They increased the MacBooks battery capacity through a different chemistry, the size is the same. The iPhone 6S didn't change chemistries, it made room for Force press/Taptic engine.
These prices are still absurd considering how these processors are weak to the point of a hit in UX when you can you spend the same amount of money on something that weighs half a pound more, is half an inch thicker, and kicks some serious ass with a 15W TDP.
I'm not sure of your point. Why would someone in the market for something lighter and thinner for travel, that doesn't need something "that kicks some serious ass," not be able to choose the machine that works best for their needs because it doesn't fit yours? You know how much these processors cost, right? Your argument is the same as people—on this site less than decade ago—saying that laptops were dumb because you couldn't upgrade them as much/easily and paid a lot more for lower performance over a desktop.
You missed my first sentence which was my entire point. If your usr case invokes using a contemporary x86 IS then your use case already requires a 15W TDP to not be waiting on it to do what you ask it to do.
So the minimum TDP that you feel everyone should have is 15W because anything less than that means you're waiting for a web browser or MS Word document to open. Sure. :eyeroll:
Go ahead and use a core M machine daily for a light workload and let me know your thoughts. Yes they're expensive because of their superior binning but if you think going to sub 1.5 GHz for today's processors is good enough for today's OS then your metric is based in 1999.
You're the one who is stuck in 1999 when you make claims against the clock rate as the defining factor without consideration for architecture or OS. You've completely overlooked 21st century operating systems, like iOS and Android, and I doubt you've even considered long-time bottlenecks like the read/write speeds of the storage capacity, which does make the MacBook feel even faster than 'other' machines with much faster processors still using HDDs or SATA SSDs.
There's very little in/on modern OSs which is single-threaded. Coders have seen where performance comes from nowadays, and no-one wants to be left behind.
Go ahead and find me a personal computer that costs over a thousand dollars with a hard drive in it. Hell try to find one that isn't using PCIe as the phy. You're right I didn't qualify "today's OS" with "today's x86 OS" and if you put iOS on this MacBook I'm sure it'd run like a dream. There's no reason to assume that change in context though. You'd be better off buying an iPad pro if you didn't want a decent x86 machine. Oh and for a given architecture, all other things constant, clock rate is the differentiating factor in performance. Computers aren't magic.
HP Spectre costs around $150 less. For that you get a 20% heavier machine, probably a slower SSD (Apple seems to be pushing SSD harder than others each generation), and a lower resolution screen. You also get a somewhat faster (but of course, more power hungry) CPU i5 or i7 rather than -m. [Though HP is cagey about the speeds at which the CPUs run, so don't immediately assume you're getting that full 15W performance sustained, or even in short bursts...]
So what is your complaint? If you prioritize weight and size over performance, buy the MacBook; if you prioritize performance buy the MacBook Air. If you REALLY prioritize performance, buy the MacBook Pro. Either way you're paying about 15% over somewhat comparable PC hardware (likely better on some dimensions, likely worse on other dimensions).
15% seems a reasonable price to pay for the software you want to run. And if you don't want to be part of Apple's eco-system, say that up-front; don't pretend you're some objective scientist determining that various machines are simply unfit for their purpose under all circumstances.
"HP Spectre costs around $150 less. For that you get a 20% heavier machine, probably a slower SSD"
Are these even in the same category. I thought all HP Spectre 360 have i5 or i7 (most - i7) processors while MB has M processor. Also HP laptops (some models) have touch screen.
Personal OS preferences aside... MBA's screen is too poor for nowadays premium ultrabook standards, imho. We got spoiled withsolid screens to a degree that, for 13" size, I cannot see anything below good quality IPS 1080p as acceptable solution.
I do a lot of photography and, consequently, Lightroom and Photoshop... so there's that. But even plain text in word processor looks a bit rough on 13" MBA - and yes, I had one at my disposal for a few weeks, and gave it a proper test run in that time.
I could also argue aged design - there is just too much "flesh" around screen, and 13" MBA has pretty much the same footprint as my 14" Travelmate P645s (albeit it is still significantly slimmer). I didn't have chance to try new XPS13... but from what I've read, MBA would look even more retro against it.
So... for me... if I'd insist on OSX and new MB is not enough, the only valid option for my portable needs would be 13 MBP.
You can continue under delusions that the Macbook is insufficiently powerful. Do you actually use the 1st gen Macbook on a day-to-day basis? No? I thought so.
When the Macbook was first introduced, it was not at an absurd price point. Its later increase in price corresponded with similar increases in competing Windows ultrabooks, so I don't see the issue.
Works pretty well on the MacBook I have. I even run Win10 in a VM on it. That puts a little load on it, but Chrome, Safari, Messages, OneNote, all stay responsive while the VM is running... Works great in boot camp too. But I did buy this on the 7th, so it's going back and I'm getting one of these new ones.
We use a lot of Surface Pro 3 at work - all engineers use one, in fact.
i5 Haswell at 1.9GHz, if memory serves... but quite keen to throttle down to 1GHz (or a bit lower?) when it becomes busy.
No complains from engineers, so I'm guessing this class of performance does indeed quite well for everyday.
Though "everyday" is quite personal, too. I tried running Lightroom on SP3... it was a bit on slow side with 20MP RAW images. But then again, even desktop i7 at 3.6GHz feels like a bit faster would be nice... couple of seconds to render previews, couple of seconds to export to JPG.
So I'm thinking - for my common needs, any of these M Core machines would probably be too slow.
What if you're a consultant or other constant traveler who doesn't want to use their work computer in their down time? They're already lugging a 5-7lbs work laptop around, and all they want is a device to surf the web/watch videos on, but with just a bit more flexibility than a tablet?
For them, the MacBook is a great option. It feels premium, is fast enough, and takes up very little space and weight in their bags that they already have to carry around all the time. And generally, a couple hundred extra dollars don't generally mean much - that's the cost of a couple hours in the hotel bar.
It's a kind of autism, a mental defect that makes it utterly impossible for some people to imagine that anyone else has different desires and priorities from their own. Very common in the tech space.
Variants include wild-eyed claims that "everyone wants to play GPU-intensive games", "everyone wants command-line access to their OS", and "everyone wants to spend 30 minutes a day fiddling around with OS settings on their devices".
And enough with the claims about living in 1999. The single biggest factor that made machines in 1999 feel slow (and that would make modern software on such machines feel even slower) was the IO performance. Remove that limitation with a high-speed SSD and you have a very different sort of machine, with a very different feel.
I've noticed people on tech sites like to use the word rape in connection with pricing which is very insensitive. As if Apple are really raping people with their pricing.
Yep, storage access and transfer times have always since the morning of computers been the bottleneck of the system. This is (among other things) because modern OS´s use the storage for swapping out and in parts of the RAM when needed. That´s why a 14 nm INTEL cpu (nanotechnology, tri-gate transistor) combined with SSD storage and a healthy 8 GB of RAM gives the new macbook such a great overall performance. Of course combined with the great OS. Haven´t seen any os come close to macOS recently..
I'd turn it around - I find the prices of 15 and 35 watt CPU's ridiculous considering their huge power usage. They should be pennies on the dollar, I'd pay more for a more efficient CPU.
These are well priced, the others are over priced.
Idk man. I appreciate that they are higher performance per watt and even at the same price but I don't think the 15W parts are a rip off compared to core M.
It is absurdly expensive for a entry-level core m product. The price jump from m3 to m5 is ridiculous as well (although you are getting a larger SSD as well) but the fact the m7 is $550 more than the m3 at the same spec storage capacity make it blatantly obviously Apple is really milking it. For a class of product like this they shouldn't even offer a m3 or m5.
It's only $250 to upgrade from m3 to m7, or $150 to go from the m5 to m7. Intel's tray price for the m3 and m5 is $281, and the m7 is $393. Think of it this way, Apple throws in an m5 when you pay $1.17 / GB for NAND. And seeing as it's an in-house designed, just 3 packages on the motherboard, NVMe PCIe x4 solution, that pricing isn't necessarily out of line.
Core M is not a cheap platform, and despite what Intel might lead you to believe, there are occasionally other components of value to be found in some PCs.
You are reading the chart wrong Repoman, it's $550 to go from an m3 to an m7 at THE SAME GB NAND level.
And as you said, the price difference from Intel is about $112. But Apple is charging $550.
But my point is, why do they even bother with an m3 and m5 model. Other products based on the Core M such as the $500 Surface ONLY come in one variant, the highest speed m7.
The chart lists the price for the m7 with 512 GB SSD followed by a "?". I looked at the actual pricing on Apple's website. So either way, it's still NOT $550 for the processor upgrade at the same storage levels.
The $499 Surface uses an Atom x7 which is not even remotely the same as Core m7. You've confused a $37 part with a $393 part. The $899 Surface Pro 4 comes with a Core m3-6Y30 with a base clock speed of 900 MHz, 4 GB of RAM and a 128 GB SSD (Type Cover sold separately for $160).
The reason why they bother with m3 and m5 is beacause:
a. There is a real price difference to Apple for the components. They can maintain their gross margin while offering this product at a lower price point. The "starting at" price for a product is important both psychologically and in terms of unit sales. This gives them a standard good-better-best marketing strategy.
b. Apple needs to generate enough sales volume for the 12-inch MacBook to justify their investment in R&D, tooling, etc. The 12-inch MacBook includes more innovative technologies, novel manufacturing processes and bespoke components than most OEMs have employed across their entire lines in the past 5 years. Instead of looking at the spec sheet, look at the iFixit teardown of last year's model and compare it to any other PC currently on the market.
c. Apple is a top 5 PC OEM by volume but only has 9 chassis designs in their product stack. Their unit sales for individual models is generally much higher than other OEMs. Intel probably couldn't produce enough of their highest binned SKL-Y dies to feed Apple even if they wanted to.
d. Intel probably isn't interested in allowing Apple to cherry pick their Y series SKUs that hard, and Apple is likely using their broad support of Core M now as leverage.
Intel is charging to much for these chips.. The die is super small, yet they are charging $350-$450 tray price for these tiny tiny chips, that cost them about 10 bucks to make (and thats counting R&D and fab equipment), the wafer is around $3 per square inch
before you spout power consumption arguments, of course this is low power, even a bad chip would be low power.. they dont binn these chips, they are all low power. Thats why the M3 vs M7 is only 200Mhz bump
Why do people that don't know what they are talking about, have this need to prove it online? You have absolutely no idea how much it costs to produce these from start to finish. You have no idea how much it costs just to tool the machinery. Do you have any idea how much shipping is, employees, taxes, insurance, etc? No? I didn't think so, because that is all confidential information. Most people at Intel don't know, and somehow you do? And who are you to say they are charging too much? Do you work for a non-profit organization that doesn't actually create anything, so you think everything produced should be free?
Half a pound more is a 25% increase in weight, not to mention that their chargers are also significantly larger. What part of "mobility" don't you understand?
I have a 15" Retina MacBook Pro boat anchor with 16GB RAM, but I replaced it with the base model MacBook (1st Gen) for the weight savings. My primary computer is a desktop (Mac Pro at home. 5K iMac at work).
The MacBook is plenty good enough for what I use a laptop for - email, web browsing, terminal and SSH sessions. It certainly feels faster than the clock speed suggests thanks to the speedy NVMe SSD. I replaced my wife's MacBook Air with the highest-spec MacBook, and she is quite happy with it (once I got her the USB-C video dock).
Sure, I'd love to have an extra USB-C port (and an ecosystem of USB-C devices, most of the no-brand ones are complete garbage). A full day's battery would be nice as well, but the rMB is a device designed for no-compromise portability and mobility, and it delivers.
For some of us a Core M is all we need and the advantage of having a fanless system is a much bigger pull than having extra CPU power that I will rarely if ever require.
The pink is really a copper color, and quite fetching in real life. The XPS13 is a great machine, but I would suggest you also have a look at the new HP Spectre (not the Spectre x360). It's got carbon fiber, a faster CPU and more ports, but you do have to endure the gold finish.
"They" don't control Intel. You don't want these Skylake processors in the MacBook Pro, and the Skylake processors for the MacBook Pro weren't available a year ago.
It wasn't until Q1-2016 that the proper Skylake Core-i7s even hit the market, and who is to say they now have enough capacity for Apple. At this point, I'd say it's likely going to be the 6770HQ, 6870HQ, and 6970HQ.
<complete guess shot in the dark>Apple's quote is probably in addition to driving the internal display, whereas Intel's quote is the maximum display size period.</>
Not odd, same as the prior model. The gpu in the broadwell version could also do that. The limitation is in the implementation of usb and the 5gbps bandwidth to that port. Needs 10gbps.
The port uses the DisplayPort alternate signaling mode when it's driving a display, not USB. It can act the same as any other DisplayPort 1.2 port and provide up to 21.6 Gbit/s with a four-lane HBR2 main link.
However, Intel listed 3200 x 2000 @ 60 Hz as the max supported DisplayPort resolution for the 5th Gen Core M processors.
I own the last gen and based on that knowledge I bought a usb c to displayport adapter to try with my 4k monitor. Still 30 Hz. Tried to force it with switchrez and no luck. I am successful though in forcing 50 Hz! Much better. I can still tell its not 60 Hz but barely. I can't remember for sure but I think bootcamp worked at 60 Hz no problem.
Nice! Thats a solid 6.6% above and beyond the pixel clock for 3200 x 2000 @ 60 Hz. Any idea what your CPU clock speeds are like when driving the 4K display? From what I gather, the resolution cap was governed by power / thermal limits.
The Intel Core m3-6Y30 version, have approximately the same specs as an ASUS UX305CA Quad HD, while being $600 more expensive. The obvious difference is the lack of Type-C connector in the ASUS machine, which, by the way was available since November 2015, (or earlier?).
I don't understand brand loyalty either. Whatever you can do in MacOS you can do it in Windows, and even Linux if you are willing to learn about it. So, it doesn't make sense to charge that much for a brand.
All I have to say is, I have been using Linux for 22 years and I've owned plenty of PC laptops that I dual booted with Windows and Linux and I have a Windows desktop at home (mostly to drive my VR headset), and I bought my first Mac OS X system when the first gen retina macbook pros came out years ago. And it has been the singularly best laptop I have ever owned, nay the best computer I have ever owned, hands down. Everything just works so well and so seamlessly. Windows does OK but there are always so many ways in which the huge baggage of carrying compatibility with 30 years of software, plus the lack of imagination and general lack of polish that MS is known for, just makes the PC experience in sum total less than the Mac experience - for me. Others may feel differently of course. But that is why I am happy to pay a bit more for a Mac laptop. It's just better in so many little ways that all add up to something significant.
What's sad is the state of CPU advancements ... my laptop is now almost 4 years old and I really don't have much reason to upgrade because the CPU, which is really the only weak part of this laptop, would not be all that much better in the latest macbook pro.
lol, people switched to mac for a reason, and that reason is windows. Complete peace of shit on old hardware. I did try windows on my computer, but ended up installing ubuntu.
10% of unhappy Windows users switching to Mac will double - almost triple - Mac market share worldwide.
10% of unhappy Mac users switching back to Windows would hardly be noticed. At all. Or even 20%.
In other words, it is easy to lose ground when you have that much. It is also easy to gain ground when you don't have (almost) any - every gain is relatively huge. But if Windows is that horrible and many people were really switching, Mac would by now hold much more than 7.5% worldwide.
Windows is not shit on old hardware. Old hardware is shit, period. Reasonably old hardware - as long as it comes from respecable vendors - does fine with Win 10. I've been running Win 10 on multiple systems at home, some quite old but all within reason. Works fine on Core2Quad, 2nd gen i5, AMD Phenom (should be well over 5 years old)... as well as on my more recent machines, Elitebook 8570p, my Haswell i7 gaming desktop and Surface Pro 3.
It seems to be working on old ThinkPad Tablet 2 (dual core Atom, 2GB RAM) but browser is glitching - tabs lose title on occasion. With that being said, whole upgrade to Win10 on that tablet was a bit enforced - some drivers were missing and replacement drivers from older versions of Windows were "planted" instead. I don't think I can complain much about that one, I was aware of risk.
Interesting post. I bought my first mac in 2010, a 13" macbook air, because of its size and portability. The first week it was awkward, because I was used to windows pcs. Then I learned to use the trackpad and gestures, and learned to use the OS. Then I found SPOTLIGHT. The search tool for mac, which works flawlessly and fast, as opposed to the windows search tools that I had used before, that did NOTHING but turn up the fan of your pc. This is continued in all the mac software today like pictures, just as an example. The search window is VERY powerful when implemented the right way. Touchpad, no need to comment. Except: WHY do the windows pc producers continue to spew out Garbage touchpads? The question actually still baffles me.
CPU is the same model/speed at least in one of the MacBooks: Intel Core m3-6Y30, 900MHz base.
Storage might be slower, but let's get real, this machine (the same specs as the ASUS) is a coffee house web browsing, I mean, social networking, tool. Both will boot in less than 10 seconds. After that, whatever OS you have installed is meaningless.
BTW, last year's 12-inch MacBook actually had a PCIe 2.0 x4 SSD with custom Apple NVMe controller. Andrew Cunningham at Ars Technica initially misreported it as x2 and that seems to have stuck in the collective mind of the Internet.
A lot of people complain that ASUS laptops have keys that break off the keyboard. And have fun with ASUS getting those keyboards fixed - they are terrible at customer support.
That's hefty price tag of difference for a negligible day-to-day storage and RAM performance difference, and just 280 grams (A cell phone? Wallet?) of weight.
The negligible bit is because these aren't powerhouses, is the same CPU as a Microsoft Surface, so they are coffee sipping companions.
In the end, as many, I'm looking for such a cappuccino mate, and was waiting for this release from Apple, but keeping tabs on the other options (ASUS just released an i5 version of the UX305 too), I don't get going on with such a price difference. I actually need to install Linux for my needs, so even while Apple provides a Unix environment, the math doesn't add up for me.
True, Apple tech support might be worth it, but my wallet doesn't agree with me...
Please add a second USB C to it. I could get used to the shallow keyboard and the it-clicks-but-doesn't-move trackpad. But if I'm on the go and I can't charge a phone and the laptop at the same time off of one wall plug, that seems like a really big annoyance.
People can complain about everything. The new 9.7" ipad pro has the same camera as the 6s and people question what the need of such a good camera is. Even if they included a 720p or 1080p cameracamera, people will complain that the bitrate sucks and the quality isn't good enough. Maybe apple is also trying to discourage those that use those selfie sticks with a MacBook?
A 7W processor would be a bottleneck for an eGPU setup even if OSX supported it. The general consensus seems to be that even a 15W processor won't be enough, though I have yet to see any benchmarks.
I was really hoping that this was the refresh announcement for the full line. I'm holding out for an updated MBP to be my first OSX development machine.
Geek Bench 3.0 results have been posted. This MacBook is definitively faster than last years model. And Apple doesn't use Atom products, they leave them for the Windows/PC fanboys to "ENJOY!"
Remember, Anandtech's own review had the Macbook perform worse than the coresponding Asus 305. That was with a better chipset and with a hell of a lot more throttling.
To support hw accelerated video like hevc or vp9 would require an update to osx drivers. Considering they never even updated OpenGL beyond 4.1 I doubt that is much of a good thing.
Still 480p camera, and no 16GB option. Still you pay gold for some SSD capacity. Cmon Apple! My 2008 unibody Macbook now has a 256 SSD and 8 Gigs of RAM with a VGA camera...and also did cost 1299. I really want to upgrade to the slimmer form factor, better screen and battery, but can I get please a total upgrade for my 1299?
Why is Apple torturing itself as well as its customers, by buying stupidly expensive $400 Core M chips, when its latest A9X can already match and exceed it in most workloads? It could save at least $400 at retail, which it could either use to get huge profits on its Air, or cut the price and have more sales.
I picked up the skylake version of the macbook a couple weeks ago, and very satisfied with this. I have realized that I value portability very much, even at home. The keys are precise, silent and give good feedback, but you have to realize they need less force than old keys. I have actually started to think this could be the keys for all of the future computers. The processing power is surprisingly good, enough for my use. I have a 15" MB pro late 2014, which is awesome, especially the screen and the power. But actually, the only time I have even heard the fans turning on, is when I start vmware and a session of windows 7. I dont´t use windows 7 anyway, so from now on it´s just macOS and this macbook. Going to sell the MB pro, will miss the screen a little bit, but it´s not a bad screen on the macbook either. Actually I had my MB pro display running at standard which is 1440x900. I can get the same desktop space on this one when I set it to max, and it´s still comfortable to read in my opinion. And the size and weight, for the first day I just sat there and watch it with a big smile.
Forgot to mention, the speakers are impressive, I think better than the MBP. Will be great to watch iTunes movies on this one. I think Apple have made a iPad pro killer in this laptop.. I will go for the iPad mini, and iPhone SE. Touchpad of course no explanation needed for mac users.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
106 Comments
Back to Article
JlHADJOE - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Wow! They actually increased battery capacity instead of making the thing pointlessly thinner.solipsism - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
This is par for the course. They commonly do this when using the same chassis.PrayForDeath - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
iPhone 6s battery size went down, even though it's the same chassis as the previous phonetipoo - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
They increased the MacBooks battery capacity through a different chemistry, the size is the same. The iPhone 6S didn't change chemistries, it made room for Force press/Taptic engine.KPOM - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
But that was because the 3D Touch hardware takes up space.ImSpartacus - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Haha, they aren't going to change the chassis shape after only one year. I bet it goes unchanged for at least another year after this one.repoman27 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
If not 5.lilmoe - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Netbooks don't need many design changes. Totally fine.willis936 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
These prices are still absurd considering how these processors are weak to the point of a hit in UX when you can you spend the same amount of money on something that weighs half a pound more, is half an inch thicker, and kicks some serious ass with a 15W TDP.solipsism - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
I'm not sure of your point. Why would someone in the market for something lighter and thinner for travel, that doesn't need something "that kicks some serious ass," not be able to choose the machine that works best for their needs because it doesn't fit yours? You know how much these processors cost, right? Your argument is the same as people—on this site less than decade ago—saying that laptops were dumb because you couldn't upgrade them as much/easily and paid a lot more for lower performance over a desktop.willis936 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
You missed my first sentence which was my entire point. If your usr case invokes using a contemporary x86 IS then your use case already requires a 15W TDP to not be waiting on it to do what you ask it to do.solipsism - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
So the minimum TDP that you feel everyone should have is 15W because anything less than that means you're waiting for a web browser or MS Word document to open. Sure. :eyeroll:willis936 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Go ahead and use a core M machine daily for a light workload and let me know your thoughts. Yes they're expensive because of their superior binning but if you think going to sub 1.5 GHz for today's processors is good enough for today's OS then your metric is based in 1999.solipsism - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
You're the one who is stuck in 1999 when you make claims against the clock rate as the defining factor without consideration for architecture or OS. You've completely overlooked 21st century operating systems, like iOS and Android, and I doubt you've even considered long-time bottlenecks like the read/write speeds of the storage capacity, which does make the MacBook feel even faster than 'other' machines with much faster processors still using HDDs or SATA SSDs.FunBunny2 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
-- You're the one who is stuck in 1999most software is still stuck in 1960: single threaded. for such software, all that matters is clock.
Meteor2 - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
There's very little in/on modern OSs which is single-threaded. Coders have seen where performance comes from nowadays, and no-one wants to be left behind.willis936 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Go ahead and find me a personal computer that costs over a thousand dollars with a hard drive in it. Hell try to find one that isn't using PCIe as the phy. You're right I didn't qualify "today's OS" with "today's x86 OS" and if you put iOS on this MacBook I'm sure it'd run like a dream. There's no reason to assume that change in context though. You'd be better off buying an iPad pro if you didn't want a decent x86 machine. Oh and for a given architecture, all other things constant, clock rate is the differentiating factor in performance. Computers aren't magic.name99 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
HP Spectre costs around $150 less. For that you get a 20% heavier machine, probably a slower SSD (Apple seems to be pushing SSD harder than others each generation), and a lower resolution screen. You also get a somewhat faster (but of course, more power hungry) CPU i5 or i7 rather than -m. [Though HP is cagey about the speeds at which the CPUs run, so don't immediately assume you're getting that full 15W performance sustained, or even in short bursts...]So what is your complaint? If you prioritize weight and size over performance, buy the MacBook; if you prioritize performance buy the MacBook Air. If you REALLY prioritize performance, buy the MacBook Pro. Either way you're paying about 15% over somewhat comparable PC hardware (likely better on some dimensions, likely worse on other dimensions).
15% seems a reasonable price to pay for the software you want to run. And if you don't want to be part of Apple's eco-system, say that up-front; don't pretend you're some objective scientist determining that various machines are simply unfit for their purpose under all circumstances.
lilo777 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
"HP Spectre costs around $150 less. For that you get a 20% heavier machine, probably a slower SSD"Are these even in the same category. I thought all HP Spectre 360 have i5 or i7 (most - i7) processors while MB has M processor. Also HP laptops (some models) have touch screen.
JG75 - Saturday, September 24, 2016 - link
why would you want a touchscreen on a laptop? that´s a complete waste. Unless the OS is a piece of shit of course. And the touchpad..nikon133 - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
Personal OS preferences aside... MBA's screen is too poor for nowadays premium ultrabook standards, imho. We got spoiled withsolid screens to a degree that, for 13" size, I cannot see anything below good quality IPS 1080p as acceptable solution.I do a lot of photography and, consequently, Lightroom and Photoshop... so there's that. But even plain text in word processor looks a bit rough on 13" MBA - and yes, I had one at my disposal for a few weeks, and gave it a proper test run in that time.
I could also argue aged design - there is just too much "flesh" around screen, and 13" MBA has pretty much the same footprint as my 14" Travelmate P645s (albeit it is still significantly slimmer). I didn't have chance to try new XPS13... but from what I've read, MBA would look even more retro against it.
So... for me... if I'd insist on OSX and new MB is not enough, the only valid option for my portable needs would be 13 MBP.
tabascosauz - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
You can continue under delusions that the Macbook is insufficiently powerful. Do you actually use the 1st gen Macbook on a day-to-day basis? No? I thought so.When the Macbook was first introduced, it was not at an absurd price point. Its later increase in price corresponded with similar increases in competing Windows ultrabooks, so I don't see the issue.
cygnus1 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Works pretty well on the MacBook I have. I even run Win10 in a VM on it. That puts a little load on it, but Chrome, Safari, Messages, OneNote, all stay responsive while the VM is running... Works great in boot camp too. But I did buy this on the 7th, so it's going back and I'm getting one of these new ones.smilingcrow - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
I went from an i5 4670K to a Core M-5Y71 (1.2/2.9 4M) and hardly ever feel compromised by it.Meteor2 - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
Use one daily (at work, not mine). Feels fast and responsive.nikon133 - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
We use a lot of Surface Pro 3 at work - all engineers use one, in fact.i5 Haswell at 1.9GHz, if memory serves... but quite keen to throttle down to 1GHz (or a bit lower?) when it becomes busy.
No complains from engineers, so I'm guessing this class of performance does indeed quite well for everyday.
Though "everyday" is quite personal, too. I tried running Lightroom on SP3... it was a bit on slow side with 20MP RAW images. But then again, even desktop i7 at 3.6GHz feels like a bit faster would be nice... couple of seconds to render previews, couple of seconds to export to JPG.
So I'm thinking - for my common needs, any of these M Core machines would probably be too slow.
willis936 - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
No Core M has steady state clocks above 1.2 GHz. 1.9 GHz is indeed quite usable for typical light usage.aliasfox - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
What if you're a consultant or other constant traveler who doesn't want to use their work computer in their down time? They're already lugging a 5-7lbs work laptop around, and all they want is a device to surf the web/watch videos on, but with just a bit more flexibility than a tablet?For them, the MacBook is a great option. It feels premium, is fast enough, and takes up very little space and weight in their bags that they already have to carry around all the time. And generally, a couple hundred extra dollars don't generally mean much - that's the cost of a couple hours in the hotel bar.
name99 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
It's a kind of autism, a mental defect that makes it utterly impossible for some people to imagine that anyone else has different desires and priorities from their own. Very common in the tech space.Variants include wild-eyed claims that "everyone wants to play GPU-intensive games", "everyone wants command-line access to their OS", and "everyone wants to spend 30 minutes a day fiddling around with OS settings on their devices".
And enough with the claims about living in 1999. The single biggest factor that made machines in 1999 feel slow (and that would make modern software on such machines feel even slower) was the IO performance. Remove that limitation with a high-speed SSD and you have a very different sort of machine, with a very different feel.
willis936 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Something about apple products draw out the least intelligent consumers.smilingcrow - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
I thought name99 was referring to you!star-affinity - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
Hehe, god job there willis936... ;)star-affinity - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
Good*MArgentieri - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Autism dad here. I would like to respectfully request you not use words that you don't know the meaning of in public.doggface - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
Agreed. It is easy enough to call out a troll without denigrating people on the spectrum.smilingcrow - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
I've noticed people on tech sites like to use the word rape in connection with pricing which is very insensitive. As if Apple are really raping people with their pricing.JG75 - Saturday, September 24, 2016 - link
Yep, storage access and transfer times have always since the morning of computers been the bottleneck of the system. This is (among other things) because modern OS´s use the storage for swapping out and in parts of the RAM when needed. That´s why a 14 nm INTEL cpu (nanotechnology, tri-gate transistor) combined with SSD storage and a healthy 8 GB of RAM gives the new macbook such a great overall performance. Of course combined with the great OS. Haven´t seen any os come close to macOS recently..jospoortvliet - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
I'd turn it around - I find the prices of 15 and 35 watt CPU's ridiculous considering their huge power usage. They should be pennies on the dollar, I'd pay more for a more efficient CPU.These are well priced, the others are over priced.
willis936 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Idk man. I appreciate that they are higher performance per watt and even at the same price but I don't think the 15W parts are a rip off compared to core M.http://ark.intel.com/products/88202/Intel-Core-m5-...
http://ark.intel.com/products/88193/Intel-Core-i5-...
Samus - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
It is absurdly expensive for a entry-level core m product. The price jump from m3 to m5 is ridiculous as well (although you are getting a larger SSD as well) but the fact the m7 is $550 more than the m3 at the same spec storage capacity make it blatantly obviously Apple is really milking it. For a class of product like this they shouldn't even offer a m3 or m5.repoman27 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
It's only $250 to upgrade from m3 to m7, or $150 to go from the m5 to m7. Intel's tray price for the m3 and m5 is $281, and the m7 is $393. Think of it this way, Apple throws in an m5 when you pay $1.17 / GB for NAND. And seeing as it's an in-house designed, just 3 packages on the motherboard, NVMe PCIe x4 solution, that pricing isn't necessarily out of line.Core M is not a cheap platform, and despite what Intel might lead you to believe, there are occasionally other components of value to be found in some PCs.
Samus - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
You are reading the chart wrong Repoman, it's $550 to go from an m3 to an m7 at THE SAME GB NAND level.And as you said, the price difference from Intel is about $112. But Apple is charging $550.
But my point is, why do they even bother with an m3 and m5 model. Other products based on the Core M such as the $500 Surface ONLY come in one variant, the highest speed m7.
star-affinity - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
They draw less power?repoman27 - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
The chart lists the price for the m7 with 512 GB SSD followed by a "?". I looked at the actual pricing on Apple's website. So either way, it's still NOT $550 for the processor upgrade at the same storage levels.The $499 Surface uses an Atom x7 which is not even remotely the same as Core m7. You've confused a $37 part with a $393 part. The $899 Surface Pro 4 comes with a Core m3-6Y30 with a base clock speed of 900 MHz, 4 GB of RAM and a 128 GB SSD (Type Cover sold separately for $160).
The reason why they bother with m3 and m5 is beacause:
a. There is a real price difference to Apple for the components. They can maintain their gross margin while offering this product at a lower price point. The "starting at" price for a product is important both psychologically and in terms of unit sales. This gives them a standard good-better-best marketing strategy.
b. Apple needs to generate enough sales volume for the 12-inch MacBook to justify their investment in R&D, tooling, etc. The 12-inch MacBook includes more innovative technologies, novel manufacturing processes and bespoke components than most OEMs have employed across their entire lines in the past 5 years. Instead of looking at the spec sheet, look at the iFixit teardown of last year's model and compare it to any other PC currently on the market.
c. Apple is a top 5 PC OEM by volume but only has 9 chassis designs in their product stack. Their unit sales for individual models is generally much higher than other OEMs. Intel probably couldn't produce enough of their highest binned SKL-Y dies to feed Apple even if they wanted to.
d. Intel probably isn't interested in allowing Apple to cherry pick their Y series SKUs that hard, and Apple is likely using their broad support of Core M now as leverage.
FrozenGiraffe - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
It is $250, not $550.jasonelmore - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Intel is charging to much for these chips.. The die is super small, yet they are charging $350-$450 tray price for these tiny tiny chips, that cost them about 10 bucks to make (and thats counting R&D and fab equipment), the wafer is around $3 per square inchjasonelmore - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
before you spout power consumption arguments, of course this is low power, even a bad chip would be low power.. they dont binn these chips, they are all low power. Thats why the M3 vs M7 is only 200Mhz bumpstadisticado - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
$3 per square inch??? You're insane. A 12 inch wafer has ~110 square inches. Your estimate says that wafer only costs $330 to produce.A better estimate for a mature process might be $30 per square inch, and even that might be low for Intel 14nm still.
Samus - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Even if it costs $330 to produce, it cost billions to tool a production facility. BILLIONS.Dug - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
Why do people that don't know what they are talking about, have this need to prove it online?You have absolutely no idea how much it costs to produce these from start to finish.
You have no idea how much it costs just to tool the machinery.
Do you have any idea how much shipping is, employees, taxes, insurance, etc?
No? I didn't think so, because that is all confidential information.
Most people at Intel don't know, and somehow you do?
And who are you to say they are charging too much? Do you work for a non-profit organization that doesn't actually create anything, so you think everything produced should be free?
Flunk - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Just don't buy one then.fazalmajid - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Half a pound more is a 25% increase in weight, not to mention that their chargers are also significantly larger. What part of "mobility" don't you understand?I have a 15" Retina MacBook Pro boat anchor with 16GB RAM, but I replaced it with the base model MacBook (1st Gen) for the weight savings. My primary computer is a desktop (Mac Pro at home. 5K iMac at work).
The MacBook is plenty good enough for what I use a laptop for - email, web browsing, terminal and SSH sessions. It certainly feels faster than the clock speed suggests thanks to the speedy NVMe SSD. I replaced my wife's MacBook Air with the highest-spec MacBook, and she is quite happy with it (once I got her the USB-C video dock).
Sure, I'd love to have an extra USB-C port (and an ecosystem of USB-C devices, most of the no-brand ones are complete garbage). A full day's battery would be nice as well, but the rMB is a device designed for no-compromise portability and mobility, and it delivers.
smilingcrow - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
For some of us a Core M is all we need and the advantage of having a fanless system is a much bigger pull than having extra CPU power that I will rarely if ever require.shadarlo - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
For apple this seems like a tiny upgrade, year to year. And that pink is PUTRID!Overall it's a decent laptop, but I'll take the XPS13 any day over it.
fazalmajid - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
The pink is really a copper color, and quite fetching in real life.The XPS13 is a great machine, but I would suggest you also have a look at the new HP Spectre (not the Spectre x360). It's got carbon fiber, a faster CPU and more ports, but you do have to endure the gold finish.
tareyza - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
They refresh this while the MacBook Pros (emphasis on Pro) still have old Haswell processors almost a year after Skylake was launched...solipsism - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
"They" don't control Intel. You don't want these Skylake processors in the MacBook Pro, and the Skylake processors for the MacBook Pro weren't available a year ago.solipsism - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
It wasn't until Q1-2016 that the proper Skylake Core-i7s even hit the market, and who is to say they now have enough capacity for Apple. At this point, I'd say it's likely going to be the 6770HQ, 6870HQ, and 6970HQ.http://ark.intel.com/products/93336
jann5s - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
This! I own a haswell MBP and misread the title to find out the "one-port-wonder" got an upgrade. :(arthur449 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
What's odd is that Intel lists these CPUs as capable of 4K @ 60Hz, whereas Apple claims only 30Hz.http://ark.intel.com/products/88199/Intel-Core-m7-...
BillyONeal - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
<complete guess shot in the dark>Apple's quote is probably in addition to driving the internal display, whereas Intel's quote is the maximum display size period.</>Tegeril - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Not odd, same as the prior model. The gpu in the broadwell version could also do that. The limitation is in the implementation of usb and the 5gbps bandwidth to that port. Needs 10gbps.arthur449 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Previous MacBook Retina (2015) CPUs claimed only 2560x1400@60Hz on the Ark:http://ark.intel.com/products/84672/Intel-Core-M-5...
repoman27 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
The port uses the DisplayPort alternate signaling mode when it's driving a display, not USB. It can act the same as any other DisplayPort 1.2 port and provide up to 21.6 Gbit/s with a four-lane HBR2 main link.However, Intel listed 3200 x 2000 @ 60 Hz as the max supported DisplayPort resolution for the 5th Gen Core M processors.
MarkieGcolor - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
I own the last gen and based on that knowledge I bought a usb c to displayport adapter to try with my 4k monitor. Still 30 Hz. Tried to force it with switchrez and no luck. I am successful though in forcing 50 Hz! Much better. I can still tell its not 60 Hz but barely. I can't remember for sure but I think bootcamp worked at 60 Hz no problem.repoman27 - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
Nice! Thats a solid 6.6% above and beyond the pixel clock for 3200 x 2000 @ 60 Hz. Any idea what your CPU clock speeds are like when driving the 4K display? From what I gather, the resolution cap was governed by power / thermal limits.rozquilla - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
The Intel Core m3-6Y30 version, have approximately the same specs as an ASUS UX305CA Quad HD, while being $600 more expensive. The obvious difference is the lack of Type-C connector in the ASUS machine, which, by the way was available since November 2015, (or earlier?).I don't understand brand loyalty either. Whatever you can do in MacOS you can do it in Windows, and even Linux if you are willing to learn about it. So, it doesn't make sense to charge that much for a brand.
bji - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
All I have to say is, I have been using Linux for 22 years and I've owned plenty of PC laptops that I dual booted with Windows and Linux and I have a Windows desktop at home (mostly to drive my VR headset), and I bought my first Mac OS X system when the first gen retina macbook pros came out years ago. And it has been the singularly best laptop I have ever owned, nay the best computer I have ever owned, hands down. Everything just works so well and so seamlessly. Windows does OK but there are always so many ways in which the huge baggage of carrying compatibility with 30 years of software, plus the lack of imagination and general lack of polish that MS is known for, just makes the PC experience in sum total less than the Mac experience - for me. Others may feel differently of course. But that is why I am happy to pay a bit more for a Mac laptop. It's just better in so many little ways that all add up to something significant.What's sad is the state of CPU advancements ... my laptop is now almost 4 years old and I really don't have much reason to upgrade because the CPU, which is really the only weak part of this laptop, would not be all that much better in the latest macbook pro.
osxandwindows - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
lol, people switched to mac for a reason, and that reason is windows.Complete peace of shit on old hardware.
I did try windows on my computer, but ended up installing ubuntu.
nikon133 - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
10% of unhappy Windows users switching to Mac will double - almost triple - Mac market share worldwide.10% of unhappy Mac users switching back to Windows would hardly be noticed. At all. Or even 20%.
In other words, it is easy to lose ground when you have that much. It is also easy to gain ground when you don't have (almost) any - every gain is relatively huge. But if Windows is that horrible and many people were really switching, Mac would by now hold much more than 7.5% worldwide.
Windows is not shit on old hardware. Old hardware is shit, period. Reasonably old hardware - as long as it comes from respecable vendors - does fine with Win 10. I've been running Win 10 on multiple systems at home, some quite old but all within reason. Works fine on Core2Quad, 2nd gen i5, AMD Phenom (should be well over 5 years old)... as well as on my more recent machines, Elitebook 8570p, my Haswell i7 gaming desktop and Surface Pro 3.
It seems to be working on old ThinkPad Tablet 2 (dual core Atom, 2GB RAM) but browser is glitching - tabs lose title on occasion. With that being said, whole upgrade to Win10 on that tablet was a bit enforced - some drivers were missing and replacement drivers from older versions of Windows were "planted" instead. I don't think I can complain much about that one, I was aware of risk.
JG75 - Saturday, September 24, 2016 - link
Interesting post. I bought my first mac in 2010, a 13" macbook air, because of its size and portability. The first week it was awkward, because I was used to windows pcs. Then I learned to use the trackpad and gestures, and learned to use the OS. Then I found SPOTLIGHT. The search tool for mac, which works flawlessly and fast, as opposed to the windows search tools that I had used before, that did NOTHING but turn up the fan of your pc. This is continued in all the mac software today like pictures, just as an example. The search window is VERY powerful when implemented the right way. Touchpad, no need to comment. Except: WHY do the windows pc producers continue to spew out Garbage touchpads? The question actually still baffles me.Anyway. Any man his choice.
Tegeril - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
That computer is thicker, heavier, has a slower clocked cpu (900mhz), and has slower storage.There are definitely differences and OS X is a tangible one.
rozquilla - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
CPU is the same model/speed at least in one of the MacBooks: Intel Core m3-6Y30, 900MHz base.Storage might be slower, but let's get real, this machine (the same specs as the ASUS) is a coffee house web browsing, I mean, social networking, tool. Both will boot in less than 10 seconds. After that, whatever OS you have installed is meaningless.
Tegeril - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
Yet... the same CPU in the Mac is clocked to 1.1GHz, not 900MHz.I do software development on mine and it's only got the Broadwell chip. You're definitely underestimating the utility.
osxandwindows - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
plus, I get updates for 7 years, so I'm happy to pay for the hardware.rozquilla - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
I agree, Ubuntu updates are great, I bet you get more than 7 years of updates. ;)Ian Cutress - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Could argue the following:MacBook is 16:10
MacBook uses PCIe storage, not M.2 SATA
MacBook uses LPDDR3-1866, not 1600
MacBook is only 0.92kg, ASUS is 1.2 kg (+33% heavier)
But
ASUS UX305CA has Real Sense camera
ASUS has three USB 3.0 ports
I'm sure there are some others on both sides... :D
repoman27 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
BTW, last year's 12-inch MacBook actually had a PCIe 2.0 x4 SSD with custom Apple NVMe controller. Andrew Cunningham at Ars Technica initially misreported it as x2 and that seems to have stuck in the collective mind of the Internet.Ian Cutress - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
I checked Ryan's review, and you're right :D So I adjusted Wiki with a reference as well.TEAMSWITCHER - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
A lot of people complain that ASUS laptops have keys that break off the keyboard. And have fun with ASUS getting those keyboards fixed - they are terrible at customer support.doggface - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
Cool anecdote bro.rozquilla - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
That's hefty price tag of difference for a negligible day-to-day storage and RAM performance difference, and just 280 grams (A cell phone? Wallet?) of weight.The negligible bit is because these aren't powerhouses, is the same CPU as a Microsoft Surface, so they are coffee sipping companions.
In the end, as many, I'm looking for such a cappuccino mate, and was waiting for this release from Apple, but keeping tabs on the other options (ASUS just released an i5 version of the UX305 too), I don't get going on with such a price difference. I actually need to install Linux for my needs, so even while Apple provides a Unix environment, the math doesn't add up for me.
True, Apple tech support might be worth it, but my wallet doesn't agree with me...
aliasfox - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Please add a second USB C to it. I could get used to the shallow keyboard and the it-clicks-but-doesn't-move trackpad. But if I'm on the go and I can't charge a phone and the laptop at the same time off of one wall plug, that seems like a really big annoyance.jamyryals - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
I know this form factor is relatively new, but a 480p camera is nonsensical in a $1300 computer.kurahk7 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
People can complain about everything. The new 9.7" ipad pro has the same camera as the 6s and people question what the need of such a good camera is. Even if they included a 720p or 1080p cameracamera, people will complain that the bitrate sucks and the quality isn't good enough. Maybe apple is also trying to discourage those that use those selfie sticks with a MacBook?danbob999 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Both complains are valid. 480p is not enough. 12MP is too much for a webcam.Burns101 - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
eGPU???sorten - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
A 7W processor would be a bottleneck for an eGPU setup even if OSX supported it. The general consensus seems to be that even a 15W processor won't be enough, though I have yet to see any benchmarks.sorten - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
I was really hoping that this was the refresh announcement for the full line. I'm holding out for an updated MBP to be my first OSX development machine.Snake_Doc - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Its beyond me how anyone could use the keyboard on this thing for extended periods. I find the keyboard on my SP4 much more usable.Krysto - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
So Macbooks are getting lower and lower performance with each new generation? What's next? An Atom-based Macbook?TEAMSWITCHER - Tuesday, April 19, 2016 - link
Geek Bench 3.0 results have been posted. This MacBook is definitively faster than last years model. And Apple doesn't use Atom products, they leave them for the Windows/PC fanboys to "ENJOY!"Michael Bay - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
Bitch please, I only sold my N270 netbook last year, and it was very enjoyable on Win10.doggface - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
LolJG75 - Saturday, September 24, 2016 - link
LOLzodiacfml - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
Same chassis, then same board which means they didn't add another Type-C USB port.id4andrei - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
Remember, Anandtech's own review had the Macbook perform worse than the coresponding Asus 305. That was with a better chipset and with a hell of a lot more throttling.errorr - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
To support hw accelerated video like hevc or vp9 would require an update to osx drivers. Considering they never even updated OpenGL beyond 4.1 I doubt that is much of a good thing.Dug - Wednesday, April 20, 2016 - link
There's always the Samsung 13" Notebook 9 for those that want pure Windows.At $1k, 1.87lbs, i5, Very nice screen and touchpad, it is a good alternative.
nickolas - Thursday, April 21, 2016 - link
Still 480p camera, and no 16GB option. Still you pay gold for some SSD capacity.Cmon Apple!
My 2008 unibody Macbook now has a 256 SSD and 8 Gigs of RAM with a VGA camera...and also did cost 1299.
I really want to upgrade to the slimmer form factor, better screen and battery, but can I get please a total upgrade for my 1299?
Krysto - Monday, April 25, 2016 - link
Why is Apple torturing itself as well as its customers, by buying stupidly expensive $400 Core M chips, when its latest A9X can already match and exceed it in most workloads? It could save at least $400 at retail, which it could either use to get huge profits on its Air, or cut the price and have more sales.http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/221881-apples-a9...
KPOM - Monday, April 25, 2016 - link
OS X and its library of applications do not run on ARM, and it would be painfully slow to emulate x86/x64 on an A9X.JG75 - Saturday, September 24, 2016 - link
I picked up the skylake version of the macbook a couple weeks ago, and very satisfied with this. I have realized that I value portability very much, even at home. The keys are precise, silent and give good feedback, but you have to realize they need less force than old keys. I have actually started to think this could be the keys for all of the future computers. The processing power is surprisingly good, enough for my use. I have a 15" MB pro late 2014, which is awesome, especially the screen and the power. But actually, the only time I have even heard the fans turning on, is when I start vmware and a session of windows 7. I dont´t use windows 7 anyway, so from now on it´s just macOS and this macbook. Going to sell the MB pro, will miss the screen a little bit, but it´s not a bad screen on the macbook either. Actually I had my MB pro display running at standard which is 1440x900. I can get the same desktop space on this one when I set it to max, and it´s still comfortable to read in my opinion. And the size and weight, for the first day I just sat there and watch it with a big smile.JG75 - Saturday, September 24, 2016 - link
Forgot to mention, the speakers are impressive, I think better than the MBP. Will be great to watch iTunes movies on this one. I think Apple have made a iPad pro killer in this laptop..I will go for the iPad mini, and iPhone SE. Touchpad of course no explanation needed for mac users.
JG75 - Saturday, September 24, 2016 - link
I recommend silver. Because it´s a real computer, and you may be tired of the fancy colors. But it´s your choice.JG75 - Saturday, September 24, 2016 - link
Did I say I admire Apple? Of course you windows and whatever fanboys can enjoy your scrap, that said, macOS is my most important platform.