New 13" & 15""MacBooks have the fastest SSD performance on the market

[Jovidah]

Who cares. Those Macbooks are unlikely to see any heavier usage than browsing the net looking for a local farmers market, googling for vegan recipes and retweeting the occasional report of how GMO is endangering the environment...

They're just an electronic version of a hipster handbag. I think 90% of the people buying them either won't know or won't care what's inside.

[RedRound2]

11 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

Gee that's great....what am I gonna be doing on these laptops that needs that fast of an SSD? Scrubbing through 4k60FPS raw? Give me a fuckin break apple. 'pro' 

 

If they do anything good for the industry, people like you will still hate on them smh.

4 hours ago, Stefan1024 said:

Also a 960 Pro is in the same range and you will not realize the difference as a user.

 

 

3 hours ago, Dackzy said:

that titel is very wrong and misleading. A 960 pro beats it and a Intel DC P3608 beats it with no problem.

They might have the fastest SSD's that you get stock in a laptop, but not the fastest SSD's on the marked.

 

Did you compare the 256GB of the entry level with the 960 Pro? The article was actually about the high end 15" version, but even the low end seemed to have a ridiculously fast SSD

So, before jumping into conclusions, the entry-level 256GB SSD will probably be the slowest among the SSDs available on the new MBPs

[RedRound2]

1 hour ago, Jovidah said:

Who cares. Those Macbooks are unlikely to see any heavier usage than browsing the net looking for a local farmers market, googling for vegan recipes and retweeting the occasional report of how GMO is endangering the environment...

They're just an electronic version of a hipster handbag. I think 90% of the people buying them either won't know or won't care what's inside.

 

 

That's just straight up wrong. Sure there are people buying it as facebook machine (that's what 12" is for) but there are many video editors getting the MacBook Pro over probably a much more powerful machine just because of Final Cut Pro X and it's optimization

[Syntaxvgm]

8 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

If they do anything good for the industry, people like you will still hate on them smh.

I hate on them because they are destroying things I love, like the MBP. What fucking use is this amazing SSD when the laptop can't do anything with it? How is it they refresh the MBP and really don't improve the hardware in comparison to competition at all? In fact, I'd say it's much competitive than past iterations of the MBP in terms of performance, and I'm not even considering price. It's just a bad option to get work done. 

I mean, fuck, 16GB of memory is the best option. My oldest laptops have that. Yah, it's fine for now, but that's hardly future proof in the slightest. Know what it's like to run out of memory on OSX when doing photoshop or something, or worse- rendering? Some programs won't even use the swap file, they just disappear. 

So now we have one of the highest quality laptops that money can buy, and it's kinda useless. 

[Dackzy]

59 minutes ago, RedRound2 said:

Did you compare the 256GB of the entry level with the 960 Pro? The article was actually about the high end 15" version, but even the low end seemed to have a ridiculously fast SSD

So, before jumping into conclusions, the entry-level 256GB SSD will probably be the slowest among the SSDs available on the new MBPs

the pro only has 512GB and up and the 512GB has 3.5GBps read and 2.1GBps write

[Jovidah]

2 hours ago, RedRound2 said:

That's just straight up wrong. Sure there are people buying it as facebook machine (that's what 12" is for) but there are many video editors getting the MacBook Pro over probably a much more powerful machine just because of Final Cut Pro X and it's optimization

But for how long? At some point you have to ask yourself whether it's really worth it to buy a flashy 3000 dollar potato just so you can run Final Cut Pro.

Personally I'm surprised they keep getting away with keeping Final Cut Pro a Mac exclusive. It's a rather dodgy practise only intended to increase hardware sales. I really don't see any reason why it would be any problem to run it on a Windows PC now that Macs run on Intel CPUs. Even Microsoft releases office for Mac...

[79wjd]

2 hours ago, Syntaxvgm said:

I hate on them because they are destroying things I love, like the MBP. What fucking use is this amazing SSD when the laptop can't do anything with it? How is it they refresh the MBP and really don't improve the hardware in comparison to competition at all? In fact, I'd say it's much competitive than past iterations of the MBP in terms of performance, and I'm not even considering price. It's just a bad option to get work done. 

I mean, fuck, 16GB of memory is the best option. My oldest laptops have that. Yah, it's fine for now, but that's hardly future proof in the slightest. Know what it's like to run out of memory on OSX when doing photoshop or something, or worse- rendering? Some programs won't even use the swap file, they just disappear. 

So now we have one of the highest quality laptops that money can buy, and it's kinda useless. 

I fail to see how they're not competitive with the rest of the market. It's fairly competitive with Dell's XPS line in terms of price and performance. Albeit, the price hike for the oled bar does induce a price premium that used to not exist, but first gen apple products have always been expensive.

 

Also, battery life would be worse if they had to use DDR4 rather than LPDDR3, so I, and most users, would rather have better battery life and be limited to 16gb of RAM. And sure, they could have released a 32gb DDR4 version with a different battery life, but that just adds confusion to the market, so I can understand why they wouldn't want to do that. 

13 minutes ago, Jovidah said:

But for how long? At some point you have to ask yourself whether it's really worth it to buy a flashy 3000 dollar potato just so you can run Final Cut Pro.

Personally I'm surprised they keep getting away with keeping Final Cut Pro a Mac exclusive. It's a rather dodgy practise only intended to increase hardware sales. I really don't see any reason why it would be any problem to run it on a Windows PC now that Macs run on Intel CPUs. Even Microsoft releases office for Mac...

There is a lot of software that is exclusive to one OS or the other......

 

And FCP rendering is SIGNIFICANTLY faster than Premiere using a much more powerful setup, so as long as that holds true, then the "premium" will be worthwhile. 

[Syntaxvgm]

51 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I fail to see how they're not competitive with the rest of the market. It's fairly competitive with Dell's XPS line in terms of price and performance. Albeit, the price hike for the oled bar does induce a price premium that used to not exist, but first gen apple products have always been expensive.

 

Also, battery life would be worse if they had to use DDR4 rather than LPDDR3, so I, and most users, would rather have better battery life and be limited to 16gb of RAM. And sure, they could have released a 32gb DDR4 version with a different battery life, but that just adds confusion to the market, so I can understand why they wouldn't want to do that. 

Eh I guess there's really no way for them to cram 4 dimms in there, I don't know what I was expecting other than more memory than has been available with the last several generations of macbooks, which maybe that will happen once they do transition to LPDDR4. 

Thing is though, the 2012 firs generation MBPRs had 16GB as an option. Hell 2010 unibody ones could be expanded to 16GB, don't know if it was an option out of the store though. That's 6 years! 

[79wjd]

10 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

Eh I guess there's really no way for them to cram 4 dimms in there, I don't know what I was expecting other than more memory than has been available with the last several generations of macbooks, which maybe that will happen once they do transition to LPDDR4. 

Thing is though, the 2012 firs generation MBPRs had 16GB as an option. Hell 2010 unibody ones could be expanded to 16GB, don't know if it was an option out of the store though. That's 6 years! 

There are already strong rumors that 32gb will be added shortly. Apple charges so much for RAM upgrades that there would have to be a pretty good reason to NOT include a RAM upgrade option. 8GB has also been the recomendation for the non-dirt chap budget builds/laptops since 2010~ and is only just starting to be phased out to 16gb. So, it makes sense. And you can just as easily blame Intel for not supporting LPDDR4 on Skylake or memory manufacturers for not producing higher density LPDDR3 dimms. 

[RedRound2]

6 minutes ago, Syntaxvgm said:

Eh I guess there's really no way for them to cram 4 dimms in there, I don't know what I was expecting other than more memory than has been available with the last several generations of macbooks, which maybe that will happen once they do transition to LPDDR4. 

Thing is though, the 2012 firs generation MBPRs had 16GB as an option. Hell 2010 unibody ones could be expanded to 16GB, don't know if it was an option out of the store though. That's 6 years! 

 

Very very few people need 32GB RAM. Besides the RAM isn't upgradable so even if there was a 32GB option and opt for 16GB right now, you would be stuck with the 16GB for it's lifetime. If you force that you'll definitely need 32GB, then don't but the MBP, as simple as that although there are rumors that they're going to add a 32GB next year depending on whether they opt for cannonlake or coffee lake processors (depending on Intel's release plans)

[RedRound2]

1 hour ago, Jovidah said:

But for how long? At some point you have to ask yourself whether it's really worth it to buy a flashy 3000 dollar potato just so you can run Final Cut Pro.

Personally I'm surprised they keep getting away with keeping Final Cut Pro a Mac exclusive. It's a rather dodgy practise only intended to increase hardware sales. I really don't see any reason why it would be any problem to run it on a Windows PC now that Macs run on Intel CPUs. Even Microsoft releases office for Mac...

 

They haven't released any of their software on competing platforms other than iTunes, iCloud, and Apple Music, the former two being necessary for iOS users without Mac and the latter to increase revenue. 

MS is not releasing office due to their kind-heartedness rather increase their revenue from Mac lineup. Besides MS right now has a strong lead in Productivity Apps and it would be retarded move to allow competition to grow on Macs