... 54c during the 10 minutes i let it run! That's a huge difference, and mostly due to the heatsink Microsoft put in there. The SP4 is 8.5mm thick and weighs 766g, but without a keyboard. So with a keyboard it is comparable to the Macbook in thickness and weight (1058g/13.1mm).
This makes me wish Apple made the rMB a millimeter or two thicker to make space for a heatsink like on the SP4, thus eliminating throttling and allowing great, sustained performance like the i5/i7 rMBPs.
Finally, i am in no way saying the SP4 is the better device, as i have owned one and had quite a few issues with it, and went back to a rMBP which i currently use. I'm simply saying i wished Apple would've given the Macbook a cooling solution similar to the SP4.
TL;DR
Macbook (m5/m7)
- Throttled CPU speed: 1.9-2.1 ghz (max dual core turbo speed: 2.4ghz/2.9ghz)
- CPU power draw: 7-9w
- CPU max temp: 90-100c
SP4 m3
- Throttled CPU speed: 2.0ghz (max dual core turbo speed: 2.0ghz)
- CPU power draw: 7-9w
- CPU max temp: 54c
I've been flirting with the idea of getting a 12" MacBook as a companion to my powerful iMac as well but have never owned multiple Macs and am torn whether this would be crazy (and too expensive) for me. It just seems like getting a powerful MBP and pairing it with a display for desktop use is the more sensible option, but hoping you can provide a few pros/cons of the multi-Mac setup to help me decide.
I use an iPad mini 4 for portability right now (basically around the house stuff away from my desk). It's sufficient for web browsing, email, texting, and light photo editing, but I run into some iOS pain points with file management (having to access my iMac's files via a 3rd party app and hoping it's not asleep, etc). I'm a Mac guy at heart and think I'd be happy with a MacBook instead, but wondering if managing two separate file systems will be a pain as well.
Yes, good to be thinking about this ahead of time.
Tim Cook would tell you just to pony up for more iCloud space and keep your main files there, autosyncing to all your Apple devices.
I've successfully used Google Drive for the same purpose, putting certain folders in there and sym-linking the default folder location to point to the appropriate sub folder within the Google Drive folder on the computer..
Now I use Synology's private cloud product to sync against my home NAS, I was upgrading my NAS anyway and saw no reason to keep paying Google.
In all these instancess you're working off of local copies of the files so you have full access when not connected. They also sync seamlessly once there is connectivity.
You DO need to pay attention and make sure you don't open the same file on two different systems at the same time lest you have to sort out conflicts. Similarly if you've been working on your imac and your rMB was powered off you want to give it a chance to sync up before you leave to go where you don't have connectivity. Basic common sense stuff.