Macbook pro 13 or 15?

[Roelfoubert]

My Old model is a mid 2012 macbook pro 15" non retina. I want to buy a new 2016 model, but I'm not sure which model. The 13" or 15". At the moment I'm using FCPX and Photoshop sometimes. This would be no problem for the 13". The only problem is that I use parallels for school to run Autodesk Inventor 2017 and I don't know the dual-core and the graphics are good enough in the 13" model. I would take 16gb of ram and 512 ssd but I'm not sure about the model.

 

[Chucky666UK]

Same dilemma here. I am a teacher so only use software such as Activispire, MS Office, Numbers, etc. Watch some videos and play the odd game (Cricket?) and Football Manager 2017 in Bootcamp. I know i dont really need the QuadCore or 16GB but its the screen size (I have the 15") that draws me to it over and over again. I have the base 15" and the base 13" TB models at home with a return date of 7 Jan. I just cannot decide which to keep as one has to go back!
The 13" is very nice and portable but now that i have used the 15" the 13" seems too cramped!

 

[maflynn]

I've used both a 13" and 15" form factor and here's my $.02

The 15" model has a larger display, so you get more screen real estate work with, I think this is important for PS. I have no idea about FCPX because I don't use it. The 15" also has a better GPU and quad core processors.

The 13" has a better price tag, and is much more portable. I actually gravitated towards the 13" form factor partly because the laptop is no longer my main machine. I have an iMac and use a laptop when I travel. The smaller form factor works so much better in hotels, on my lap, in a plane. I'm liking how portable it really is.

I can't guarantee that I'll buy a 13" MBP over a 15" when I'm ready to buy, because I do like the specs of the 15" but at the moment I feel (for me), the 13" model offers superior portability and that's a major factor for me.

 

[Roelfoubert]

I think for me everything will work very well but when it comes to parallels I'm not sure giving one processor for Windows and one for mac will work fine?

 

[maflynn]

I'm not sure giving one processor for Windows and one for mac will work fine?

Yeah, you may find windows and the apps a bit slower running in a virtualized environment. The other option is to then use Bootcamp.

 

[Roelfoubert]

Is there a way I can test it?

 

[deany]

I think for me everything will work very well but when it comes to parallels I'm not sure giving one processor for Windows and one for mac will work fine?

I have the 2015 rMBP with the i5 8GB and 500GB
I have XP, W7 and W10 on Parallels loaded.
The fan does click on under heavy load with W7 and W10 - I use SystemPal and an alarm has gone off when doing a full scan with Norton 3.0 in W7
I love the portability of the 13" it just seem perfect to me.
I also run a 24" 4k monitor.
I'm very happy but some programs may struggle on my i5 in Parallels.
This is what I would get as a Parallels user:

 

[Roelfoubert]

I have the 2015 rMBP with the i5 8GB and 500GB
I have XP, W7 and W10 on Parallels loaded.
The fan does click on under heavy load with W7 and W10 - I use SystemPal and an alarm has gone off when doing a full scan with Norton 3.0 in W7
I love the portability of the 13" it just seem perfect to me.
I also run a 24" 4k monitor.
I'm very happy but some programs may struggle on my i5 in Parallels.
This is what I would get as a Parallels user:
View attachment 680871

I was thinking about this but then the difference between the 15" isnt much money and I think I get more for the price? Or am I wrong?

 

[Dave245]

I was wondering the same, i have an iMac at home that i use daily, my 2011 MacBook Pro is a 15" laptop, it has been a great laptop and has seen me through 4 years of university and been an all round brilliant laptop, it is the reason why i love the Mac over any other Personal Computer. I think if i do upgrade my MacBook i will have a dilemma of whether to get the 15" or the 13" MacBook Pro, i'm holding off until next year i think, either way, mainly because there will probably be a price drop and i want to see what updates they do to the iMac.

 

[woodoh]

hope there is a non-touc bar 15" macbook pro with the same/similar spec with existing non-touch bar 13", just like I hoped there is a macbook air 15" before

 

[deany]

I was thinking about this but then the difference between the 15" isnt much money and I think I get more for the price? Or am I wrong?

Hi
For £300 more
On the 15" the processor is the quadcore 2.7 Ghz i7 6830HK or HQ with Radion Pro 445 graphic card
Not sure what the difference between HK and HQ is.

The 13" has the dual core 3.3 Ghz i7 6567U with Intel Iris 550 graphic card

15"

13"

If the CPUs give similar results personally I would still opt for the 13" for portability

Does anyone know how the
• 3.3 Ghz i7 6567U dual core on the 13" performs against the
quad core
• 2.7 Ghz i7 6830HK or HQ on the 15" ?
• and what the difference between HK v HQ is on the 15"

• I guess the graphic card on the 15" is better for graphics work or video editing but again hopefully someone can chip in here.

 

[Roelfoubert]

I would take the standard 15" so with the amd 450 graphics

 

[Dave245]

Hi
For £300 more
On the 15" the processor is the quadcore 2.7 Ghz i7 6830HK or HQ with Radion Pro 445 graphic card
Not sure what the difference between HK and HQ is.

The 13" has the dual core 3.3 Ghz i7 6567U with Intel Iris 550 graphic card

15"
View attachment 680880
13"

View attachment 680879

If the CPUs give similar results personally I would still opt for the 13" for portability

Does anyone know how the
• 3.3 Ghz i7 6567U dual core on the 13" performs against the
quad core
• 2.7 Ghz i7 6830HK or HQ on the 15" ?
• and what the difference between HK v HQ is on the 15"

• I guess the graphic card on the 15" is better for graphics work or video editing but again hopefully someone can chip in here.

I really think it depends on the tasks your doing as to whether you will see any difference with performances. When I got my 2011 MacBook Pro I maxed out a couple of things including the processor (if I remember correctly) and it has served me well, I was able to get through 4 years of University with it, editi audio files for podcast and help friends editi video footage. I think if there are no intentions of using the new MacBook Pro for editing (either video, audio or photos) then a 13" should be great. However it depends if you like the larger form factor that some people do. Also it helps to try and think ahead a little, just because you might not need the power at the moment doesn't mean you might not further down the line, it all depends on what you do with your machine and what you need it to do i.e. Tasks such as photoshop, final cut and things like that.

 

[deany]

I would take the standard 15" so with the amd 450 graphics

Hi
So its just the:
• CPU difference in benchmark tests esp. for Parallels vm
• Screen real estate
• Portability - weight difference

We are all different, if its for school / college portability and weight may be important now and in the future if and when you went to Uni, if thats your plan.
[doublepost=1483103778][/doublepost]

I really think it depends on the tasks your doing as to whether you will see any difference with performances. When I got my 2011 MacBook Pro I maxed out a couple of things including the processor (if I remember correctly) and it has served me well, I was able to get through 4 years of University with it, editi audio files for podcast and help friends editi video footage. I think if there are no intentions of using the new MacBook Pro for editing (either video, audio or photos) then a 13" should be great. However it depends if you like the larger form factor that some people do. Also it helps to try and think ahead a little, just because you might not need the power at the moment doesn't mean you might not further down the line, it all depends on what you do with your machine and what you need it to do i.e. Tasks such as photoshop, final cut and things like that.

Good advice, look to present and future needs.

was your 2011 13" or 15"?

 

[ihatetoregister]

Once I switch to 13", the 15" one looked heavy and bulky in comparison.

I'd go for the 13" with 16GB ram upgrade. RAM matters a lot with Parrallels, since you're ready for it it's all good.

For Autodesk Inventor, if you google it it seems the GPU doesn't matter (somewhat old thread though, 2015)
Quoting : "The only time GPU is used in Inventor is for your Model Environment model window (rotate, pan and zoom). Rendering uses your CPU in Inventor. The only software that I know that allows for selection of CPU and GPU is 3dMax."

 

[Dave245]

Hi
So its just the:
• CPU difference in benchmark tests esp. for Parallels vm
• Screen real estate
• Portability - weight difference

We are all different, if its for school / college portability and weight may be important now and in the future if and when you went to Uni, if thats your plan.
[doublepost=1483103778][/doublepost]

Good advice, look to present and future needs.

was your 2011 13" or 15"?

Mine is the 15" 2011 MacBook Pro, I don't regret buying it for one second! It has been a great machine.

 

[Roelfoubert]

I was looking for benchmarks and the graphics performance of the intel 550 is beter then the 650m that I had on my mid 2012. Is this correct?

Once I switch to 13", the 15" one looked heavy and bulky in comparison.

I'd go for the 13" with 16GB ram upgrade. RAM matters a lot with Parrallels, since you're ready for it it's all good.

For Autodesk Inventor, if you google it it seems the GPU doesn't matter (somewhat old thread though, 2015)
Quoting : "The only time GPU is used in Inventor is for your Model Environment model window (rotate, pan and zoom). Rendering uses your CPU in Inventor. The only software that I know that allows for selection of CPU and GPU is 3dMax."

Would you upgrade the processor or keep it standard?

 

[deany]

I was looking for benchmarks and the graphics performance of the intel 550 is beter then the 650m that I had on my mid 2012. Is this correct?

Would you upgrade the processor or keep it standard?

Not sure about the graphics card someone will chip in hopefully.

I'd go for the i7, and as mentioned 16GB for Parallels. Based on my experience with 2015 i5 and 8GB in Parallels.
Its not a bad experience, far from it, but Norton 3.0 scan and heavy work in W7 and W10 can cause the fan speed to really increase.
Not a problem for me but I would go for the higher spec in years to come.
I still think the 13" is better for Uni and a business traveller for portability. A 4K display on a 13" is simply stunning, as good as our 2015 iMacs IMHO so you have the best of both worlds. I paid £279 for mine from amazon - Samsung 24" 4K.
But like I say we are all different, requirements etc.
ps
there is a thread here about CPUs
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/macbook-pro-ntb-2-0-i5-or-2-4-i7.2024709/

 

[ihatetoregister]

Would you upgrade the processor or keep it standard?

I maxed mine because work paid for it.
As to what I would do if it was my money, I guess it's off topic since I wouldn't go for a Mac anymore (I've been very disappointed in this iteration).
For the gain, I've been nice and compared for you on Geekbench

13 " i5 2.9 : 3773
13 " i5 3.1 : 3879
13 " i7 3.3 : 4005

I'd say it's not worth going for the in-between upgrade (3.1) as it's only 2,7% difference, and kinda worth going for the i7.
Kinda because it's a lot of money for a mere 6 % difference, but if you do some operations all the time (which is my case, I compile hundreds of time per day) it can make a (small) difference.

 

[deany]

I maxed mine because work paid for it.
As to what I would do if it was my money, I guess it's off topic since I wouldn't go for a Mac anymore (I've been very disappointed in this iteration).
For the gain, I've been nice and compared for you on Geekbench

13 " i5 2.9 : 3773
13 " i5 3.1 : 3879
13 " i7 3.3 : 4005

I'd say it's not worth going for the in-between upgrade (3.1) as it's only 2,7% difference, and kinda worth going for the i7. Kinda because it's a lot of money for a mere 6 %, but if you don some operations all the time (which is my case, I compile hundreds of time per day) it can make a difference.

Interesting read, thanks for posting could you post the same Geekbench for the 15"
and do you know what the difference between HK and HQ is in post 11
thanks

 

[jackoatmon]

this can sound a little condescending, but i don't mean it that way:

if you're asking then you don't need the extra power

when you're doing stuff that requires high spec machines, you're kinda constantly aware of resource usage and bottlenecks

perhaps a more constructive way to look at it: they're all incredible machines, and can all do the vast majority of tasks quickly, quietly & reliably, but the most expensive ones can do certain special industry tasks like smoothly edit 4-5k raw footage with many LUTs, or whatever the industry specific annoying heavy thing is (generally only applies to professional creators [film, video game, dev, etc]). the people doing that stuff, they know they need the big one because they're grinding every day on their machine no matter what they buy.

 

[ihatetoregister]

Interesting read, thanks for posting could you post the same Geekbench for the 15"
and do you know what the difference between HK and HQ is in post 11
thanks

Well I'm a bit busy so my kindness will stop at giving the single core score , but check geekbench for mbp late 2016 15" for more details.
The figure are base 15" 3961, middle 4087, and maxed out 4251.
In muti-core it makes a difference to go for the 15", obviously. But remember that your software is probably not using the multicore capacity (it's pretty rare they do).
[doublepost=1483110914][/doublepost]

this can sound a little condescending

I do think this sounds condescending !
He's asking because he might want a vague idea of the difference, or have more info to make his choice.

For instance you might hear the same question about RAM and personally I'd advise 16GB no matter what.

CPU is more tricky, because people don't really know the performances gains IN PRACTICE (I mean, I discovered it once Geekbench had results, and had already ordered my machine) so it's worth asking.
Also people don't even know which software truly take advantage of the multi-core, and sometimes go for quad-core for no reason.

Also, there are no stupid question, just help him.

 

[deany]

Well I'm a bit busy so my kindness will stop at giving the single core score , but check geekbench for mbp late 2016 15" for more details.
The figure are base 15" 3961, middle 4087, and maxed out 4251.
In muti-core it makes a difference to go for the 15", obviously. But remember that your software is probably not using the multicore capacity (it's pretty rare they do).
[doublepost=1483110914][/doublepost]

I do think this sounds condescending !
He's asking because he might want a vague idea of the difference, or have more info to make his choice.

For instance you might hear the same question about RAM and personally I'd advise 16GB no matter what.

CPU is more tricky, because people don't really know the performances gains IN PRACTICE (I mean, I discovered it once Geekbench had results, and had already ordered my machine) so it's worth asking.
Also people don't even know which software truly take advantage of the multi-core, and sometimes go for quad-core for no reason.

Also, there are no stupid question, just help him.

Thanks for the reply.

I think he was refering to his own post rather than mine or others 'this can sound a little condescending....but I don't mean it that way'

I didn't find anything condescending in the slightest in his post.

thanks again

 

[Kjung7]

I maxed mine because work paid for it.
As to what I would do if it was my money, I guess it's off topic since I wouldn't go for a Mac anymore (I've been very disappointed in this iteration).
For the gain, I've been nice and compared for you on Geekbench

13 " i5 2.9 : 3773
13 " i5 3.1 : 3879
13 " i7 3.3 : 4005

I'd say it's not worth going for the in-between upgrade (3.1) as it's only 2,7% difference, and kinda worth going for the i7.
Kinda because it's a lot of money for a mere 6 % difference, but if you do some operations all the time (which is my case, I compile hundreds of time per day) it can make a (small) difference.

I chose to go with the 3.1 since I thought that the i7 would run hotter so it would more likely run into thermal throttling compared to the i5.

 

[deany]

I chose to go with the 3.1 since I thought that the i7 would run hotter so it would more likely run into thermal throttling compared to the i5.

I find with Parallels - i5 can run hot on my 2015 rMBP 8GB so as @ihatetoregister post recommends
"
13 " i5 2.9 : 3773
13 " i5 3.1 : 3879
13 " i7 3.3 : 4005

I'd say it's not worth going for the in-between upgrade (3.1) as it's only 2,7% difference, and kinda worth going for the i7."

So for 13" 3.3 i7 maybe best.
Its interesting you think the CPU would be hotter on a i7 during heavy use I thought the opposite would occur.