I get this even with a dedicated GPU. Fans kick in big time on some JS heavy sites.
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
I get this even with a dedicated GPU. Fans kick in big time on some JS heavy sites.
Sounds painful. I could get by with iCloud Drive (I pay $2.99/month now for 200GB and am fine with that) and my Time Capsule at home. Just wish there was a 1st party, local-network based sync system that would merge the file system of two Macs into one despite being on separate machines.
Last edited:
No, not painful at all. Sorry if it sounded that way.
You only need to mess with symlinks if you want to automatically handle standard default folders that apps may just default to such as ~/Documents as one example. Otherwise just put your GoogleDrive or CloudStation folder in the Favorites list and you're done.
The syncing stuff is going to apply to most anything you're trying to span across multiple computers. If your rMB is shut down and you've made a bunch of files changes on your iMac, then head out for your flight and start to edit the stuff on your rMB without syncing you're risking a mess. Especially with something complex like a Lightroom photo library folder structure.
I tried a 4K video conversion on a MacBook compared to the Air. The video and settings were identical. It was done in Handbrake.
The MacBook was a bit faster than the Air
2016 M5 MacBook: 1 min 40 sec
2015 i5 Air: 1 min 52 sec
There was absolutely no lag or stutter on either computer during the conversion. Scrolling on the MacBook was buttery smooth.
The MacBook was a bit faster than the Air
2016 M5 MacBook: 1 min 40 sec
2015 i5 Air: 1 min 52 sec
There was absolutely no lag or stutter on either computer during the conversion. Scrolling on the MacBook was buttery smooth.
I've been running a desktop/laptop setup for years and there's really no downside for me at this point.
I store most documents in Dropbox (and some in iCloud) so I can access files from either computer. I've started storing photos from 2014 and on in Photos for Mac, so I can edit and organize my current photo library from either computer. And since I'm using Apple Music now, I keep very little music on the laptop.
All archived older photos, documents and video are stored or or connected to the iMac.
I think the rMB is a perfect compliment to the iMac. I rarely use it plugged in, and only connect an SD reader when I want to upload photos from a camera. I really have no need to connect anything else to it with the iMac available. As I mentioned in a previous thread, I bought the base model at a heavy distant from Best Buy last year just to see how it would be "downgrading" from a 13" rMBP. I like it. My plan was to upgrade this year to a fully maxed rMB (and either sell or pass long the current rMB), but I'm going to wait until I see what the rumored revised rMBPs look like before committing. I generally hold on to laptops for a few years – if not longer, apart from this most recent purchase – so I'm willing to wait a few more weeks to see what's in store.
Or I'll just pull the trigger on the m7 ;-)
Thanks for the info. So was the base model 2015 rMB shockingly sluggish compared to your iMac enough to be discouraging relative to its cost? Still some deals to be had on Early 2015 base models out there.
Shockingly? No. It's slower. For email, web surfing, drafting documents, etc. it's totally fine. For Photos for Mac edits and organization, it's good but I imagine the m5 or m7 would be a bit better.
For travel, it's better for my use than either my former 13" rMBP or trying to pretend my iPad Air is a netbook.
From what I understand, the m3, m5, m7 are 2016 models. Also, the 2016 1.1Ghz m3, has slightly better scores than the 2015 1.1 Ghz, making the 2016 1.1 the 2015 1.2 equivalent, plus the 2016 has better GPU and higher clocked RAM. Sorry, sounds confusing lol
I get it. I think at this point, it's best to just hold off and see what WWDC holds before pulling the trigger on anything. Even a portable Mac would rarely leave my house (just want a MacBook for around the house use with my iMac as the powerful do-it-all desktop) so I could live with a little more size and weight if the pending 13" rMBP update is just as pretty to look at as the 12" rMB. It'll also be interesting to see if it still starts at $1,299 which will make for an awkward decision between that machine and a 12" rMB.
The 13" rMBP may well be cheaper than the MacBook. For that reason alone Apple will keep the Air around for another year or two, until they can justify a $999 MacBook. Remember the original Air started at $1799 and went as high as $2999 in 2008.
Yea, but that was when the Air was significantly thinner and lighter than any MacBook Pro available. If the new MacBook Pros take on the current Air's form factor from a size and weight standpoint, the 12" rMB's story becomes much less compelling when you factor in the added power (and ports for those that care) a Pro would provide. It'll be interesting how they position it. It would have made the issue moot had the 2016 rMB's starting price been adjusted to $1,099 or $1,199.
Found these:
http://barefeats.com/macbook2016c.html
GPU shootout between the '15 and '16 Macbooks and the Razer Blade Stealth.
http://barefeats.com/macbook2016.html
Some more benchmarks putting the '15 and '16 Macbooks up against each other and the Razer BS.
Haven't had the time to look properly at them my self yet, just thought they might be of interest.
http://barefeats.com/macbook2016c.html
GPU shootout between the '15 and '16 Macbooks and the Razer Blade Stealth.
http://barefeats.com/macbook2016.html
Some more benchmarks putting the '15 and '16 Macbooks up against each other and the Razer BS.
Haven't had the time to look properly at them my self yet, just thought they might be of interest.
Yes, wait. Your usage isn't really taking much advantage of the rMB's greatest strength.
The second is just GeekBench and SSD. The first compares graphics performance and notes that the 2016 MacBook has noticeably better OpenGL performance than the 2015 but only marginally improved OpenCL performance.
No, since the iMac has a more powerful desktop processor. If it is more than the base model, it is also quad-core.
It's a little jittery whether in Safari or Preview, but I wouldn't call it "terrible lag" on my m7.
+1 . Same for my m7 and comfortably within my tolerance. Will test on my Late 2013 MBP later
It's quite the same between my MBPr 15 i7 quad core and the rMB m3. It's not pretty bad, but neither is good.
Do some real-life comparisons exist between m3 and m7? I remember that many years ago journals were doing comparisons of different tasks instead of giving just random numbers though benchmarks...
I doubt it would make a big difference. According to Intel Power Gadget the 13" 2015 rMBP runs at 2.5 ghz (3.1 ghz is max) and the iGPU runs at 700 mhz (max 1050 mhz), so it is not boosting up to max. An old iPhone handles PDF's just fine with a fraction of the power of the rMB/rMBP, so it is just down to horrible optimization.
Is it worth to get a refurbished m7 2015 model? Differences can't be so big to justify a price difference of 350 pounds.
You're probably better off with a 2016 m3 then. The SSD/RAM/Battery life improvements outweigh the processor. The new m3 is said to match the old m5, so you're not far off of the old m7 anyway.