...in the days where 16GB only costs $100 and a 512GB SSD only costs $100 (retail!).
I love how you mention these capacities as if there are no other aspects to the technology that need to be considered when talking about cost or performance.
It's like walking into a Bentley dealership and trying to convince the salesman that a Continental GT should cost as much as a Kia Rio because they both have 4 wheels.
...in the days where 16GB only costs $100 and a 512GB SSD only costs $100 (retail!).
I love how you mention these capacities as if there are no other aspects to the technology that need to be considered when talking about cost or performance.
It's like walking into a Bentley dealership and trying to convince the salesman that a Continental GT should cost as much as a Kia Rio because they both have 4 wheels.
I'm not even sure what you mean. 16GB RAM and 512GB SSD are just industry norms for any mid to high end laptop. They can have all the tech they want in these laptops but without a decent amount of RAM and storage it doesn't really matter.
So, what happened here is that Apple believed Intel when they laid out their roadmap. So Jonny decided that he could use page one of the Ive playbook and make it thinner. (Jonny's into the sexy-but-anorexic look.)
Making it thinner meant that there was less battery space available, of course, but the new smaller process chips would solve that problem nicely and basically put them back where they were, battery-performance-wise.
Only Intel slipped their schedule again and again and Apple was now screwed. They faced pressure to release an updated MBP, but the new chips weren't available and they couldn't use desktop chips because the thinner-at-all-costs design left them with a smaller battery that wouldn't hold up under the demand, nor was there enough physical space for larger chips mounts, larger fans, and so on.
And so here we are, with a machine that pleases no one, including Apple.
Exactly. No one has yet presented a real world example where these new laptops couldn't meet their needs. They're just going off of specs and internet freakout.
Here you go....
I’m a developer. That means I need to run Xcode, Mail, Messages, Calendar and Slack and Terminal windows and Remote Desktop. I run SourceTree and Photoshop and Word and Excel. I have a dozen Mission Control spaces in which I keep open many, many, many Safari windows and tabs.
Not to mention my occasional need to run custom Linux and Windows Server test environments in VMWare. VMs take memory. Lots of memory.
So what’s my problem? Lack of RAM. I’m forever running out of space on my 16GB machine. I reboot at least once every 3–4 days or face crashing and an unstable machine.
Since you're a developer you know that you have absolutely no control on how the extra RAM is used. You own the machine's hardware, but you don't own its RAM usage, the owner of the RAM is the operating system. The OS may put you in the RAM or write you on the disk. You have no control on that. The operating system only allocates the requested amount of virtual memory to your application. How much of that requested memory will be in RAM how much will be on disk you cannot know. You must just obey to operating system's strict virtual memory usage rules, or the operating system will kill your application or set it aside.
This is why your PC dealer will suggest at first place to upgrade the hard disk to the faster one or to a SSD. This is because the outcome of a RAM upgrade is totally unpredictable.
8 GB allocated to virtual machine is more than enough for many tasks. If you need more than this on Windows, just buy a cheap Windows laptop. The memory you allocate to the virtual machine is the virtual memory, not live RAM. If your virtual machine application limits this virtual memory allocation to the amount of available RAM this is its fault.
All of these mean that any application will run on modern operating systems regardless of the amount of the installed RAM. There is no such thing as the application will not load or will not run, it will load and run as long as there is space on disk to meet its memory needs, maybe agonizingly slow but it will run...
It's relatively simple (after price)...iPhone 7/7+ don't connect to it out of the box! Who wants to remember to pay "fees" now for Apple dongle hardware?
Video and and graphics departments first need to evaluate and then integrate new devices into their workflow. So there is never a rush to purchase but a planned upgrade process. This will also involve TB3 storage and USB-C port connectivity into their workflow. However, independent Video and photo professionals will usually jump at it since it gives them the edge they need to compete.
The analyst comments betray a lack of understanding of the market.
- Demand is pretty difficult to accurately gauge for a product which is not yet shipping, and there are no 3rd reviews for, yet alone positive or negative feedback from actual users. Maybe Apple will sell less than the market thinks it should, but could be on target for what Apple thinks it should. - MBP is a laptop, and portability / size / weight are important criteria for many - Apple's entire approach is to optimize the user experience & performance across the platform, not focusing on one specific spec like RAM, or processor speed, etc - Dropping legacy ports is never without controversy, but in 2-3 years time (given replacement times are on average like 5+ years), will the choice of going with the leading edge in ports (TB3 with USB-C connector) not look like good foresight to many? - Apple's new product choices always seem to be a lightening rod to many (but not other vendors, for some reason...perhaps people really don't "care" about them that much). I recall similar threads here regarding the lack of old headphone jack last month, but yet iPhone 7 estimates are rising. - There is no doubt the price of a new MBP went up a sizeable chunk, and many people will put off a purchase (myself included - I am not a "pro" user, but have an early 2011 MBP via a past work connection - was thinking about upgrading it, but I can't justify the expense to myself right now - but I certainly wouldn't say it was stupid to price it at the level it is).
I am definitely not buying a new MacBook Pro anytime. It's a huge disappointment. It's overpriced. It's underwhelming. Although TB3 is great but it will take a while for TB3 devices to come out.
You know, throwing PRO in the name doesn't make it so!!! You need to do a whole lot more then that. At some point, people are just not going to take it anymore. Weak processors and limited Memory and now needing a bunch of DONGLES!!! You need you're USB-A dongles, and card reader dongle and so forth. I get the touch strip and I like that feature, but it is very thin and really skyrocketing the costs. To me it just looks like Apple wants even larger profit margins then they already have. How will they sell? We'll see, but I won't be buying one.
What processor isn't in this MBP that should have been?
Let's just say that at these prices for a pro machine, the processors should be quad core across the base line. SSD should start at 512GB and graphics should be discrete. These machines are to see pros through 2017 but the base specs are not worthy. Apple doesn't offer the touch bar on the entry level model, gives you half the TB ports (not only more dongles but more dongle switching!) and it remains to be seen if people will like the feel of the new keyboard. If you BTO up to 1TB SSD, Apple wants 740€ - and it wants it NOW (at point of sale). As they are not user upgradeable there is no possibility of giving the machine a new leash of life (at a cheaper third party price) when your pocket has recovered from being emptied and better, cheaper options have come to market.
The magic word is 'pro' not 'posh'
Apple spent much time and money giving us the touch bar which has little or no impact on productivity. Ask any pro if they'd prefer 512GB SSD out of the gate over the touch bar and you'd see a constant stream of answers with the words '512GB SSD'. Try the same question with a discrete graphics card instead of intel (for the models that don't offer one) or with quad core etc
if these prices are pushing key components down to lesser offerings across the line to cover the cost of development of the touch bar, then someone screwed up at the planning stage. They screwed up big time.
These are just some of the reasons these models don't offer pro users what they need at what they consider a fair price. in fact it's worse, as these users feel ill treated by the impossibility to purchase higher capacity SSDs or RAM in a competitive environment after the sale. Something many are beginning to detest.
As a result I fully expect sales of these models to implode. Possibly in a way that hasn't been seen in a very long time. I could be wrong of course but it's as simple as looking at what's on offer and deciding if the price is acceptable for the offering and the conditions. Initial reaction all over the net has been overwhelmingly negative (or worse!) on the pricing front.
On the face of it, these machines are literally out of reach of the budgets of potential customers and that should have been tackled when these machines were still on the drawing board. If your finished machine is unaffordable to your customers and you knew it when you were designing it, it is an EPIC fail.
Apple needs to rethink things and make sure the basics of a pro machine meet your average pro user's needs, then slap on some bells and whistles until pricing becomes impossible.
To make matters worse Brexit and Apple have combined to basically destroy sales in the UK.
To make matters worse still, Microsoft caused waves and pulled the rug out from under Apple's feet the day before.
To compound everything, the analogue headphone jack issue ('It takes courage') has led people to question how things are being coordinated within Apple. Needing an adaptor to connect Apple's latest phone to Apple's latest MBP just makes them a laughing stock.
I wonder how many commenters are paid by Apple about these things. Along with how many commenters are only getting this new computer cause they work at a tech site.
Apple is a joke without Steve Jobs. Their new business strategy is change everything just slightly enough to get gullible tech geeks that still think Apple is high end to buy their product.
Let's just change all the ports so people t Have to buy out our new cords. Lets claim everything not sold directly from us is a fake. Let's over price our computer that is using technology from 4 years ago.
Funny how all you claim so many people are buying Apple. All my Mac friends have switched to PC in the last few years. So I guess the claim goes both ways.
You are right. Steve Jobs would never have released a Mac that dropped every legacy port Apple had ever used in the past. /S.
You might want to check your /s at the door and take a look at the complete history, not just one cherry picked example. Yes, Jobs did this once, in the late 90s with the original iMac. At the time, pretty much the only thing anyone plugged into two of the "lost" ports (SCSI and serial) was a printer. Any other devices were quite rare. (ADB was also removed, but Apple included a USB keyboard and mouse in the box, so no functionality was lost. And the iMac still had built-in modem and Ethernet ports.)
There are at least two more recent examples where Jobs did, in fact, leave the old ports in place...the first Apple laptop with FW800 (still had FW400) and the first one with Thunderbolt (still had FW800).
So you conveniently ignore these much more recent examples of Apple providing an orderly port migration design iteration and have to go back 15 years to find an example that supports your position. Not really a very solid argument.
I'm not trolling; I'm looking for informed advice ("and you're posting here??").
I've had a 13" MPB with 8/512 for a few years now as my primary computer, running XCode, MS Office, some games, and various other things. I don't run Photoshop and I don't do any video editing. I run for months at a time without rebooting and have no stability issues. I've ordered a new 13" MBP w/ TB so I can pass my current MBP to my college student daughter. I ordered $2000 8/512 configuration.
So the question is, for my situation, is $200 to upgrade to 16 gig of RAM a reasonable investment or a waste of money? I don't think I've suffered at all from only having 8 gig to date, so there is some probability that I would literally never notice the difference between 8 and 16 gig. I'll likely replace this MBP in about 3 years just to have a new toy to play with.
I love to this flawed logic. As if removing the 256GB option would automatically put that 512GB SSD at that price point.
It's the same crap every fucking release. No matter what Apple releases the entry-level shouldn't exist and the top-end should be double. Each having the respective reasonings, "I want at least 2x so Apple should cater to those that only need x" and "if Apple is giving up y at the top end they must be able to offer 2y because I expect Apple to do anything I can imagine."
The quote in the article ("Kuo in a note to investors obtained by AppleInsider on Monday said initial demand for the new MacBook Pro models 'seems tepid' in the days after Apple unveiled the laptops") appears to be a forecast based on gut instinct more than anything else. Kuo can't possibly possess data needed to evaluate MBP demand, either through user surveys or actual sales numbers.
Common sense does suggest that Intel's failure to deliver a new processor and relatively high prices will reduce MBP demand relative to demand with a more powerful processor and lower price points. That is true every year, for every computer. However, saying what would happen if "all other things remain constant" is not the same as forecasting MBP unit sales this year, or unit sales this year compared to last year. Regarding those figures, Kuo don't know.
I am definitely not buying a new MacBook Pro anytime. It's a huge disappointment. It's overpriced. It's underwhelming. Although TB3 is great but it will take a while for TB3 devices to come out.
You know, throwing PRO in the name doesn't make it so!!! You need to do a whole lot more then that. At some point, people are just not going to take it anymore. Weak processors and limited Memory and now needing a bunch of DONGLES!!! You need you're USB-A dongles, and card reader dongle and so forth. I get the touch strip and I like that feature, but it is very thin and really skyrocketing the costs. To me it just looks like Apple wants even larger profit margins then they already have. How will they sell? We'll see, but I won't be buying one.
What processor isn't in this MBP that should have been?
Let's just say that at these prices for a pro machine, the processors should be quad core across the base line. SSD should start at 512GB and graphics should be discrete. These machines are to see pros through 2017 but the base specs are not worthy. Apple doesn't offer the touch bar on the entry level model, gives you half the TB ports (not only more dongles but more dongle switching!) and it remains to be seen if people will like the feel of the new keyboard. If you BTO up to 1TB SSD, Apple wants 740€ - and it wants it NOW (at point of sale). As they are not user upgradeable there is no possibility of giving the machine a new leash of life (at a cheaper third party price) when your pocket has recovered from being emptied and better, cheaper options have come to market.
The magic word is 'pro' not 'posh'
Apple spent much time and money giving us the touch bar which has little or no impact on productivity. Ask any pro if they'd prefer 512GB SSD out of the gate over the touch bar and you'd see a constant stream of answers with the words '512GB SSD'. Try the same question with a discrete graphics card instead of intel (for the models that don't offer one) or with quad core etc
if these prices are pushing key components down to lesser offerings across the line to cover the cost of development of the touch bar, then someone screwed up at the planning stage. They screwed up big time.
These are just some of the reasons these models don't offer pro users what they need at what they consider a fair price. in fact it's worse, as these users feel ill treated by the impossibility to purchase higher capacity SSDs or RAM in a competitive environment after the sale. Something many are beginning to detest.
As a result I fully expect sales of these models to implode. Possibly in a way that hasn't been seen in a very long time. I could be wrong of course but it's as simple as looking at what's on offer and deciding if the price is acceptable for the offering and the conditions. Initial reaction all over the net has been overwhelmingly negative (or worse!) on the pricing front.
On the face of it, these machines are literally out of reach of the budgets of potential customers and that should have been tackled when these machines were still on the drawing board. If your finished machine is unaffordable to your customers and you knew it when you were designing it, it is an EPIC fail.
Apple needs to rethink things and make sure the basics of a pro machine meet your average pro user's needs, then slap on some bells and whistles until pricing becomes impossible.
To make matters worse Brexit and Apple have combined to basically destroy sales in the UK.
To make matters worse still, Microsoft caused waves and pulled the rug out from under Apple's feet the day before.
To compound everything, the analogue headphone jack issue ('It takes courage') has led people to question how things are being coordinated within Apple. Needing an adaptor to connect Apple's latest phone to Apple's latest MBP just makes them a laughing stock.
Thinness? Let's not get into that subject again.
Something is wrong.
You almost make it sound like Apple is responsible for Brexit. I do agree the MacBook Pro line is less Pro now, however. Maybe these are more like MacBook Plus? Apple has been ceding the entire pro market in favor of dumbing down their offerings. I'd really like to see them reverse that trend.
I'm not trolling; I'm looking for informed advice ("and you're posting here??").
I've had a 13" MPB with 8/512 for a few years now as my primary computer, running XCode, MS Office, some games, and various other things. I don't run Photoshop and I don't do any video editing. I run for months at a time without rebooting and have no stability issues. I've ordered a new 13" MBP w/ TB so I can pass my current MBP to my college student daughter. I ordered $2000 8/512 configuration.
So the question is, for my situation, is $200 to upgrade to 16 gig of RAM a reasonable investment or a waste of money? I don't think I've suffered at all from only having 8 gig to date, so there is some probability that I would literally never notice the difference between 8 and 16 gig. I'll likely replace this MBP in about 3 years just to have a new toy to play with.
What would you do in my situation?
Because RAM is now soldered, the one constant is to always get the maximum amount of RAM offered. That's not to say that only getting 8GiB now will be an issue or ever an issue for you, but it will help with your current performance, help with performance over the many updates and bloat to macOS and apps that you use. There's also an increase in your resale value down the road.
I think it's important to figure out how long you typically use your Mac and then divide that extra cost to figure out the daily, monthly, and yearly expense in a different perspective. $200 × 08% tax = $216. $216 for 3 years of use equals $72 per annum, $6 per month, 20¢ per day. Now, how many hours per day do you use your Mac?
Because I need a notebook. I work from home and from the office and on location at our clients and as such I can't simply stick a Mac Pro in my back pocket.
I'm in touch with a LOT of developers and a 15" MBP is pretty much standard issue. There are a dozen people here in my office who were waiting to upgrade and who shook their heads at the lack of RAM.
My stepson told me over the weekend that everyone at his company has held off getting new MBP's while waiting for Apple to upgrade their lineup and offer more RAM. Now they have no idea what they're going to do. Management had even budgeted for the upgrade cycle and had planned purchases of over 2,000 notebooks a month over the next 6 months. (i.e. many)
It's becoming a major problem as technology stacks grow more complex and -- as iOS developers -- it's not like we can jump ship and use a PC........
The problem is, based on Intel's roadmap, you'll likely have to wait till late 2018 to get a 15" MBP with 32GB RAM. That's when we'll see Intel processors / chipsets that support LPDDR4 RAM (Low power DDR4 RAM)
I love the way they expertly talk about "Apple usually go with higher rrps and then lower the price a year later"...........clearly this is different as they put the price up on everything, old and new models....and by a lot!
I love the way they expertly talk about "Apple usually go with higher rrps and then lower the price a year later"...........clearly this is different as they put the price up on everything, old and new models....and by a lot!
Apple has had years where prices went up, prices went down, and prices stayed the same. With this new MBP I fail to see why the price increase is an issue when we're talking about an atypically large number of highly-upgraded or brand new innovations.
If you had given me the options of the same old chassis but with a spec bumped CPU and GPU for the same price -or- a brand new chassis with a 2x larger trackpad, 2nd gen butterfly keys with more travels and firmness, an Apple designed T1 chip that supports Touch ID, Apple Pay, and a new Touch Bar, an Apple designed SSD and controller for 2x SSD speeds, a 67% brighter display that uses less power, better speakers, 4x USB-C ports that future-proof your Mac and allow you to no longer be tied to Apple's power supplies, all with the same battery life in a much thinner and lighter casing all for $200–300 more, it wouldn't be a "Sophie's Choice" situation.
Apple has had years where prices went up, prices went down, and prices stayed the same. With this new MBP I fail to see why the price increase is an issue when we're talking about an atypically large number of highly-upgraded or brand new innovations.
Fully agree on the price being a non-issue. Those who want a new MBP buy one if you have the money, save up for it if you don't. It really is that simple. Besides, prices go up, and so do salaries.
Comments
It's like walking into a Bentley dealership and trying to convince the salesman that a Continental GT should cost as much as a Kia Rio because they both have 4 wheels.
Making it thinner meant that there was less battery space available, of course, but the new smaller process chips would solve that problem nicely and basically put them back where they were, battery-performance-wise.
Only Intel slipped their schedule again and again and Apple was now screwed. They faced pressure to release an updated MBP, but the new chips weren't available and they couldn't use desktop chips because the thinner-at-all-costs design left them with a smaller battery that wouldn't hold up under the demand, nor was there enough physical space for larger chips mounts, larger fans, and so on.
And so here we are, with a machine that pleases no one, including Apple.
Since you're a developer you know that you have absolutely no control on how the extra RAM is used. You own the machine's hardware, but you don't own its RAM usage, the owner of the RAM is the operating system. The OS may put you in the RAM or write you on the disk. You have no control on that. The operating system only allocates the requested amount of virtual memory to your application. How much of that requested memory will be in RAM how much will be on disk you cannot know. You must just obey to operating system's strict virtual memory usage rules, or the operating system will kill your application or set it aside.
This is why your PC dealer will suggest at first place to upgrade the hard disk to the faster one or to a SSD. This is because the outcome of a RAM upgrade is totally unpredictable.
8 GB allocated to virtual machine is more than enough for many tasks. If you need more than this on Windows, just buy a cheap Windows laptop. The memory you allocate to the virtual machine is the virtual memory, not live RAM. If your virtual machine application limits this virtual memory allocation to the amount of available RAM this is its fault.
All of these mean that any application will run on modern operating systems regardless of the amount of the installed RAM. There is no such thing as the application will not load or will not run, it will load and run as long as there is space on disk to meet its memory needs, maybe agonizingly slow but it will run...
The analyst comments betray a lack of understanding of the market.
- MBP is a laptop, and portability / size / weight are important criteria for many
- Apple's entire approach is to optimize the user experience & performance across the platform, not focusing on one specific spec like RAM, or processor speed, etc
- Dropping legacy ports is never without controversy, but in 2-3 years time (given replacement times are on average like 5+ years), will the choice of going with the leading edge in ports (TB3 with USB-C connector) not look like good foresight to many?
- Apple's new product choices always seem to be a lightening rod to many (but not other vendors, for some reason...perhaps people really don't "care" about them that much). I recall similar threads here regarding the lack of old headphone jack last month, but yet iPhone 7 estimates are rising.
- There is no doubt the price of a new MBP went up a sizeable chunk, and many people will put off a purchase (myself included - I am not a "pro" user, but have an early 2011 MBP via a past work connection - was thinking about upgrading it, but I can't justify the expense to myself right now - but I certainly wouldn't say it was stupid to price it at the level it is).
The magic word is 'pro' not 'posh'
Apple spent much time and money giving us the touch bar which has little or no impact on productivity. Ask any pro if they'd prefer 512GB SSD out of the gate over the touch bar and you'd see a constant stream of answers with the words '512GB SSD'. Try the same question with a discrete graphics card instead of intel (for the models that don't offer one) or with quad core etc
if these prices are pushing key components down to lesser offerings across the line to cover the cost of development of the touch bar, then someone screwed up at the planning stage. They screwed up big time.
These are just some of the reasons these models don't offer pro users what they need at what they consider a fair price. in fact it's worse, as these users feel ill treated by the impossibility to purchase higher capacity SSDs or RAM in a competitive environment after the sale. Something many are beginning to detest.
As a result I fully expect sales of these models to implode. Possibly in a way that hasn't been seen in a very long time. I could be wrong of course but it's as simple as looking at what's on offer and deciding if the price is acceptable for the offering and the conditions. Initial reaction all over the net has been overwhelmingly negative (or worse!) on the pricing front.
On the face of it, these machines are literally out of reach of the budgets of potential customers and that should have been tackled when these machines were still on the drawing board. If your finished machine is unaffordable to your customers and you knew it when you were designing it, it is an EPIC fail.
Apple needs to rethink things and make sure the basics of a pro machine meet your average pro user's needs, then slap on some bells and whistles until pricing becomes impossible.
To make matters worse Brexit and Apple have combined to basically destroy sales in the UK.
To make matters worse still, Microsoft caused waves and pulled the rug out from under Apple's feet the day before.
To compound everything, the analogue headphone jack issue ('It takes courage') has led people to question how things are being coordinated within Apple. Needing an adaptor to connect Apple's latest phone to Apple's latest MBP just makes them a laughing stock.
Thinness? Let's not get into that subject again.
Something is wrong.
There are at least two more recent examples where Jobs did, in fact, leave the old ports in place...the first Apple laptop with FW800 (still had FW400) and the first one with Thunderbolt (still had FW800).
So you conveniently ignore these much more recent examples of Apple providing an orderly port migration design iteration and have to go back 15 years to find an example that supports your position. Not really a very solid argument.
I'm not trolling; I'm looking for informed advice ("and you're posting here??").
I've had a 13" MPB with 8/512 for a few years now as my primary computer, running XCode, MS Office, some games, and various other things. I don't run Photoshop and I don't do any video editing. I run for months at a time without rebooting and have no stability issues. I've ordered a new 13" MBP w/ TB so I can pass my current MBP to my college student daughter. I ordered $2000 8/512 configuration.
So the question is, for my situation, is $200 to upgrade to 16 gig of RAM a reasonable investment or a waste of money? I don't think I've suffered at all from only having 8 gig to date, so there is some probability that I would literally never notice the difference between 8 and 16 gig. I'll likely replace this MBP in about 3 years just to have a new toy to play with.
What would you do in my situation?
It's the same crap every fucking release. No matter what Apple releases the entry-level shouldn't exist and the top-end should be double. Each having the respective reasonings, "I want at least 2x so Apple should cater to those that only need x" and "if Apple is giving up y at the top end they must be able to offer 2y because I expect Apple to do anything I can imagine."
Common sense does suggest that Intel's failure to deliver a new processor and relatively high prices will reduce MBP demand relative to demand with a more powerful processor and lower price points. That is true every year, for every computer. However, saying what would happen if "all other things remain constant" is not the same as forecasting MBP unit sales this year, or unit sales this year compared to last year. Regarding those figures, Kuo don't know.
I think it's important to figure out how long you typically use your Mac and then divide that extra cost to figure out the daily, monthly, and yearly expense in a different perspective. $200 × 08% tax = $216. $216 for 3 years of use equals $72 per annum, $6 per month, 20¢ per day. Now, how many hours per day do you use your Mac?
If you had given me the options of the same old chassis but with a spec bumped CPU and GPU for the same price -or- a brand new chassis with a 2x larger trackpad, 2nd gen butterfly keys with more travels and firmness, an Apple designed T1 chip that supports Touch ID, Apple Pay, and a new Touch Bar, an Apple designed SSD and controller for 2x SSD speeds, a 67% brighter display that uses less power, better speakers, 4x USB-C ports that future-proof your Mac and allow you to no longer be tied to Apple's power supplies, all with the same battery life in a much thinner and lighter casing all for $200–300 more, it wouldn't be a "Sophie's Choice" situation.
Dan Frakes (yes yes) put up a spreadsheet to compare many models:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AV8fVQBkhWJxKk5wwCajYXPYJ6d_JSRV8DVKkHxzAyo/edit#gid=0