MacBook Pro 13" vs MacBook Pro 15" logic?

[Jeremyboy222]

Hello everyone,


Originally, I wanted to buy the new MacBook Pro 13". However, it came to my attention that the best processor upgrade for the new 13" is the Intel i7 dual core 3.3 GHz. However, if you do all the upgrades I would like on a 13", I'm almost at the same price of a 15" (while the 15" has even better specs).

My comparison:

13 Inch MacBook Pro

• 3.3 GHz dual core i7, Tubo Boost 3.6 Ghz
• 16 GB RAM
• Intel Iris Graphics 550
• PCIe-SSD 512 GB
• Price: $2,499.00

15 Inch MacBook Pro

• 2.6 GHz quad core i7, Tubo Boost 3.5 Ghz
• 16 GB RAM
• Radeon Pro 450, 2 GB
• PCIe-SSD 512 GB
• Price: $2,599.00

This means that you can get a 15 inch screen, a better processor and a better GPU for only $100 more? Where is the logic please? Why does Apple even gives you a dual core in the highest tier of the 13 inch?

Thoughts on this please? Thanks!


Kind Regards,
Jérémy

 

[keviig]

They don't put a quad core in the 13" due to heat. The dual core ones are 28W (15W for the base 13") and the quad core ones are 45W. That's a major challenge to cool. In your case i'd either go with a lower tier 13" (i5 base or mid upgrade) or just go with the 15".

 

[Jeremyboy222]

Thank you for your input! The Intel i7 quad core (2.6 GHz) is however much better than the dual core i7 (3.3 GHz), right? So if I want a really good processor, I'm better off with the 15"?

 

[keviig]

You're right! The i7 Quad Core boosts to 3.5 GHz while the i7 Dual Core boosts to 3.6 GHz, but then again you have double the amount of cores in the QC. The i7 in the 13" really doesn't make much sense considering the cost. It's only 10% faster than the baseline i5 after all.

 

[JMac1996]

Hi Jeremy,

that's exactly the point.
I configured the both same machines on the Apple Store Site and i decided to buy the 15" rMBP 2016.
It's just 100$ on top.
If i was you, i would go for the 15" 2016 machine.
Remember: You get also a bigger battery and 4 Ports with full support (the 13" has 4 ports, but 2 of them are limited!).

 

[Jay42]

The smart play is to stick with the 2.9 Ghz i5 on the 13". I've heard the difference between the dual-core variants of skylake are very minimal.

I plan to spec my 13" with the 2.9 Ghz i5, 16gb ram, 512gb ssd for $2,199. A base 15" with 512gb of storage is $2,599. It's a more significant price difference, plus I want the smaller form factor.

 

[Bryan Bowler]

There are far greater factors that should influence your decision beyond the internal specs, and that is screen size, weight, and portability. Truth be told, those 3 things should have the biggest effect on your decision.

 

[mikeo007]

Your 13" has a $300 upgrade that almost everyone advises against. The extra CPU bump costs $75 per 100MHz, and has no noticeable impact on day-to-day use.

 

[Jeremyboy222]

Thank you all for your input! Since I'm an IT'er, I'll need to run Windows parallels from time to time. For this reason, I really need some good specs. I think that the Intel dual core i5 just won't fit my requirements.. I liked the 13" for it's portability (stunning weight and dimensions), but the 15" isn't bad either.. I'm still using a MacBook Pro from early 2011 at this point, so it will be a big difference for me anyway!

 

[cambookpro]

Thank you all for your input! Since I'm an IT'er, I'll need to run Windows parallels from time to time. For this reason, I really need some good specs. I think that the Intel dual core i5 just won't fit my requirements.. I liked the 13" for it's portability (stunning weight and dimensions), but the 15" isn't bad either.. I'm still using a MacBook Pro from early 2011 at this point, so it will be a big difference for me anyway!

The i5 vs i7 on the 13" really doesn't give a noticeable increase in performance, it seems to mainly be marketing. They both have hyperthreading and things like that which used to differentiate them. The quad-core, obviously, will provide a greater performance boost in CPU-intensive tasks, but if that's what you really need, there isn't much point considering the 13".

One thing to bear in mind, and it clearly depends on what you need Windows for, but I've run Parallels on an m5 MacBook and it's been fine. If you're just running the odd app in Windows, Parallels really doesn't require very high specs.

 

[Jeremyboy222]

The i5 vs i7 on the 13" really doesn't give a noticeable increase in performance, it seems to mainly be marketing. They both have hyperthreading and things like that which used to differentiate them. The quad-core, obviously, will provide a greater performance boost in CPU-intensive tasks, but if that's what you really need, there isn't much point considering the 13".

One thing to bear in mind, and it clearly depends on what you need Windows for, but I've run Parallels on an m5 MacBook and it's been fine. If you're just running the odd app in Windows, Parallels really doesn't require very high specs.

Thank you for your input. You're right, the i7 upgrade on the 13" really seems to be a stupid upgrade. Won't be running odd apps in Windows, I really want some power.

I've made my choice! I'm going for the 15" MacBook Pro as configured in the beginning of this thread. Thanks everyone for all the helpful answers!

 

[cambookpro]

Thank you for your input. You're right, the i7 upgrade on the 13" really seems to be a stupid upgrade. Won't be running odd apps in Windows, I really want some power.

I've made my choice! I'm going for the 15" MacBook Pro as configured in the beginning of this thread. Thanks everyone for all the helpful answers!

Sounds like the better choice if you need to run more intensive things in VMs! Enjoy it, I'm going from an early 2011 too, but to a 13" as the most testing things I run are Xcode, FCPX and Photoshop which I think it should be able to handle.

 

[Jay42]

Thank you all for your input! Since I'm an IT'er, I'll need to run Windows parallels from time to time. For this reason, I really need some good specs. I think that the Intel dual core i5 just won't fit my requirements.. I liked the 13" for it's portability (stunning weight and dimensions), but the 15" isn't bad either.. I'm still using a MacBook Pro from early 2011 at this point, so it will be a big difference for me anyway!

I doubt the quad core i7 will make much of a difference for running parallels.

 

[Jeremyboy222]

I doubt the quad core i7 will make much of a difference for running parallels.

Does someone actually knows the exact models of the processors? Are there any Benchmarks available?

 

[JPizzzle]

cost/benefit wise the 15" makes the most sense. However, the portability of the 13" makes it a different computing experience. I've had the previous generation 15" and it was enormous in terms of footprint. Sure they shaved a little off the sides, but it's still a big computer in comparison to the 13". I found myself using the iPad Air more and the 15" felt like it was more for projects. It's not a computer that you wanna lay in bed with or feel comfortable moving around the home IMO.

 

[Jeremyboy222]

cost/benefit wise the 15" makes the most sense. However, the portability of the 13" makes it a different computing experience. I've had the previous generation 15" and it was enormous in terms of footprint. Sure they shaved a little off the sides, but it's still a big computer in comparison to the 13". I found myself using the iPad Air more and the 15" felt like it was more for projects. It's not a computer that you wanna lay in bed with or feel comfortable moving around the home IMO.

I can understand that. I'm also a bit scared that it will be quite big.. However, I'm now using (like I already told) the MacBook Pro 13" of Early 2011 and I calculated that the new 15" is only 2,43 cm wider than my current model.. So I'm not sure if this will be a really big 'impact' for me since I'm happy in terms of portability with my current model..