I think that Intel just Didn't delivered what they promised, yeah an full fledged x86 chip at 4,5W TDP.
But that performance ? That thing is about as fast as an A8X which is getting around 4400 multicore and 1500 single core. And the GPU is actually faster on the A8X at least in GFX bench, as it manages better scores than core M notebooks released so far.
The TDP should be about the same for the A8X at less than 4,5W but in that you got an 128-bit memory interface for example which is far faster and more power hungry compared to those intel chips.... And then cost A8X cost Apple some 30-40$ to manufacture, the core M costs some 280$. Since when we are in the era where Apple can do a big competition to intel chips ?
If there weren't compatibility isues, Apple could sell the new MacBook for 1099 or even 999 and deliver somewhat better perf and possibly a longer battery life with the A8X.
I don't like how Intel uses it's monopoly position and large adoption of ARM-incompatible computer OS-es to just kind of suck in as much money as possible even if that product isn't that amazing.
Maybe it's just me, but reading that the CPU benchmark is "almost on par" (1.1Ghz model!!) with 2011's i7 (!!!) stroke me as very good. As we all know, the latest iterations of intel chips have not added a lot of performance (methinks the last 3 years we haven't seen much improvement in CPU speed but a lot of improvement in battery life).
As others have said, I think this is good news and combined with faster flash, RAM and the better screen, this is the one machine to buy if you are in the market for a general purpose notebook.
Now I don't need a lot of horsepower, but man do I dig my two 27-inch displays in the office. If it weren't for the retina I'd never bought into the MBPro line and now that I have, and have added two monitors, those are really difficult to part with.
Otherwise, I'd be all over this. Hmm maybe I still am,... could just be getting one for ...evaluation purposes ;-)
Just read through the rest of this thread and see it's mostly about unidentified trolls and their league of champions. Well, just my opinion, but I don't mind them much. I have to admit having even had a chuckle on one or two of their postings. They declutter the sometimes serious conversations and can act as a conversational ice breakers.
Most don't need it. There are some using the Air as a poor-mans MBP, but that's probably going to end. Just like the quad core Mini's went away.
I blame Intel for the quad core Minis going away. I wouldn't be surprised one bit to see them come back with the advent of SkyLake. There are a large number of customers that could and do benefit from quad cores.
The 2008 MacBook (which I use daily) isn't bad, but it's also slower than this 2015 in every aspect, and it also needs a considerable cooling system. Oh, and it gets 4 hours of battery life, roughly. So...comparing a 5W chip to whatever the 2.4GHz Penryn used is ridiculous.
I was an early 2008 MBP user until very recently and frankly with todays OS'es and apps it was a dog. The thing would grind to a halt trying to do more than one thing at a time. Not everybody's needs and standards are the same but if you think a 2008 vintage machine is good enough for todays users you low standards.
I already got banned for criticizing the mods and the lack of pride they've shown in keeping the trash out of the forums. They've been really good at deleting all my posts for questioning them, yet give a free-pass to the BF's and his ilk pi$$ing in everyone's pools.
Füçk the mods. They are upsetting all the long-time enthusiasts here that made the forums the go-to place to discuss Apple for years. That's sad. The mods should be ashamed of themselves.
When they ban you, all I ask is that they ban me next. I'm calling them out because I actually care about what they are NOT doing.
Second that. And like aussienorm says above, there are some serious posters from AUS, NZ, UK, EU and Asia that I can think of whom we haven't been hearing from lately, not to mention Tallest Skil and Dick Applebaum. Both you and Slurpy have been banned trying to oppose it, but BF never.
Let it not be said that he's won, though. A successful parasite doesn't kill its host, because it would die as well.
I'm very happy with my new 13" MBP. The primary reason for going this route was to get the required ports but I was also concerned about performance but even this new MBP could benefit form a faster processor. This report just confirms what I thought we would get. As for the price it is likely more an issue of all of the bleeding edge technology in the machine
Quote:
Originally Posted by applebjesus
To bad. I was considering a laptop for just web, email and video streaming but at speeds along the lines of a MacBook Air 2011 means it is a non starter. It gives off the perception you are getting less power for more money. Especially when the MacBook Pro offers better hardware at the same price and a larger screen to boot. Thinner and more colors is not worth more. It needs to be $300-$400 less for the base model. Too many better deals out there for the price.
Better deals? I'm not to sure about that, I will wait and see exactly what we are getting out of the machine. I'm out of the market now, but I still find the technology in this machine to be very interesting.
Well I'm not sure why people feel this is an Apple issue. The Core M is really an awful chipset. Working for IBM I'm given a new set of Lenovo notebooks every cycle. Whiles these benchmarks aren't great someone should try using a Yoga 3 Pro. Not only are the synthetic benchmarks worse but the battery life didn't improve at all because Lenovo also decided to go with an ultra thin design.
Yoga Pro 3 performance is fine in spite of the benchmarks my only complaint is the battery life. Real life use I can't get much more then 4 hours if that. The new Macbook Air keyboard design, force touch, retina and battery life really make this a winner in spite of the synthetic benchmarks.
Core M isn't awful, it is the result of customer demands and pressure in the industry to put i86 into fanless designs.
If these numbers are to be believed then this chip set is offering about the same performance as an iPad Air 2 at about twice the power. That is actually pretty good for a i86.
I'd say a good portion of MBA users could use better performance. However in this case I'm talking about GPU performance as part of the mix.
I'm not sure of this it really depends what you are doing. I recently got a 2010 MBA returned back at work that I've put Yosemite on, and it works just fine. Core 2 Duo. Yes, no problem.
In the windows world, it wouldn't work. You could hardly boot up a Notebook from 2010 to an operable state within a minute or two. This one just works and yes it's not as snappy as the new hardware is, but I'd happily browse internet, do e-mails, do numbers & pages and whatever else of light work. No lags, no freezes, no nothing. And even the battery life isn't bad for an almost 5 year old notebook.
I see AI is silently going through our posts and editing out the bits they find objectionable. It's really quite disgusting I must say, not only to edit our words, but to do it so silently, I think this might not be a forum worthy of any future attention.
I see AI is silently going through our posts and editing out the bits they find objectionable. It's really quite disgusting I must say, not only to edit our words, but to do it so silently, I think this might not be a forum worthy of any future attention.
The entry 2011 Air scores 3735, the entry 2012 Air scores 4852 so the new Macbook at 4038 is between them. However, the entry 2015 Air only scores 5712.
The 2015 Macbook is 70% of the performance of the 2015 Air or the 2015 Air is 40% faster.
You won't notice that difference at all in everyday usage. The 2014 Macbook Pro is 90% faster than the 2015 Air. The 2011 Air maxed out at 4GB of RAM whereas the MB has 8GB, it doesn't have the new trackpad/keyboard, it doesn't have a retina display, it can't drive a 4K display ( https://support.apple.com/kb/sp631?locale=en_US ), the old one has a fan, it has about half the battery life.
Second-hand Macbook Airs are going to be far less expensive (this isn't a bad thing) but this was the case with the old Macbook when the Air first launched. That old Macbook was phased out.
Otherwise, I'd be all over this. Hmm maybe I still am,... could just be getting one for ...evaluation purposes ;-)
Yeah right, you wan't this for evaluation
On the other hand this machine needs real honest evaluation by actual users. This would put to rest some of the performance mysteries that this machine has.
I wonder if the majority of the people would even really notice a difference. I very much like the new Macbook... but I would only us it for my project management tasks. For my development tasks it would not be usable.
That being said... I am sure I could do all my pm tasks on an iPad "pro"... which would be pretty awesome as well.
This exactly. I've got an MBA 11" (2012) and what I throw in my bag is my iPad Air (in a Zagg folio keyboard case), it's smaller than the MBA (plus my MBA is hooked up to other stuff on my desk). The iPad Air w/keyboard does everything I need on the go (and much more), a machine like the new MacBook is more than sufficient for the vast majority of tasks for which I need a portable machine. On the go I don't need a charger, I don't need access to my external hard drives or monitors, a machine like this would be perfect and I think for many others as well. The CPUs for years now have been more than what most people can utilise for their routine tasks. For those who need more (as you say, such as your development tasks) a more powerful machine is needed, the fact that others think the MacBook should handle those tasks too and criticise the machine and Apple (and anyone who doesn't need that much power in a machine) is ludicrous, it misses the point entirely.
Plus the fact this machine is thinner than the first iPad, wow!
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPilya
But.... what really is exciting about the new 12" Macbook is what it can bring to the 15" Macbook Pro. It is my opinion that there is a very substantial reason why we did not get a 15" refresh like that of the 13". I would not be surprised if a new 15" was introduced at WWDC. If you look at how Apple is starting to stagger products within each product group, this makes sense.
I absolutely think this MacBook is pivotal in that the other machines at the very least will start to incorporate some of the great new tech in this one, and it's definitely possible we'll see more exploiting in this line possibly too with other sizes. I'm fantasising they release a machine like this that has a detachable screen which doubles as an iPad, but I doubt Apple would ever forgo the opportunity to sell us two products, so a hybrid I know will most likely remain a dream.
I wonder if the majority of the people would even really notice a difference.
I'm just the opposite here I find it perplexing that people claim that the performance or lack of wouldn't be noticed. I have to deal with all sorts of machines of varying vintages at work and performance is a very noticeable. Even the clerks, that know nothing about computers complain loudly if their machine seems slow on anyone day. If (it is a big if) performance is markably slow people will notice, it is a question of fell and sluggish is bad.
Now at this point we have no way of knowing how this machine feels as the benchmarks are't reliable in revealing how a machine feels.
I very much like the new Macbook... but I would only us it for my project management tasks. For my development tasks it would not be usable.
I suppose it depends upon your development tasks but I can understand your comment. Especially when we have new IDE's that are highly threaded and it is now possible to rebuild software faster than a coffee break.
That being said... I am sure I could do all my pm tasks on an iPad "pro"... which would be pretty awesome as well.
Interestingly the performance of this machine is iPad like. That in itself is something Apple should be proud of. By that I mean they have a SoC that Intel still can't beat on a performance per watt basis. If Apple and its suppliers can ship 14nm A9's this year we will likely see iPads and iPhones that are faster than this intel implementation by a wide margin.
But.... what really is exciting about the new 12" Macbook is what it can bring to the 15" Macbook Pro. It is my opinion that there is a very substantial reason why we did not get a 15" refresh like that of the 13". I would not be surprised if a new 15" was introduced at WWDC. If you look at how Apple is starting to stagger products within each product group, this makes sense.
Makes no sense at all. The only reason we didn't get a 15" is that Intel isn't shipping suitable parts yet.
I think that Intel just Didn't delivered what they promised, yeah an full fledged x86 chip at 4,5W TDP.
But that performance ?
What do people expect. Clock rate is an important factor in performance and the base clock rate on these chips is slow.
That thing is about as fast as an A8X which is getting around 4400 multicore and 1500 single core.
And the GPU is actually faster on the A8X at least in GFX bench, as it manages better scores than core M notebooks released so far.
Now you know why so many of us would have rather seen an ARM based machine. This especially if the ARM chip was enhanced a bit over A8X
The TDP should be about the same for the A8X at less than 4,5W but in that you got an 128-bit memory interface for example which is far faster and more power hungry compared to those intel chips.... And then cost A8X cost Apple some 30-40$ to manufacture, the core M costs some 280$.
Actually I think the A8X power is about half of the Intel. Further the Intel chip can suck down far more than 4.5 watts.
Since when we are in the era where Apple can do a big competition to intel chips ?
If there weren't compatibility isues, Apple could sell the new MacBook for 1099 or even 999 and deliver somewhat better perf and possibly a longer battery life with the A8X.
Actually I believe they could make a very profitable ARM based laptop in the $600 to $700 range.
I don't like how Intel uses it's monopoly position and large adoption of ARM-incompatible computer OS-es to just kind of suck in as much money as possible even if that product isn't that amazing.
The entry 2011 Air scores 3735, the entry 2012 Air scores 4852 so the new Macbook at 4038 is between them. However, the entry 2015 Air only scores 5712.
The 2015 Macbook is 70% of the performance of the 2015 Air or the 2015 Air is 40% faster.
You won't notice that difference at all in everyday usage.
But people do notice. They especially notice if that computer even appears to be slowing down whatever they are working on. I see this all the time at work. It depends upon the person of course but many quickly become frustrated with sluggish machines.
The 2014 Macbook Pro is 90% faster than the 2015 Air. The 2011 Air maxed out at 4GB of RAM whereas the MB has 8GB, it doesn't have the new trackpad/keyboard, it doesn't have a retina display, it can't drive a 4K display ( https://support.apple.com/kb/sp631?locale=en_US ), the old one has a fan, it has about half the battery life.
Second-hand Macbook Airs are going to be far less expensive (this isn't a bad thing) but this was the case with the old Macbook when the Air first launched. That old Macbook was phased out.
One thing about this discussion that bothers me is that people are looking at this specific benchmark and condemning the machine before even evaluating it personally. The SSD and the RAM will leave this machine feeling snappy for many work loads. If you are a more demanding user I see this machine failing to deliver.
Comments
But that performance ?
That thing is about as fast as an A8X which is getting around 4400 multicore and 1500 single core.
And the GPU is actually faster on the A8X at least in GFX bench, as it manages better scores than core M notebooks released so far.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/9104/asus-zenbook-ux305-review/5
The TDP should be about the same for the A8X at less than 4,5W but in that you got an 128-bit memory interface for example which is far faster and more power hungry compared to those intel chips.... And then cost A8X cost Apple some 30-40$ to manufacture, the core M costs some 280$.
Since when we are in the era where Apple can do a big competition to intel chips ?
If there weren't compatibility isues, Apple could sell the new MacBook for 1099 or even 999 and deliver somewhat better perf and possibly a longer battery life with the A8X.
I don't like how Intel uses it's monopoly position and large adoption of ARM-incompatible computer OS-es to just kind of suck in as much money as possible even if that product isn't that amazing.
So I guess blame Intel? Are people complaining about the Windows PCs using this processor? And how many MBA owners actually need that beefier CPU?
I'd say a good portion of MBA users could use better performance. However in this case I'm talking about GPU performance as part of the mix.
Maybe it's just me, but reading that the CPU benchmark is "almost on par" (1.1Ghz model!!) with 2011's i7 (!!!) stroke me as very good. As we all know, the latest iterations of intel chips have not added a lot of performance (methinks the last 3 years we haven't seen much improvement in CPU speed but a lot of improvement in battery life).
As others have said, I think this is good news and combined with faster flash, RAM and the better screen, this is the one machine to buy if you are in the market for a general purpose notebook.
Now I don't need a lot of horsepower, but man do I dig my two 27-inch displays in the office. If it weren't for the retina I'd never bought into the MBPro line and now that I have, and have added two monitors, those are really difficult to part with.
Otherwise, I'd be all over this. Hmm maybe I still am,... could just be getting one for ...evaluation purposes ;-)
Just read through the rest of this thread and see it's mostly about unidentified trolls and their league of champions. Well, just my opinion, but I don't mind them much. I have to admit having even had a chuckle on one or two of their postings. They declutter the sometimes serious conversations and can act as a conversational ice breakers.
Just read over it, I'd suggest.
Most don't need it. There are some using the Air as a poor-mans MBP, but that's probably going to end. Just like the quad core Mini's went away.
The 2008 MacBook (which I use daily) isn't bad, but it's also slower than this 2015 in every aspect, and it also needs a considerable cooling system. Oh, and it gets 4 hours of battery life, roughly. So...comparing a 5W chip to whatever the 2.4GHz Penryn used is ridiculous.
I was an early 2008 MBP user until very recently and frankly with todays OS'es and apps it was a dog. The thing would grind to a halt trying to do more than one thing at a time. Not everybody's needs and standards are the same but if you think a 2008 vintage machine is good enough for todays users you low standards.
Second that. And like aussienorm says above, there are some serious posters from AUS, NZ, UK, EU and Asia that I can think of whom we haven't been hearing from lately, not to mention Tallest Skil and Dick Applebaum. Both you and Slurpy have been banned trying to oppose it, but BF never.
Let it not be said that he's won, though. A successful parasite doesn't kill its host, because it would die as well.
Four-years outdated. Instead, Apple should have made a Mac tablet.
I'm very happy with my new 13" MBP. The primary reason for going this route was to get the required ports but I was also concerned about performance but even this new MBP could benefit form a faster processor. This report just confirms what I thought we would get. As for the price it is likely more an issue of all of the bleeding edge technology in the machine
Quote:
To bad. I was considering a laptop for just web, email and video streaming but at speeds along the lines of a MacBook Air 2011 means it is a non starter. It gives off the perception you are getting less power for more money. Especially when the MacBook Pro offers better hardware at the same price and a larger screen to boot. Thinner and more colors is not worth more. It needs to be $300-$400 less for the base model. Too many better deals out there for the price.
Better deals? I'm not to sure about that, I will wait and see exactly what we are getting out of the machine. I'm out of the market now, but I still find the technology in this machine to be very interesting.
Well I'm not sure why people feel this is an Apple issue. The Core M is really an awful chipset. Working for IBM I'm given a new set of Lenovo notebooks every cycle. Whiles these benchmarks aren't great someone should try using a Yoga 3 Pro. Not only are the synthetic benchmarks worse but the battery life didn't improve at all because Lenovo also decided to go with an ultra thin design.
Yoga Pro 3 performance is fine in spite of the benchmarks my only complaint is the battery life. Real life use I can't get much more then 4 hours if that. The new Macbook Air keyboard design, force touch, retina and battery life really make this a winner in spite of the synthetic benchmarks.
Core M isn't awful, it is the result of customer demands and pressure in the industry to put i86 into fanless designs.
If these numbers are to be believed then this chip set is offering about the same performance as an iPad Air 2 at about twice the power. That is actually pretty good for a i86.
I'd say a good portion of MBA users could use better performance. However in this case I'm talking about GPU performance as part of the mix.
I'm not sure of this it really depends what you are doing. I recently got a 2010 MBA returned back at work that I've put Yosemite on, and it works just fine. Core 2 Duo. Yes, no problem.
In the windows world, it wouldn't work. You could hardly boot up a Notebook from 2010 to an operable state within a minute or two. This one just works and yes it's not as snappy as the new hardware is, but I'd happily browse internet, do e-mails, do numbers & pages and whatever else of light work. No lags, no freezes, no nothing. And even the battery life isn't bad for an almost 5 year old notebook.
I see AI is silently going through our posts and editing out the bits they find objectionable. It's really quite disgusting I must say, not only to edit our words, but to do it so silently, I think this might not be a forum worthy of any future attention.
If 1.1 GHz scores 4038, what would a 1.3 GHz probably score?
Should be pretty much linear since the benchmark is a CPU benchmark.
North of 4500 methinks
Wow. Poof. So they are.
The 2015 Macbook is 70% of the performance of the 2015 Air or the 2015 Air is 40% faster.
You won't notice that difference at all in everyday usage. The 2014 Macbook Pro is 90% faster than the 2015 Air. The 2011 Air maxed out at 4GB of RAM whereas the MB has 8GB, it doesn't have the new trackpad/keyboard, it doesn't have a retina display, it can't drive a 4K display ( https://support.apple.com/kb/sp631?locale=en_US ), the old one has a fan, it has about half the battery life.
Second-hand Macbook Airs are going to be far less expensive (this isn't a bad thing) but this was the case with the old Macbook when the Air first launched. That old Macbook was phased out.
Otherwise, I'd be all over this. Hmm maybe I still am,... could just be getting one for ...evaluation purposes ;-)
Yeah right, you wan't this for evaluation
On the other hand this machine needs real honest evaluation by actual users. This would put to rest some of the performance mysteries that this machine has.
I wonder if the majority of the people would even really notice a difference. I very much like the new Macbook... but I would only us it for my project management tasks. For my development tasks it would not be usable.
That being said... I am sure I could do all my pm tasks on an iPad "pro"... which would be pretty awesome as well.
This exactly. I've got an MBA 11" (2012) and what I throw in my bag is my iPad Air (in a Zagg folio keyboard case), it's smaller than the MBA (plus my MBA is hooked up to other stuff on my desk). The iPad Air w/keyboard does everything I need on the go (and much more), a machine like the new MacBook is more than sufficient for the vast majority of tasks for which I need a portable machine. On the go I don't need a charger, I don't need access to my external hard drives or monitors, a machine like this would be perfect and I think for many others as well. The CPUs for years now have been more than what most people can utilise for their routine tasks. For those who need more (as you say, such as your development tasks) a more powerful machine is needed, the fact that others think the MacBook should handle those tasks too and criticise the machine and Apple (and anyone who doesn't need that much power in a machine) is ludicrous, it misses the point entirely.
Plus the fact this machine is thinner than the first iPad, wow!
But.... what really is exciting about the new 12" Macbook is what it can bring to the 15" Macbook Pro. It is my opinion that there is a very substantial reason why we did not get a 15" refresh like that of the 13". I would not be surprised if a new 15" was introduced at WWDC. If you look at how Apple is starting to stagger products within each product group, this makes sense.
I absolutely think this MacBook is pivotal in that the other machines at the very least will start to incorporate some of the great new tech in this one, and it's definitely possible we'll see more exploiting in this line possibly too with other sizes. I'm fantasising they release a machine like this that has a detachable screen which doubles as an iPad, but I doubt Apple would ever forgo the opportunity to sell us two products, so a hybrid I know will most likely remain a dream.
Now at this point we have no way of knowing how this machine feels as the benchmarks are't reliable in revealing how a machine feels. I suppose it depends upon your development tasks but I can understand your comment. Especially when we have new IDE's that are highly threaded and it is now possible to rebuild software faster than a coffee break. Interestingly the performance of this machine is iPad like. That in itself is something Apple should be proud of. By that I mean they have a SoC that Intel still can't beat on a performance per watt basis. If Apple and its suppliers can ship 14nm A9's this year we will likely see iPads and iPhones that are faster than this intel implementation by a wide margin.
Makes no sense at all. The only reason we didn't get a 15" is that Intel isn't shipping suitable parts yet.
I couldn't parse that!
One thing about this discussion that bothers me is that people are looking at this specific benchmark and condemning the machine before even evaluating it personally. The SSD and the RAM will leave this machine feeling snappy for many work loads. If you are a more demanding user I see this machine failing to deliver.