MacBook Pro 15" - 2015 vs 2016

[MrGuder]

To be honest I get really confused with all these benchmarks.

For instance, this video above states:
Geekbench 4 Single Core/Multi Core
2015 Macbook Pro 4170/13623
2016 Macbook Pro 4197/12612

Then in David Lee's video below jump to 6:39:
Geekbench Single Core/Multi Core
2015 Macbook Pro 3923/12017
2016 Macbook Pro 3875/12794

These are like opposite results (meaning one is higher the other lower vice vs) so are they running different Geekbench's?

 

[Sanpete]

To be honest I get really confused with all these benchmarks.

For instance, this video above states:
Geekbench 4 Single Core/Multi Core
2015 Macbook Pro 4170/13623
2016 Macbook Pro 4197/12612

Then in David Lee's video below jump to 6:39:
Geekbench Single Core/Multi Core
2015 Macbook Pro 3923/12017
2016 Macbook Pro 3875/12794

These are like opposite results (meaning one is higher the other lower vice vs) so are they running different Geekbench's?

Yup, confusing, too much to keep track of easily. That's a 2.2 GHz for the 2015 in the video you link to. The other video uses a 2.5 2015, which no doubt accounts for the differences.

 

[burgman]

To be honest I get really confused with all these benchmarks.

For instance, this video above states:
Geekbench 4 Single Core/Multi Core
2015 Macbook Pro 4170/13623
2016 Macbook Pro 4197/12612

Then in David Lee's video below jump to 6:39:
Geekbench Single Core/Multi Core
2015 Macbook Pro 3923/12017
2016 Macbook Pro 3875/12794

These are like opposite results (meaning one is higher the other lower vice vs) so are they running different Geekbench's?

Geek Bench is about as reliable as Consumer Reports.

 

[capelesshero]

Hello,

I have a hard time deciding between the 15-inch MacBook Pro, 2015 versus 2016 (base models).

Recently my 15-inch 2011 MacBook Pro drew its last breath. It served me well for all these years, but unable to repair it myself and the repair cost being more than € 1200, I decided it would be time to replace it.

Now there is a big price difference first of all: € 2250 (2015) versus € 2700 (2016) for a new one, where I live. My first thought would be to go for the newest model, because it is, well, the newest one. but I would like your guys opinions as I keep having doubts in my mind.

Now here are some things to keep in mind;

- Design: I have a very weak spot when it comes to design. Design-wise, I would get a 2016 model in space gray right away. I like the overall design of the new model a lot more, from the new colourway to the trackpack, keyboard and smaller bezels. Pity the illuminated logo is gone though. But is the design, including it being lighter and more compact, worth the price premium? Touch bar is nice, but mostly seems like a gimmick at the moment.

- Performance: I would use the machine for web browsing but also tasks such as photo and video editing (Photoshop -including raw editing-, Illustrator, InDesign, Premiere, After Effects). Playing some video games would be a plus, but not a requirement as this is not what the thing is made for. No dual-boot Windows or anything like that. Planning to connect it to my UHD screen while at home. The improved screen would be nice as I love pleasing colours and aesthetics in general, but if I were to buy the 2015 model, I probably will not even notice what I am missing unless I compare it to a newer model directly.

- I/O: 2015 ports would be more useful as of right now, but having to buy a couple of dongles or a dock would be something I would be okay with. I would have preferred the 2016 design with the old ports, but it is not a dealbreaker per se. I am okay with waiting for better USB-C solutions to come around, as I am not a student having to carry my laptop and the dongles around daily, or something like that.

- Battery life: not too important for me personally.

I just cannot make a decision. When I go to one store the guy tells me I should get the new one if I want faster rendering times at video editing and such. Guy at another store tells me I would be okay with the older model. I am just afraid to make the wrong decision… I need this laptop to be my daily driver for at least five years or so, as my last one did, and this thought kind of scared me to buy a laptop labeled "2015". Because I still need it to be able to perform the previously listed tasks decently, even after a couple of years of use. I am willing to save up and spend the extra money, but only if it is worth it. Keep in mind, I have not had a new MacBook Pro or any Apple product for that matter since 2011, so I am not worrying trying to decide whether to upgrade from last-gen.

• Which one would you guys recommend? Why?
• When it comes down to performance solely - is the 2015 model still future-proof?
• Is there even a noticable performance difference?

Just get the 2016 model. Like somebody's grandfather used to say, "Always buy exactly what you want therefore you won't mind going to work for it.

 

[MH01]

2015 refurb all the way. You can get it direct from apple, I see you are in EU. Tell us which model exactly you are looking at, I'll help you find one from apple direct.

Sounds like you need a jack of all trades, and for many tasks using the dGPU is not a major requirement

Just a bit of perspective , my 2012 rmbp 2.7 holds its own against current machines. Unless you are buying this machine for the GPU performance , the 2016 is not a performance jump on the 2015....the 2012 still is more than adequate. Remember the 2016 is no Kaby lake, and expect a new 2017 machine with Kaby lake, I would wait for the 2017 machine , for me the 2016 offers a new design , buy the 2017 with performance and design updates

 

[Charlesje]

The effect is described in this video starting at 3:50, and particularly the point you mention at 5:15 ff. (This is a useful video for those interested in video editing in particular.)

Indeed I think the video points to what I was saying. After 30 s in the transcoding test it shows the older macbook would have about the same boost clock speed (please note that the skylakes alos have a higher performance/clock ratio). But it doesn't show an actual usecase where the new macbook would be slower on short loads, nor elaborates on the new microburst features which makes the cpu snappier. I have yet to find a well documented actual usecase or test of those shorter load settings.

 

[MH01]

Don't be misled by the flatly false claim above (frequently made and corrected here) that the performance of the 2015 and 2016 machines is the same. For tasks that only use the CPU, the performance is typically close, but for many tasks that can use the dGPU, the 2016 is much better.

To be clear, if you're looking at a new 2015 model, it very likely doesn't have a dGPU. It (or any other model without a dGPU) will struggle to do any heavy-duty task that would take advantage of the dGPU, such as hi-res video editing or gaming.

If you can find the 2015 model with a dGPU, it will still run hotter, louder and slower than the 2016 for things like video editing and gaming, but the difference will be smaller. The 2016 will "only" be 15-90% faster. (Especially faster if you try Final Cut Pro.)

It's highly misleading to claim that there have been a large number of people who have had issues with the dGPU in the 2016. There were software glitches that have been fixed. The hardware appears to be fine, and since it runs cooler than earlier models, it's less likely there will be problems. Edit: The dGPU for the 2015 was discontinued by Apple, probably because it ran too hot and did cause problems.

As for future proofing, the 2016's more powerful dGPU and ports will probably be a plus in years to come, as demands on the hardware tend to increase with time.

Which to get, then, depends in large part on how much video editing and gaming you'll do, and on the harder-to-predict matter of how well future software will take advantage of the dGPU for other tasks. Photo editing typically doesn't take advantage of it presently, for example, but that could change, and it could make a big difference.

There are numerous other differences that may or may not matter to you. I personally much appreciate the better speakers in the new model. I collected a lot of info about the differences between the 2015 and 2016 models when I was deciding, and put a lot of it in a customer review at Amazon, if you want details:

https://www.amazon.com/review/R27MBWO99H5LZJ/

While your advice is sound , you ignored the iGPU, which is better on the 2015. If ones workflow is adequately covered by the 370x and they spend most of their time on iGPU, the 2015 model is better. You cannot ignore the threads where people are complaining about lag with the HD 630, I'll take iris pro 5200 over the hd 630 day to day task.

That is what I used to make my decision , heavy duty takes I got a mac pro and desktop, the 370X is more than adequate and 5200 superior. Smooth day to day operation over heavy dGpu edge cases.

 

[MrGuder]

While your advice is sound , you ignored the iGPU, which is better on the 2015. If ones workflow is adequately covered by the 370x and they spend most of their time on iGPU, the 2015 model is better. You cannot ignore the threads where people are complaining about lag with the HD 630, I'll take iris pro 5200 over the hd 630 day to day task.

That is what I used to make my decision , heavy duty takes I got a mac pro and desktop, the 370X is more than adequate and 5200 superior. Smooth day to day operation over heavy dGpu edge cases.

Yeah that's why I wish someone would put a video together showing the differences in the iGPU where the differences are shown by NOT using the dGPU.

I'm actually going to have both for a few days the 2015 2.5 and the 2016 2.6 but I have no idea how to compare the iGPU to see if I can tell if one is slower than the other with respect to just everyday tasks.

 

[Mindinversion]

Neither model is "future-proof

Given the insignificant improvements on intel CPUs year over year, I must emphatically DISAGREE.

The huge selling point for the 2016 is the future proofing built into thunderbolt 3. 40Gb throughput means devices like the Razer Core external graphics amplifier and huge PCI-E speed SSDs can be connected with relatively no issue. I understand the Core isn't officially supported in OS X, but from what I've read it works just fine in Windows, and Apple can always add official support in the future [or more likely build their own for double the price]

This can MASSIVELY extend the life of a mobile machine beyond it's core components, providing the machine doesn't suffer a hardware failure.

THIS is why Thunderbolt 3 is considered so versatile. Of course most people are only thinking about what's of value "now", and I get that. You want to plug in your old USB 2.0 flash drive without using an adapter. You want that internal SD card slot, and I get how important that can be to all the photo/video editors out there.

But two years down the road, to be able to plug in the latest flagship GPU and cut your project times in half?

That's an example of future-proofing.

 

[Fishrrman]

The 2015 represents a mature stage of development for that model, while the 2016's are something of "a work in progress".

If you could use the ports of the 2015, that's a consideration. Much hype here regarding USB-c, but I don't see it rushing ahead to dominate the periperhals market any time soon.

Budget-wise, you could get the 2015 and have enough left over for a 4k 27" display.

When the 2016's were introduced last year, I weighed both the 2015's and 2016's, and picked the 2015 as the better buy for me.

 

[ZapNZs]

Given the insignificant improvements on intel CPUs year over year, I must emphatically DISAGREE.

The huge selling point for the 2016 is the future proofing built into thunderbolt 3. 40Gb throughput means devices like the Razer Core external graphics amplifier and huge PCI-E speed SSDs can be connected with relatively no issue. I understand the Core isn't officially supported in OS X, but from what I've read it works just fine in Windows, and Apple can always add official support in the future [or more likely build their own for double the price]

This can MASSIVELY extend the life of a mobile machine beyond it's core components, providing the machine doesn't suffer a hardware failure.

THIS is why Thunderbolt 3 is considered so versatile. Of course most people are only thinking about what's of value "now", and I get that. You want to plug in your old USB 2.0 flash drive without using an adapter. You want that internal SD card slot, and I get how important that can be to all the photo/video editors out there.

But two years down the road, to be able to plug in the latest flagship GPU and cut your project times in half?

That's an example of future-proofing.

Apple adding official support for an external GPU sounds lovely. Have they officially confirmed this? As it took them 5 years to add TRIM support for third party SSDs, when should we expect this?

 

[jerryk]

To be honest I get really confused with all these benchmarks.

For instance, this video above states:
Geekbench 4 Single Core/Multi Core
2015 Macbook Pro 4170/13623
2016 Macbook Pro 4197/12612

Then in David Lee's video below jump to 6:39:
Geekbench Single Core/Multi Core
2015 Macbook Pro 3923/12017
2016 Macbook Pro 3875/12794

These are like opposite results (meaning one is higher the other lower vice vs) so are they running different Geekbench's?

When you do benchmarks, you usually run each suite multiple times on THE EXACT SAME MACHINE, and average the results. If you have two different reviewer you will likely never get the exact same numbers because the software running on the machines is a little different, one person cold rebooted between runs, etc.

This does not mean the results are not valid. It just means you have more uncertainly in the results, or a wider margin of error.

When I look at these numbers, it seems to me that the 2016 and 2015 machines are performing about to the same on this benchmark suite.

 

[Sanpete]

Indeed I think the video points to what I was saying. After 30 s in the transcoding test it shows the older macbook would have about the same boost clock speed (please note that the skylakes alos have a higher performance/clock ratio). But it doesn't show an actual usecase where the new macbook would be slower on short loads, nor elaborates on the new microburst features which makes the cpu snappier. I have yet to find a well documented actual usecase or test of those shorter load settings.

As you'd expect from the results above, shorter tasks are one area where the 2015 can do better. If the test had ended at 30 seconds or a minute the 2015 would have been faster. Someone had a thread here a few days ago about Xcode tests showing the older model MBPs were doing better for roughly one-minute tasks than the new MBP. There weren't a lot of samples, but enough to suggest the older machines really are faster for that. Maybe for more extended Xcode stuff they'd fall behind, as above.

While your advice is sound , you ignored the iGPU, which is better on the 2015. If ones workflow is adequately covered by the 370x and they spend most of their time on iGPU, the 2015 model is better. You cannot ignore the threads where people are complaining about lag with the HD 630, I'll take iris pro 5200 over the hd 630 day to day task.

That is what I used to make my decision , heavy duty takes I got a mac pro and desktop, the 370X is more than adequate and 5200 superior. Smooth day to day operation over heavy dGpu edge cases.

Good point. The 2015 Iris Pro iGPU is better than the iGPU in the 2016. I don't know how much that matters, though. I doubt the lags people find with the new MBPs are due to any lack of speed or power of the current iGPUs, which are way more than powerful and fast enough to handle scrolling. There have been complaints about UI lag from time to time for many years, even with Iris Pro. They usually get resolved with software. The main advantage of a better iGPU may be battery savings if it can avoid switching to the dGPU.

 

[Charlesje]

Given the insignificant improvements on intel CPUs year over year, I must emphatically DISAGREE.

2015 Unless you are buying this machine for the GPU performance , the 2016 is not a performance jump on the 2015...

Insignificant, but certainly not in 2016, unless 15% increases in high load performance are insignificant. Again and again people keep repeating these unfounded statements, or only founded on geekbench benchmarks. Geekbench is a synthetic benchmarkreally useful in being able to easily compare the most obscure tablets, even cross platform, etc. but it s not a good actual performance barometer especially not on mobile devices. But i'll leave it to the interested reader : please check actual performance benchmarks or tests on the new MBP.

 

[ZapNZs]

To be honest I get really confused with all these benchmarks.

For instance, this video above states:
Geekbench 4 Single Core/Multi Core
2015 Macbook Pro 4170/13623
2016 Macbook Pro 4197/12612

Then in David Lee's video below jump to 6:39:
Geekbench Single Core/Multi Core
2015 Macbook Pro 3923/12017
2016 Macbook Pro 3875/12794

These are like opposite results (meaning one is higher the other lower vice vs) so are they running different Geekbench's?

I fear I am at fault for some of the confusion and I apologize for causing this. The Geekbench and Passmark results I have posted reference testing that pertains primarily or solely to the CPU, and I have generally used benchmarks as a rough approximation (i.e., a variation of a few hundred points could fall within a margin of error that is influenced by factors other than the computer's sole hardware performance capability, such as the operating system, how full a hard drive is, or the functional state of the OS directory.) The specific ones I posted were to show that a higher tier MBP of a previous generation often has comparable performance to one of the current generation, and I should have specified in regards to the CPU. With the 2015, some tests are performed with El Capitan and others with Sierra, of various releases. With the 2016, all are performed with Sierra, but some are performed with different releases, and users of the 2016s have noted that Geekbench scores have changed with different Sierra updates. Passmark CPU stats provide an estimate on the potential margin of error, where as I do not believe Geekbench does.

I'm anything but a genius in this area, but going beyond benchmarks, the GPU should affect the overall weighted score, although I am not sure if any benchmarks do that (most I assume are separate/combined.) To the way I understand it, many Makers are now using the GPU to offload certain real-world tasks that a GPU can do more efficiently than a CPU, and this presents certain limitations to pure CPU and pure GPU tests. So since the CPU for the 2014/2015 MBP is identical, Geekbench scores are also near identical, and this largely fails to account for the 2015's R9-M370X GPU's massive advancements over the 2014's 750M GPU, and how this can make a substantial impact in certain real-world usage scenarios. (Someone more knowledgable than I could clarify how far off from fact I am here?)

 

[Charlesje]

As you'd expect from the results above, shorter tasks are one area where the 2015 can do better. If the test had ended at 30 seconds or a minute the 2015 would have been faster. Someone had a thread here a few days ago about Xcode tests showing the older model MBPs were doing better for roughly one-minute tasks than the new MBP. There weren't a lot of samples, but enough to suggest the older machines really are faster for that. Maybe for more extended Xcode stuff they'd fall behind, as above.
.

However heoretical turboboost speeds are not reached consistently in the first 30 s neither, and other factors come into play then clock speed for performance. Therefore we need actual tests eg for one minute I didn't find the xcode exemple convincing however, to few results and not clear what is exactly measured, difficult to generalize towards compiling tasks because of that. But even if a certain usecase can be found -i imagine it can- that wouldnt change the fact that under sustained load the new mbp performs much faster. And sustained load settings, be it for graphics, digital audio, number crunching, big compiling tasks etc, to me seem the most relevant performance settings.

 

[uptownnyc]

I went with a lightly used 2015 (~26 battery cycles) for $1600. Granted I was coming from an early 2011, so anything would have been great -- but I'd tested a 2016 model and couldn't aclimate to the keyboard. No regrets with my choice, and saved a ton of money buying a machine that more than meets my needs. I expect I'll probably replace this with a new unit sooner than the 5 year cycle I was on, but I also expect I'll be able to resell this one for a negligible difference in my purchase price when I do. If it winds up only "costing" me $150/year to own this one, that's a win in my book.

 

[Naimfan]

Given the insignificant improvements on intel CPUs year over year, I must emphatically DISAGREE.

The huge selling point for the 2016 is the future proofing built into thunderbolt 3.

For the approximately 14 people who might actually do what you suggest, wonderful. For the rest of us, wrong.

It's funny, we heard the same thing about Thunderbolt 2. And 1. And Firewire . . . How have those turned out?

The 2016 is the best expression yet of how bankrupt Apple is when it comes to ideas for the MBP. They have ONE worn-out idea - make it thinner. I don't want it thinner, I want it better.

The existing rMBP chassis is already anorexic; Apple is one short step away from starving it to death. It has converted the 15" into a glorified Macbook Air.

 

[MrGuder]

As you'd expect from the results above, shorter tasks are one area where the 2015 can do better. If the test had ended at 30 seconds or a minute the 2015 would have been faster.

How do you define "shorter tasks"?

 

[Sanpete]

The 2016 is the best expression yet of how bankrupt Apple is when it comes to ideas for the MBP. They have ONE worn-out idea - make it thinner. I don't want it thinner, I want it better.

The existing rMBP chassis is already anorexic; Apple is one short step away from starving it to death. It has converted the 15" into a glorified Macbook Air.

Nonsense. The new MBP is improved in a dozen ways, and no sensible person could imagine it to be akin to an MBA.
[doublepost=1486408580][/doublepost]

How do you define "shorter tasks"?

In that context I refer to 30-second and one-minute tasks.

 

[rutrack]

For the approximately 14 people who might actually do what you suggest, wonderful. For the rest of us, wrong.

It's funny, we heard the same thing about Thunderbolt 2. And 1. And Firewire . . . How have those turned out?

The 2016 is the best expression yet of how bankrupt Apple is when it comes to ideas for the MBP. They have ONE worn-out idea - make it thinner. I don't want it thinner, I want it better.

The existing rMBP chassis is already anorexic; Apple is one short step away from starving it to death. It has converted the 15" into a glorified Macbook Air.

True and it is very unfortunate, they are unwilling to change from the Body->thinner, trackpad->bigger cycle, but this time they had a lot of courage to completely change all the input methods ...
Another vote for 2015

 

[MH01]

Insignificant, but certainly not in 2016, unless 15% increases in high load performance are insignificant. Again and again people keep repeating these unfounded statements, or only founded on geekbench benchmarks. Geekbench is a synthetic benchmarkreally useful in being able to easily compare the most obscure tablets, even cross platform, etc. but it s not a good actual performance barometer especially not on mobile devices. But i'll leave it to the interested reader : please check actual performance benchmarks or tests on the new MBP.

Sorry bud, year on year intel improvements are becoming very small, tick tock is gone. I have a 2012 3970x system which sees little benefit from upgrades....in 2017. In actual performance that 15% you talk about is even less, day to day tasks.
[doublepost=1486422591][/doublepost]

Nonsense. The new MBP is improved in a dozen ways, and no sensible person could imagine it to be akin to an MBA.
[doublepost=1486408580][/doublepost]

In that context I refer to 30-second and one-minute tasks.

Of course not, the MBA has excellent battery life

 

[jackoatmon]

the new one's a billion times better forget that old heavy clunky junk from 2 years ago

 

[masotime]

the new one's a billion times better forget that old heavy clunky junk from 2 years ago

The new one is barely lighter than the old one.

https://www.technobuffalo.com/2016/...6-vs-macbook-pro-15-inch-2015-spec-shoot-out/

2.02kg versus 1.82kg, that's a 200 gram difference, or ~10% lighter. I was actually quite surprised and disappointed when I picked up the new 15" 2016 model. I don't feel any difference at all in weight.

Contrast with 2011 versus 2012.

https://www.engadget.com/2012/06/11/new-macbook-pros-vs-macbook-pros-late-2011-whats-changed/

5.6lb versus 4.46lb. ~25% lighter. You could really feel the difference.

 

[Sanpete]

Of course not, the MBA has excellent battery life

Ha, as does the new 15" MBP!