Huh. I knew that it could use more power for the spikes, but 100% more than TDP? That actually seems like a poor trade-off; ~40% more speed for 100% more power consumption.
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
Huh. I knew that it could use more power for the spikes, but 100% more than TDP? That actually seems like a poor trade-off; ~40% more speed for 100% more power consumption.
That's how CPU's work. Efficiency goes down the more power (voltage) you feed the processor. That's the reason why you can do roughly 1.8-2.0 ghz using 7-8w, but to get to 3.1 ghz (as with the rMBP) you need over 20w.
[doublepost=1463150496][/doublepost]
I've owned a Macbook, a rMBP and a desktop with a 5820k, and they perform as follows (Speed/watt per core):
- rMB: 2.0ghz (4w)
- rMBP: 3.1ghz (10w)
- 5820k desktop: 4.5ghz (24w)
The 5820k is Haswell-E instead of Broadwell, but there isn't that much of a difference. As you can see, reaching higher speeds requires a lot more power. Going from the rMB at 2.0ghz to the 5820k at 4.5ghz (2.25x speed) requires 6x the power!
I'm currently thinking I'm going to keep the m3 and return the m7... I have a 2015 5K iMac for any heavy lifting, so the MacBook is for portability and occasional photo editing while travelling etc.
Battery trumps short bursts in power.
It probably is minimal, but it seems possible to me that it could easily add up to a 10% difference or an extra hour of usage. That's kind of in the noise and Apple is known to use a generic 'up to 10 hours' statement.
What would you do if in June Apple release the 13" MBPr with the same form factor/weight of the MBA?
I don't think I was 100% sure of what I wanted. I basically just didn't want multiple versions of the same folders and files spread across two separate Macs. In that case, the combination of iCloud Drive and Back to My Mac (for anything on my main Mac and not in iCloud Drive) was the best solution. Appreciate your original suggestions.
Last edited:
Heh. I sure know that feeling.
In my case I had the additional factors of (1) syncing Lightroom photo catalogs so I can work from either platform which means a lot of data moving around, (2) an ISP that meters data and institutes overages at 300GB, and (3) I was already planning to replace my aging NAS that also serves as my Time Machine destination. So no, it's not necessarily the appropriate solution for everyone, especially if one already has a TimeCapsule.
Anyway, it's been working quite well, and I really like that the syncs are over the LAN. When I pull in 10-20GB of images from my camera and take a break from sorting through them, it's nice to pick back up on either Mac.
If I wasn't slinging that kind of data around I wouldn't be concerned with round-tripping the sync over the Internet. I've used Dropbox for years for certain sets of files I wanted access to from anywhere (fit within the free allocation); had iCloud Drive been available I'd likely have used that instead.
Nothing, I have an iMac for power, the MacBook's role in my setup is to be ultra portable, which is does better than even an Air-style Pro!
I think this is the device so many, both on this forum and in the real world, have been waiting for. I think a lot of people love the footprint of the 13'' MBA (I know I do) and just want a better, bigger screen.
I'm personally hoping for this machine as well. 14'' Retina screen being the same or slightly smaller than current Air footprint, with similar battery life. Perhaps this is what the new MBPs will bring. I'd be willing to sacrifice the extra performance, dGPU, and extra inch of screen on my current 15'' MBP to gain the portability and weight savings a 14'' MB would bring.
People on the forum have clamored for a rMBA, but really that's what the 13'' rMBP was. It was a heavier, but still portable weight with a great screen and worse battery life than the Air. I think it's the best machine Apple was able to design at the time due to the battery constraints such a hi-res screen brings into play. Now that's it been a few years, I think Apple will be able to deliver an Air-sized device with significantly more power, comparable battery life, and an awesome screen.
I don't think that battery life on the new MBPr will be improved that much, especially if they mount a 14" display and they make everything thinner. It would be around 10 hours, which means 5 if you do something more than web browsing without flash (Like the new rMB)
That's a great question Mollan. The appeal of the 12" is the portability. When I was originally looking to shrink down, I was considering the MacBook Air 11" but didn't want to sacrifice the retina for the speed. I think this 2016 update addressed a few things the 2015 was lacking. A little more power, battery life, and the updated SSD and RAM. That has made this the perfect machine for my uses for a good few years.
Now if they upgraded the MBP to the same thinness, and made the footprint only a little bigger but add more ports and an i7 processor, 16GB RAM, and no fans....only being slightly bigger by an inch, many might consider.
I'll also answer the "what if" question -- I bought my rMB fully anticipating that Apple may release a rMB styled update to the rMBP that put it close to an MBA's size/weight. Doesn't matter to me as ports/power isn't why I bought the rMB, instead I bought it for its ultra portability; I have a quad-i7 mac mini for the few occasions I need real compute power.
The Air will remain as a low cost Mac for 1 year at least, as it is now for the Pro 13 with Superdrive.
Next year, a nice shift down (-150-200€) in the prices for the whole laptop range, but this year the prices will be crazy. I suspect that the entry level version of the MBP13 will be removed, leaving only the 256 and 512, with their current prices or 100 more.
You and deeddawag gave nice suggestions. I'm not quite sure whether I'll be ok by taking away 300 or 400 grams but having less battery and less speed (i don't mind about the ports).
No way can all that power fit in such a thin chassis and keep anything close to the current battery life.
I really do think they can get close to the design of the MBA with the new Pros. The last few Intel updates, especially Skylake, bring significant improvements and efficiency as far as the integrated GPU goes. This should make a big impact on the power these Macs require to drive the retina display-- sipping the battery instead of gulping. The biggest bottleneck as far as what Apple tends to allow in terms of pure power almost always revolves around battery life concerns-- whether it's MacBooks, iPhones, or iPads. I think the CPU-architecture improvements are there to create such a device where I don't think it would've been possible before Skylake.
I don't expect the new MBPs to reach MBA-level battery run times, but I do think they can improve upon where they stand today.
I've been saying this for 4 years now. A buddy of mine has been waiting for a "Retina Air" and I don't understand how people don't consider the 13" rMBP essentially that machine. It is only 0.03" thicker at the Air's thickest point and 0.52 lbs heavier. I suppose the weight is noticeable but not so much different that someone should wait 4 years for the Air's footprint. If the new Pros are indeed Air-like in design they will be very nice machines for sure.
The price is what differentiates the MBA from the MBP.
Now yes, but by Late 2013, the 13" rMBP was $1,299 and the 13" MBA was $1,099. $200 isn't insignificant, but for people chomping at the bit for this Retina Air on MacRumors, to me it seems like it was close enough in size, price, and experience.
This is why I decided to get the m3. It seems like the m7 shouldn't exist, or at least not be an extra $225 since it'd hit the thermal envelope and have to throttle just like the m3. The slight burst of speed wouldn't be noticeable and the power consumption has obviously proved to be drastically greater than the m3. If I had felt I needed more speed I would be better off waiting for the new MBP.
Actually it's only 10-19% more CPU speed between the m3 & m7. Yes the m7 is a little faster, but only for a small amount of time because either way, the m7 hits the same thermal wall the m3 does. Also, the battery life has to, by logic, be worse on the m7 due to the doubling of power consumption.
The price is what differentiates the MBA from the MBP.
Exactly, the price difference is there but essentially if you wanted a retina screen you paid $200-250 extra. It was a logical distinction between different categories of machines.
The MBA and MBP are very similar, and I'd say the biggest difference is weight. It seems logical for Apple to just make the new MBPs thinner and lighter and call it a day as far as the chassis.It's a logical evolution for a Pro machine.
Last edited:
