I always thought that Apple intentionally puts in a smaller battery in its laptops than what the chassis can actually fit. This 18% increase in size of the battery (at least in terms of watt-hours) proves my point. Sure some components could have been decreased, but there must have been some dead space in the previous iteration of the MacBook Pro line.
It actually doesn’t prove your point or anything, really. Without a detailed study of all the components, the battery chemistry, and the hardware design it’s really difficult to know where the increase came from.
Apple's timing of this sucks. At least my son is happy with his dual-core, as he doesn't really realize what he could have had. Nice work, Apple.
I'm glad to see this, though. It makes my decision a bit more difficult as to what I get.
freshfacedrecruit said: Moreover, the TB version is the same 28W for either 2 core 2017 or 4 core 2018...so being more "powerful" does not mean it will consume more energy...all else being equal.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking too... it shouldn't be using more power, at least not for the CPU. Isn't it the 15" that got a bigger battery to compensate for the RAM?
freshfacedrecruit said: Question for you all, Phil says they didn't use 32GB DDR4 because of reduced runtime...and yet, all it took was a larger capacity battery, which Apple could have done all along. Phil is a marketing BS'er, needs to be terminated. If you double the capacity of RAM, does it not double the amount of energy consumed by that RAM? It should, so how much Apple; for transparency purposes, in milliwatts, does 16GB of DDR4 vs 16GB of LPDDR3 use? If we use LPDDR4X, even if 40% more efficient than DDR4; logically it is going to end up using some X amount of energy more than 16GB. But how much more, apparently it is not all that much, and we know Apple's DNA won't let them have less runtimes.
I'm just happy they finally budged and did it, for those who need it. It was a silly argument, and other than a few of us, everyone on these forums bought it hook, line, and sinker too. Almost as good as the 3.5mm legacy port, lol.
It would be great if you could test the thermals and sustained performance.
already on it!
Goodo. But can you please test the thermals and sustained performance where the ambient temp is 95F (35C), as well air-conditioned environment. Thanks.
Heh, yeah. I'd love to know about noise levels, too! (Not just sound meter, but how much load before you can hear it in a quiet environment, or practical stuff like that, too.)
Blackmagic eGPU!? Wow! I’m wondering what sort of acceleration is hidden inside! Any hope for a blazing fast dedicated 4K HEVC encoder? Would be cool if it affected FCPX and Apple Compressor.
I think it's an RX 580 (or 570)? Or, do you think they hid some other goodies in there?
...I wish quad cores were available without the cost of the touchbar, even as a BTO...
Yeah, same here... and/or that they didn't 'nerf' the non-TB models.
booga said: Does anyone actually find that thing useful??
My son thinks it looks cool and uses it to select emojis... you know, pro stuff. I hate it.
KITA said: Just as long as your work flow won't benefit from a dGPU.
That's what the eGPU is for... but you mean when you're just using it straight out. I think this is a good compromise, though, as a higher end GPU in a laptop turns it into leaf-blower. Again, that's OK for a high end model I suppose. I'm not sure how the 15" dGPU compares, though it isn't nVidia.
Wait that multicore score of the 15" is whack, my 2015 15" gets 16K. The top end 2016 shouldn't be getting 11K. But the 13" does beat my 15" by a bit on both CPU and GPU now, tempted, very tempted....
Yeah... I was even surprised it was that much. I thought all the smarties on these forums were saying there was nothing to gain by Apple implementing Coffee Lake.
It probably would cost Apple $10 tops in build of materials cost (maybe even <$2) to add the 2 ports for example. $500 more for a touchbar that I don't need and 2 ports that I do is crazy if one is content with the processor speed of the base MacBook Pro.
There is one thunderbolt controller for every 2 ports, so what you are requesting requires more support on the logic board (may require an extra 4 PCIe lanes on the CPU as well... those dependencies probably add up to more than what you are saying. (it also depends on the CPU used as well - which I have no idea of).
Wait that multicore score of the 15" is whack, my 2015 15" gets 16K. The top end 2016 shouldn't be getting 11K.
But the 13" does beat my 15" by a bit on both CPU and GPU now, tempted, very tempted....
My 8-core, dual CPU Mac Pro 2008 (2.8Ghz) gets 9000 and a bit on the multi-core geekbench 4 benchmarks... so 16000 on a 13" or 22000+ on the 15" is rather insane in comparison.
Was really hoping for a 32Gb ram and Quad core CPU option on the 13" model to make it a real ultra portable Pro machine..... 15" it is I guess.
I was hoping for a solid gold case with a jewel-encrusted trim option for the same price as the regular 13" model... but it looks like I will have to wait
You had under 700 for the 256GB SSD internal, did you confirm this?
Thanks
That's last years 2017 non-touch bar.
Our 2018 13" Touch Bar MacBook Pro with 256GB SSD got 1151 Write speed. The reason it's faster on the 1TB is because it probably uses 2x 512GB SSD's in RAID 0 to double the speed. (Not 100% sure though)
Edit: They actually duplicated the files, so that crazy speed is actually due to the APFS file system.
Using Black Magic on the 2017 MBP:
HFS+ Encrypted the WRITE is 1300+ MB/s and the READ is +2100 MB/s. APFS Encrypted the WRITE is 1300+ MB/s and the READ is +2400 MB/s.
APFS doesn't seem to provide much of an advantage in that test, which I suspect is not a file copy. From what I'm reading the 2018 MBP reach WRITE 2800+ MB/s.
Could that be produced by two parallel SSDs?
That is a leap but even if it's only a flawed test 1300+ MB/s is still 4x the speed of the PCs compared in the test.
You had under 700 for the 256GB SSD internal, did you confirm this?
Thanks
That's last years 2017 non-touch bar.
Our 2018 13" Touch Bar MacBook Pro with 256GB SSD got 1151 Write speed. The reason it's faster on the 1TB is because it probably uses 2x 512GB SSD's in RAID 0 to double the speed. (Not 100% sure though)
Edit: They actually duplicated the files, so that crazy speed is actually due to the APFS file system.
This is from a test of the iMacPro from ARS.... The T2 not the CPU handles the SDD.
"Note also that the iMac Pro actually has two SSDs working together, controlled by the T2 chip. It's an unusual solution, but it works well." - ARS
It very well appears that the 2018 MBP numbers could be correct... if the 2018 15" 512GB SSD is two 256GB SSD working together!
I always thought that Apple intentionally puts in a smaller battery in its laptops than what the chassis can actually fit. This 18% increase in size of the battery (at least in terms of watt-hours) proves my point. Sure some components could have been decreased, but there must have been some dead space in the previous iteration of the MacBook Pro line.
No it doesn't. The capacity of a battery is not a statement of the battery's overall volume, or the volume of the free space in which is utilizing.
Was really hoping for a 32Gb ram and Quad core CPU option on the 13" model to make it a real ultra portable Pro machine..... 15" it is I guess.
I was hoping for a solid gold case with a jewel-encrusted trim option for the same price as the regular 13" model... but it looks like I will have to wait
Still no inlaid-unicorn horn on the Apple logo, either. I'm beginning to think Apple doesn't care about aesthetics.
You had under 700 for the 256GB SSD internal, did you confirm this?
Thanks
That's last years 2017 non-touch bar.
Our 2018 13" Touch Bar MacBook Pro with 256GB SSD got 1151 Write speed. The reason it's faster on the 1TB is because it probably uses 2x 512GB SSD's in RAID 0 to double the speed. (Not 100% sure though)
Edit: They actually duplicated the files, so that crazy speed is actually due to the APFS file system.
Using Black Magic on the 2017 MBP:
HFS+ Encrypted the WRITE is 1300+ MB/s and the READ is +2100 MB/s. APFS Encrypted the WRITE is 1300+ MB/s and the READ is +2400 MB/s.
APFS doesn't seem to provide much of an advantage in that test, which I suspect is not a file copy. From what I'm reading the 2018 MBP reach WRITE 2800+ MB/s.
Could that be produced by two parallel SSDs?
That is a leap but even if it's only a flawed test 1300+ MB/s is still 4x the speed of the PCs compared in the test.
I'm wondering if these 10x speeds we're seeing are 1) using crappy SSDs for comparison, and 2) APFS not actually duplicating the file the same way HFS+ would. I'd like to see how they did that 4.9 GiB test that I saw on MR.
"the new 13-inch outperforms a top-of-the-line 2016 MacBook Pro with Intel 2.9GHz Core i7, which turned in scores of 4,360 and 11,979."
Something doesn't add up....
My MacBook Pro (15-inch Retina Mid 2014) with Intel 2.9GHz Core i7 turns in scores of 4,464 and 15,671.
"the new 13-inch outperforms a top-of-the-line 2016 MacBook Pro with Intel 2.9GHz Core i7, which turned in scores of 4,360 and 11,979."
Something doesn't add up....
My MacBook Pro (15-inch Retina Mid 2014) with Intel 2.9GHz Core i7 turns in scores of 4,464 and 15,671.
I don't see any 2.9GHZ laptop from Apple in 2014 (in the benchmark scores or on everymac) ... and the top model from that year tops out in the charts at somewhere around 14342 for "GeekBench 4" (though GeekBench 3" I think would have given a higher benchmark score).
"the new 13-inch outperforms a top-of-the-line 2016 MacBook Pro with Intel 2.9GHz Core i7, which turned in scores of 4,360 and 11,979."
Something doesn't add up....
My MacBook Pro (15-inch Retina Mid 2014) with Intel 2.9GHz Core i7 turns in scores of 4,464 and 15,671.
I don't see any 2.9GHZ laptop from Apple in 2014 (in the benchmark scores or on everymac) ... and the top model from that year tops out in the charts at somewhere around 14342 for "GeekBench 4" (though GeekBench 3" I think would have given a higher benchmark score).
Sorry...copy/paste error ... correct 2.8GHz ... but I ran the test right before posting....
You had under 700 for the 256GB SSD internal, did you confirm this?
Thanks
That's last years 2017 non-touch bar.
Our 2018 13" Touch Bar MacBook Pro with 256GB SSD got 1151 Write speed. The reason it's faster on the 1TB is because it probably uses 2x 512GB SSD's in RAID 0 to double the speed. (Not 100% sure though)
Edit: They actually duplicated the files, so that crazy speed is actually due to the APFS file system.
This is from a test of the iMacPro from ARS.... The T2 not the CPU handles the SDD.
"Note also that the iMac Pro actually has two SSDs working together, controlled by the T2 chip. It's an unusual solution, but it works well." - ARS
It very well appears that the 2018 MBP numbers could be correct... if the 2018 15" 512GB SSD is two 256GB SSD working together!
When SSDs are in RAID, each bank of NAND has its own controller. The iMac Pro had two banks of NAND, but connected to one T2 controller, so it's more like a physically split single SSD. The results are great regardless, but not what you would see with RAID 0, this seems a misconception that never got corrected online, the uplift is probably from T2 real time encryption.
And the split SSD design doesn't seem suited for a space constrained laptop, but we'll see with the teardown!
I’ve been a Touchbar MacBook Pro owner since they came out, and can’t wait for the refresh when Apple admits the Touchbar concept was a failed experiment. It’s so bad. The only time I ever use the Touchbar intentionally is to change the volume, but I’m accidentally activating things all the time and really miss physical function keys. Does anyone actually find that thing useful??
Agree 100!!. I wish I had never bought the damn touch bar. I though it's going to be useful but the only case I really use it is when there is no other way, for example escape and volume control. Everything else is useless and even annoying as the touch-bar introduces tons of unwanted actions when you by mistake lay a finger on it and trigger something you never wanted.
Apple please get rid of this shit or re-design it so it's actually useful for something!!
Comments
I'm glad to see this, though. It makes my decision a bit more difficult as to what I get.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking too... it shouldn't be using more power, at least not for the CPU. Isn't it the 15" that got a bigger battery to compensate for the RAM?
I'm just happy they finally budged and did it, for those who need it. It was a silly argument, and other than a few of us, everyone on these forums bought it hook, line, and sinker too. Almost as good as the 3.5mm legacy port, lol.
Heh, yeah. I'd love to know about noise levels, too! (Not just sound meter, but how much load before you can hear it in a quiet environment, or practical stuff like that, too.)
I think it's an RX 580 (or 570)? Or, do you think they hid some other goodies in there?
Yeah, same here... and/or that they didn't 'nerf' the non-TB models.
My son thinks it looks cool and uses it to select emojis... you know, pro stuff.
That's what the eGPU is for... but you mean when you're just using it straight out.
I think this is a good compromise, though, as a higher end GPU in a laptop turns it into leaf-blower. Again, that's OK for a high end model I suppose. I'm not sure how the 15" dGPU compares, though it isn't nVidia.
Yeah... I was even surprised it was that much.
I thought all the smarties on these forums were saying there was nothing to gain by Apple implementing Coffee Lake.
Great work, thx.
Best
HFS+ Encrypted the WRITE is 1300+ MB/s and the READ is +2100 MB/s.
APFS Encrypted the WRITE is 1300+ MB/s and the READ is +2400 MB/s.
That is a leap but even if it's only a flawed test 1300+ MB/s is still 4x the speed of the PCs compared in the test.
Scroll to bottom of page to view results...
https://malcont.net/2017/09/apfs-vs-hfs-benchmarks-on-2017-macbook-pro-with-macos-high-sierra/2/
HFS+ Encrypted
APFS Encrypted
This is from a test of the iMacPro from ARS.... The T2 not the CPU handles the SDD.
It very well appears that the 2018 MBP numbers could be correct... if the 2018 15" 512GB SSD is two 256GB SSD working together!
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/02/imac-pro-review-not-a-consumer-machine-but-not-quite-perfect-for-pros-either/4/#h4
Sorry...copy/paste error ... correct 2.8GHz ... but I ran the test right before posting....
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/4393446
As mentioned above, even the 2014 and 2015 got that much. So it's impressive that the 13" now matches it, but it doesn't beat it by 11K vs 16K.
When SSDs are in RAID, each bank of NAND has its own controller. The iMac Pro had two banks of NAND, but connected to one T2 controller, so it's more like a physically split single SSD. The results are great regardless, but not what you would see with RAID 0, this seems a misconception that never got corrected online, the uplift is probably from T2 real time encryption.
And the split SSD design doesn't seem suited for a space constrained laptop, but we'll see with the teardown!
Apple please get rid of this shit or re-design it so it's actually useful for something!!