Lenovo’s Yoga 3 Pro convertible laptop–which uses the same Broadwell Core M processor as Apple’s new ultraportable MacBook–has provided the first look at its likely performance. AnandTech‘s numbers show that in overall performance terms, the Yoga 3 Pro was delivering a little over 90% of the performance of the early 2014 MacBook Air which has far fewer pixels than the Retina MacBook…
There are a large number of variables beyond the CPU itself that can impact on benchmark scores, so the score should be viewed as a ballpark rather than an exact measure, but it does reinforce my view that this is a machine for the typical base-level MacBook Air customer. If you want to do anything more demanding than writing and Internet use, this is probably not the MacBook you’re looking for.
For a while, then, Apple’s MacBook line-up is going to look a little messy: the entry-level MacBook Air offering more power than the significantly more expensive latest addition to the range. What you’re paying for is that ultra-sleek form-factor, in part made possible by condensing the logic board down into something smaller (in total surface area) than a Raspberry Pi (which admittedly contains USB, Ethernet and other ports).
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Working closely with Intel in their retail efforts in the UK. They market the Core M as a premium Atom, rather than an addition to the Core line. This isn’t at all surprising.
That’s ridiculous. Even if it were a “premium Atom”, they would never market it in that way. So I’m calling it bullshit in this one unless proof is given.
This is actually something known to other manufacturers too. However, here is my certification of authenticity (names and employee numbers blurred out for obvious reasons): http://imgur.com/ICJUUXB
It would be interesting to see some kind of bench mark between the new MacBook and an iPad Air 2. It would seem to me, that for most people, they could almost make due with the iPad. Add a keyboard case and you’re still money ahead and likely still as light and almost as thin.
Check out the Yoga Pro 3 which has the same processor & graphics, same capacity SSD, same RAM, and the same price. You can find comparisons of it to the Macbook Air if nothing else. If you need OS X instead of iOS, the iPad is not going to do it for you.
I too am eager to see benchmarks. A small size, high cost, single port and sluggish processor reminds me of the first MacBook Air, a computer that remained a niche product until ports and power increased. I’m also looking forward to iFixit’s report. I suspect a soldered SSD adding insult to injury but I may be wrong.
My 2011 11″ i7 MBA will need replacing soon, yet this new MB isn’t remotely in the running.
Adam, this is a good point, but I am actually in the opposite situation… For me, I just sold my iPad Air 2 in order to replace it with this. Keyboard cases start to get awkward trying to use on your lap on the couch…. this gets right into the same issue I have with the Surface which is also very awkward to use with the keyboard on anything but a table top.
The 2 big things for me were lack of keyboard/trackpad for what I need to do, and the severe limitations of iOS on a larger platform. This is my personal opinion as a long time iPhone/iPad user, but I find iOS excellent on the phone and severely lacking on the tablet. At this point the iPad hardware (minus the ram) has completely left iOS in the dust. Enter the new Macbook, and it checks all the boxes for my iPad replacement. Still very compact and portable, only 1lb heavier, retina display, much more powerful hardware, more memory, more storage, excellent keyboard, best trackpads in the business, and finally full OS X and all the benefits that go with it.
I know this doesn’t apply to everyone, but I don’t care about price. Ive been buying and selling Apple gear for ages now, and the incredible resale value allows me to upgrade yearly or every 2 years for very little money out of pocket. I would have preferred to get more usage out of my iPad but I still sold it for $500 in 3 days after 5 months of usage… when you can get the same model on sale at best buy for $550. haha. Gotta love it.
Expect another round of performance optimizations with 10.11
There was a time not too long ago that 4500 was a really damn good score. It can be used for a hell of lot more than browsing the web,
These things are all relative, though: expectations rise in line with performance. Machines which were once state-of-the-art are low considered sluggish.
Except almost all buyers will actually be replacing 3 and 4 year old MacBooks or Airs, to which this compares quite favourably.
I don’t see the point of tech sites reviewing machines based on the premise that it has to be a rocket ship compared to every other machine currently available or it’s somehow worthless.
Ben this is my problem with your headline and general POV. This implication that these systems or others like them will be sluggish or slow just makes me shake my head. As a prospective buyer, when you read the Anandtech review you get a good feel for where this thing is going to land and what its limitations are. At the same time you get a great reassurance that its NOT slow by any means, and is in fact faster at some things. When you simply look at your headline and read your article and comments, its nearly 100% implied that when you buy a Macbook you are buying a machine that will be completely slow and sluggish overall. Im sorry but comparing the 2 articles on just that aspect, thats why Im disappointed.
In a very small number of sustained cpu intensive tasks, they will be outperformed by bigger systems with active cooling. This in no way translates into having a machine that is ‘overall’ slow and sluggish machine. I literally couldn’t tell the different between working on my MBA vs rMBP vs 5k iMac in 98% of what I throw at them.
I get that a 2015 Air will be faster than a 2015 Macbook in a couple areas. But 99.999% of the people buying the new Macbook aren’t rushing to drop Adobe Creative Suite and Xcode on them. They will probably get along just fine with the new Photos app and iMovie in OS X….. which seem to run just fine on an iPad so Im doubting they will be slow and sluggish on the Macbook. I have creative pro friends with their own businesses doing the heavy lifting stuff, and they scoff at the idea of even a Macbook Air. Its rMBP or iMac for them or forget it.
Sure, low-powered machines do just fine with undemanding tasks. Indeed, I wrote an opinion piece recently arguing that this machine is probably suitable for the majority of current MacBook Air owners.
Things are relative that have some relation to each other. Notice a single other laptop on that list that runs OSX?
None. So really, if the user has a choice between lower pixels/faster speed/small and higher pixels/slower speed/smallest (and thirdly the 13′ pro – higher pixels/faster speed/more price/bigger) then that’s the comparison that needs to be made.
While this is a great technological achievement, I don’t see why anyone in their right mind would choose this over a Macbook Air.
unfortunately, many would, for one thing: Retina display (in a similarly lightweight package).
Instead, Apple could have just added a Retina display to the MBA and we’d all be happy.
In a thinner and lighter package actually.
Thinner, lighter, better display, similar battery life, silent operation. Why wouldn’t you consider this laptop over an Air? The only thing that would make this an easier sell is if they shipped the HDMI/USB/Power cable with the unit. Then you have an ultra light laptop on the road and the equivalent of a docking station when you are at the office.
For the same price you can get an Air with better specs, Magsafe and you won’t have to carry an adapter just to be able to use a flash drive and charge your laptop at the same time.
Brace yourself… For all the Microsoft slamming commercials.
Don’t really need a commercial to tell us what we already know; this laptop is built for suckers with money to burn. Only someone that values looks over everything else would buy this. Even the Apple logo is half baked.
This product gives netbooks a bad name.
Hahah you seem so sad. This laptop is the best ‘laptop’ in the world. No other laptop is better when considering % of users. 98% of people will be fine with the power of this. Yes, there are more powerful laptops like the MacBooks, but they are for FAR FAR fewer people, and thus, this is the best laptop in the world. Period. End of discussion. Any thoughts or comments to the contrary are lies you are telling yourself.
According to geekbench, the upgraded processor (Core M5Y71) or the 1.2 GHz model can reach into the mid 5,000s, which is comparable to my Late 2013 Macbook Pro.
Considering there are going to be software optimizations, I see the new macbook reaching into these results.
Source: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?dir=desc&q=Core+M+5Y71+&sort=multicore_score
I don’t know what’s wrong with your MBP, but my 2011 1.8 GHz i7 11″ MBA can come close to 5800. Your MBP should run between 7100 and 7900 per Mactracker.
You hit the nail on the head with the point about this machine being aimed at people who mainly use their laptop for writing. That’s exactly the target market for this computer. For those people, the extra weight of a more powerful computer is complete overkill and superfluous. You don’t need a Core i5 or i7 processor to write a document, edit a spreadsheet, answer email or use the web. The only downside for Apple I can see is if people who DO need a more powerful computer are seduced by the lightweight form factor and subsequently regret their purchase, thereby damaging customer satisfaction rates. Apple should work hard to make sure that the advantages of their other laptops are clearly articulated, rather than pour all of their marketing into the new MacBook.
Yes, I think it’s important that Apple do that. Both photo and video editing are relatively mainstream activities these days.
You’ve lost your mind if you think many people do more editing than what’s available in the photos app or movie editing at all.
I think it’s faur to say those who need more features likely have a clear understanding of the trade offs. If you’re doing more serious computing it’s quite clear you’d want to get pro. And if you have a Mac Pro or iMac or iMac 5K the lightest computer possible might be best option for your portable needs depending on how much and what type of work you may additionally do on the go.
Apple did not frame this machine as a new MacBook “Air”. The rumors called it an “Air”. The media are assessing it as a new “Air”. Apple simple call it “MacBook” it’s a new base level machine and the start of a new line-up. At the moment Apple is waiting on Intel.
It seems certain that Apple has done everything they can to make the laptop viable and the weak link or the “responsible party” if it is indeed a low power machine, would be intel.
Considering the fanless design and the size of the motherboard, if they don’t also have an ARM equivalent of this machine in one of their secret labs I’d be shocked. It’s the perfect test platform.
Now it’s just a matter of intel releasing their best chips each year and whether Apple’s ARM alternative in the back room has either better or worse performance. The minute the ARM comes out ahead, intel will be dropped IMO.
With this thing being 5W and getting perhaps 90% of the power of the current MBA it’s quite clear Intel are not asleep at the wheel.
It’s going to be tough introducing a new base level machine that costs $400 more (without the dongles) than an entry level MBA.
Well if recent history is any indication the price will come down over time but in the meantime this thing will sell.
Consider that some people still need a machine that is a lot newer than the one they have – for them this machine is amazing. I will eventually replace my wife’s computer with the new Macbook and it will be nearly 2x the performance for her (compared to her 2009 MacBook) – she manages just fine right now but the speed increase will be welcome – this machine is the perfect evolution of her computing needs.
I know! It’s so stupid the way these articles compare the machine to the latest and greatest when in fact, it will mostly be replacing people’s old plastic MacBooks.
I want to see a chart comparing it to a three or four year old MacBook. That would tell us the real story.
IMO the new MacBook is aimed at netbook users (Android, MS Surface, etc). The MBA is a lightweight MBP, it’s more powerful than the new MacBook. Should be called MacBook Po Air.
Don’t ever get a job at Apple marketing please.
What ireland said. This computer will replace the air, sorry to burst your bubble. They will keep the air for a few more years, and then you’ll have the much more simple, and eloquent ‘MacBook’ and ‘MacBook Pro’. For those of you that don’t understand the difference, if you are one of the 2ish % of people that require a lot of computing power, buy the Pro.
I never said it wouldn’t, but currently Apple still sell the MBA but obviously this new unit will replace it eventually. Oh, and my comment abouta MacBook Pro Air was not serious, I was joking.
Is it possible to use Adobe Photoshop in the new Macbook?
I’m entirely it’s possible to open Photoshop on the new Macbook. It depends on what “use” means though. If you do simple things, don’t expect the best performance, you will probably be able to “use” PS. If you expect more from PS, it might not be “usable” for you though.
yes.
It’s totally possible to use PS on this machine, but if you intend to use it much I’d recommend considering purchasing a rMBP over this machine.
Yes, of course, especially if one goes with the upgraded model, 8GB of RAM.
It’s worth noting that yoga 3 starts at $1299, same as the macbook. Maybe it’s intel who are to blame for an over priced, under powered processor?
Worthy observation. Maybe Apple is not artificially increasing their profit margins after all? Maybe component costs are actually higher?
A lot has been made of the new Macbook costing $400 more than a supposedly more powerful Macbook Air. This one really bothers me as well. Of the 2 models being compared we are talking about an $899 Macbook Air that has smaller non retina display, 50% less Ram, 50% less SSD. The minute you bring the latter 2 specs up to par with the new Macbook, you’re within $100 of the new Macbook and still have a smaller non retina display in larger form factor platform with active cooling.
This isn’t that different from the original MacBook Air, except that unlike that one, it won’t overheat because it uses a 4.5W processor. It’s not intended for power users, but should attract a decent following.
Is this really the same processor as the Yoga 3? This guy says it’s an unusual set up with a 4.5 watt processor upped to 5 watt and then underclocked 0.1Ghz. Bascially, it can’t be compared to any existing setup and the performance could be much better than anything else comparable: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/core-m-macbook-manu-arenas
All we ever wanted was the MBA to come with a Retina display. Nothing more…
– The MBA is the perfect laptop (I still run a 2011 one), except for the “bad” display (“bad” meaning non-Retina)
– The MBP is all good and powerful, but comparatively heavy
– Then the new MacBook is too weak and lacks expansion. At the very least a second USB-C port on the right, if not a USB-A.
I’m not quite sure the big heads at Apple have been making all the right decisions lately.
An Air with
– a Retina display
– USB-C instead of MagSafe + Thunderbolt (if it has to be this way)
was ALL we wanted.
Btw, this means the MBA would get to keep its current 2 USB-A ports. If Jony wants thinner bezels in there and a lighter weight, let him have it… but give us the above for starters.
(plus a USB-C alternative to the 27″ TB display, which I own and love)
An Air with retina would be too close to the 13″ rMBP. No reason for both to exist. Soon the rMBP lines will be thinner and lighter as well.
All YOU ever wanted. ;-)
I think that first line makes your entire argument basically nonsense and not worth reading.
I’m quite sure I’m not the only person who would just love an MBA with a Retina display and nothing more.
Or the only one person who expected just that.
I’ve used both a 2011 MBA and a 2013 rMBP extensively and I speak from experience with both laptops. My MBA still lives and performs more than admirably (running a mix of Netbeans / Photoshop / InDesign / browsers / an occasional Windows VM). Its only “bad” point is the display. If it were Retina, I wouldn’t even think of changing it.
Thanks for “reading” anyway ;)
Having a 15″ rMBP for audio development work and looking to have something even more portable for writing (and just writing), the new MacBook looks perfect for me. My concern is battery life. Apple’s ‘all day’ of 9 to 10 hours is footnoted as being measured using the 1.2GHz model, which is presumably a Core M-5Y51 running halfway between the base thermal design power (TDP) of 1.1GHz rated at 4.5W and the TDP-up of 1.3GHz rated at 6W. Let’s call it 5.25W (assuming that the relationship is linear). The same would be true of the 5Y71 running at 1.3GHz. However, the low-end 5Y31 is rated at 6W when running at 1.1GHz, which in turn suggests that the low-end 1.1GHz MacBook might actually use *more* power than either the 1.2GHz model or either model upgraded to the 1.3GHz processor.
The difference between 5.25W and 6W is about 14%, so after all is said and done, is it possible that the 1.1GHz model will have, let’s say, 10% less battery life? It is counter-intuitive but possible. That extra hour could make a big difference, but would it be worth an extra $300?
Another decision point – weight. MBA 13″ is 2.6 lbs, MBA 11″ is 2.4 lbs, MB is 2 lbs.
For some people that means everything.
I find it amazing the MB 12″ (retina) will weigh less than a MBA 11″. Those things are light!
Hence why this is called ‘Macbook’ and they make ‘Macbook Pro’ how hard is it to understand??? 98% of customers should purchase this laptop. You know, because 98% of people are only going to be getting on Facebook or listening to music/watching movies. The last thing I look for is power. Innovations come from things like retina display, force touch trackpad with Taptic engine, extremely light weight, thus portability, less reflectance, etc etc.
If you need power, take a look at the ‘MacBook Pro’ and remember that ‘Pro’ means more power, as it’s more aimed at people using it for their profession. I thought apple’s naming made it simple enough. I love the new name,and I can’t wait until it’s just ‘MacBook’ and ‘MacBook Pro’ and they drop the airs
Apologist. Macbooks used to be decent production machines. If this thing is weaker than the Air, it’s Apple’s first netbook. I used to love Apple for the fact that they didn’t compromise on performance over price. Macbooks were more expensive for a reason. With the lack of a truly functional number of data ports (two, please!) and a retina display that will certainly hinder overall system speed, Apple is beginning to slip. Apple will continue to strip critical product features out and bring in Ive in to explain why the Emperor is wearing no clothes. You’ll eventually have an iPhone in your wallet that you access through your watch. The two will be sold separately.
“…Apple is beginning to slip.”
And we have to hear that for the umpteenth time. Yeah… Sure, Apple is beginning to slip, if that is what you want to believe.
What I see is a lot of people with no business mind trying to analyze a corporation business decisions from their niche-consumer-minded spot. Needless to say, they’re not getting it.
Yea! Apple’s first CrapBook.
And pay hundreds more for the privilege of owning one!
Core M performance long caused me to believe that Apple would never build a machine based on it. And now that they have, stay far, far away from it.
I have to say given the choice of the top spec MacBook 12″ and a fully loaded MacBook Air 2015 13″ I’m definitely edging towards the latter. The main requirements for me are decent virtualisarion performance in either fusion or parallels.
Im really curious to see how virtualization works on these. My gut tells me they might struggle, but I won’t pre-judge that. I think they will work ok depending on what exactly you’re doing in the VM. Virtualization is vital to me as well, but not for my ultra portable. I typically have multiple VMs running on my iMac and when I need them I just RDP or SSH to them. For my IT (employment) work, I typically prefer to RDP into my workstation at the office or RDP to admin VM in the VMWare farm.
If it will run a cli only Linux distro and Windows 7 x86 build well then I’ll be happy. Will also need a usb type c Ethernet adapter too!
The Air tops out at 8GB of memory. That’s enough for one VM at a time. And with that low res display, that’s probably enough. I’m just spoiled by my Mac Pro and 1440p display. lol
Ben, I have to say Im very disappointed in this article. I read the entire Anandtech article reviewing the Yoga 3 yesterday, I just read it again to make sure I didn’t miss something… butyour conclusion here couldn’t be more off. Did you even read the review? You cherry picked 1 benchmark from over 20. And you happen to pick the older PCMark 7 without showing the newer PCMark 8 scores that show the Core M pretty much right on par.
To sum up what really happened, the Core M is either a tad slower, on par, or a tad faster through the benchmarking. The biggest disparity is in GPU performance, which is to be expected and I don’t expect that to be a deal breaker for anyone. The fact is the Core M is as fast, and in some cases faster, but it can’t maintain a sustained hammering of the cpu due to its thermal envelop (no fans). Please explain to me how virtually anyone will notice this on a 12″ ultra portable…. Who plans on hammering their Core-M with Xcode or video transcoding? Core-M whether it be the Macbook, Yoga3 or any other PC was designed for a specific purpose. It is NOT slow, and its stupid to suggest it will be.
Another key final tell in the Anandtech review is that the editor decided to throw his older quad Core i7 Desktop into the mix. With 2x the cores, more than 2x the clock freq, and a TDP of 95w… he said the new Core M managed to soundly trounce it in cpu benchmarks at only 5w and no active cooling.
I presently run a 5k Retina iMac, just sold a 15″ rMacbook Pro, and I have owned the last 3 generations of Macbook Air. All 3 of these machines have VERY dramatic differences in cpu performance, and I have never once even noticed the difference between the 3 of them. That being said… of course I do my compiling and video transcoding on the iMac.
Bill, the benchmark wasn’t ‘cherry-picked,’ it was Anandtech’s overall performance summary. The point here is simply that generally you’d expect what most people will view as the new MacBook Air to out-perform the older ones, and in this case it is unlikely to.
Ben I respectfully disagree. PCMark 7 and 8 are 2 different versions and tools. PCMark 7 was limited in that it just gave you a single calculated score. With PCMark 8 they upgraded the tools to give you a break down of different categories so you could better see where things are slower and faster.
They didn’t list the PCMark 7 score as their “overall” score, it was just ‘the’ PCMark 7 score.
It would seem that Anandtech’s conclusions run contrary to your own. Lets also not forget that Apple is not running off the shelf processors at normal spec. Apple is running up to 1.3ghz and 5w overall. Off the shelf Core-M chips are only up to 1.2ghz and 4.5w. It will be curious to see what that equates to when they hit the streets.
A better idea of what their overall score would be the following statements from the review…
“Just to put the numbers in a bit more context, I also ran the benchmarks on my Core i7-860 based Desktop (running Chrome, as were the Yogas) and it is pretty clear just how far we have come. The i7-860 is a four core, eight thread 45 nm processor with a 2.8 GHz base clock and 3.46 GHz boost, all in a 95 watt TDP. It was launched in late 2009. Five years later, we have higher performance in a 4.5 watt TDP for many tasks. It really is staggering.”
“There seems to be a general concensus that Core M equates slow, but clearly this is not the case. For some sustained workloads, yes, the 4.5 watt TDP limits how much performance you are going to get from the CPU, but for many tasks, especially short burst loads, the performance of the 5Y71 is very competitive, often outperforming the Haswell Core i5-4200U from last year’s Yoga 2 Pro. This says a tremendous amount about the Intel 14 nm process, because the IPC improvements of Broadwell vs Haswell are fairly limited. Clearly the CPU has quite a bit of headroom on the 14 nm process to keep the clock speeds up.
“Moving to Core M may seem like a step backwards in performance. However when you compare most workloads to the outgoing Core i5 Yoga 2 Pro, the Yoga 3 Pro can hold its own against it, and even surpasses it in many benchmarks. Core M is more than just a lower power SoC. It is also about packaging. The size of Core M as compared to Broadwell-U is quite a bit smaller in all dimensions, including the Z axis, which allows for more space for other components around it, and a thinner overall device.”
“The GPU side is certainly a regression though. Core M’s very restrictive TDP of just 4.5 watts means that the GPU is limited a lot quicker than Haswell-U or Broadwell-U GPUs are. It has the same basic architecture as the Broadwell-U GPU, and therefore it should have similar performance if given the headroom for this. Intel still has some work to do on the GPU side to make it more efficient, and they lag some of their competitors there, although less so with HD 5300 than the woeful Atom N2840’s Intel HD Graphics. They have made some headway here, but still have some more room to improve.”
I don’t think there’s any contradiction there. What is being achieved in a low-power processor is indeed impressive compared to what was a high-spec machine six years ago. Obviously what matters now, though, is how it compares to today’s MacBook Air. Hopefully we’ll find out for sure soon, but the take-out so far is “don’t expect too much.”
Hi Bill, some great points there. I wondered if you have any thoughts on how virtualisation will perform on the new MacBook 12″ this is a key factor for me on deciding between this and a new 2015 air
That is an excellent question on the virtualization. I was going to do some research on that myself. I tend to keep virtualization running on my iMac, but there is always the occasional need for it on the portables.
My gut says it will probably work fine depending on what you’re doing on the VM. Ive still found that the ultimate performance factor is having SSD vs HDD, but I think if somebody needed to do something processor intensive in a VM it would clobber the system pretty good.
We might be stuck in wait and see on that one.
As was already mentioned, one of my main concerns with this machine is its ability to run Photoshop.
It’s not often, but from time to time I like to dabble in some heavy photo editing. This obviously ramps up the CPU on my 2012 13″ MBA (2GHz i7, 8GB DDR3), but it can quite easily manage, even with Safari, iTunes, and maybe a few other apps open at the same time (along with other virtual desktops).
Will these “low power” M processors be able to handle more intensive photo editing? Additionally, will the new MacBook be able to easily handle 1080p output to a TV (either YouTube, BluRay rip, etc.). These are the primary applications I use my current MBA for that I can see being “CPU intensive” (maybe not as much as your power user doing video editing) that I’d want a future laptop upgrade to be able to handle.
If this year’s M processor isn’t up to the challenge, I may wait a year or two for Intel to put out some more powerful processors.
The Core-M scored higher than the 2014 Macbook Air in PCMark Creative. I am sure it will do just fine for photo editing. Remember the weakness of the Core-M is simply its thermal envelope. It can ramp that sucker up to 2.9ghz for a period of time before needing to chill out. I have done quite a bit of photoshopping myself, and there are times where it really needs to hit the processor no doubt. But its ‘usually’ not a long sustained processor crushing. You have to remember here that its not that the Core-M is slow, its that it runs at 5w and has no active cooling.
As for playing and streaming movies, it should absolutely zero issue with that. I have been streaming 1080p movies up to 20gb from a NAS with nothing but $35 Raspberry Pis over wifi. This thing should soundly trounce a lowly RPi. Most GPUs these days make short work that stuff. Where the Core-M will take a hit is if you’re trying to rip and transcode a Blurry to an mkv file for example.
One other thing worth mentioning is that the Macbook will have the option of an as of yet unreleased 1.3ghz Core-M. This will be the one I get most likely…. not necessarily because I need it, but I try beef up specs when I buy Apple gear as they tend to pull higher % on resale that way.
This is a Windows benchmark test. It gives a relative idea of the processor vs other Windows machines, but tells us absolutely nothing about the performance compared to the Macbook Air running OS X. The conclusion is totally flawed.
What I’d really like to know is how it will handle virtualisation using either parallels or fusion. Interested to hear any opinions or thoughts.
I agree with other posters who’ve found iPad Air 2 insufficient because of limitations of iOS. I’m looking for OS X + retina display + light form factor. I’m not going to be doing video editing, mostly writing, but I want to be able to use Photoshop & Lightroom – question is whether this will run them without too much frustration. if not I may have to sacrifice lightness for processor speed.
Would be nice to wait for Gen 2 but my old laptop’s about to die (then again,since it’s a 5 year old Macbook Pro almost anything will seem speedier….)
http://ark.intel.com/compare/84985,84984,84669
take your own conclusions on this comparison.
macbook air (2015) macbook pro 13 (2015) macbook (core m)
Those are i5s, compare it to the i7 which we power hungry users prefer.
“AnandTech‘s numbers show that in overall performance terms, the Yoga 3 Pro was delivering a little over 90% of the performance of the early 2014 MacBook Air which has far fewer pixels than the Retina MacBook…”
The Yoga has a resolution of 3200×1800 and the Retina Macbook has a resolution of 2304×1440, meaning that the Retina Macbook has 42% less pixels than the Yoga, doesn’t that mean that the Retina Macbook should run faster than the Yoga and possibly even faster than the Macbook Air?
Frankly, until someone has REAL benchmarks, none of this is worth the time it takes to argue. For example, who cares that the MacBook has the same capacity SSD as the Yoga Pro? It’s the performance, not the storage, that affects benchmark speeds. Let’s wait till we have actual facts, okay?
I have a white Macbook from 2010 that stills serves me well, manages every task i throw at it, it was worth the money back then, but this new machine… Will it be a just as a good buy?
That is the question I have
Has anyone run Parallels and a Windows 8.1 VM on the new Macbook? If so will it bog-down?
I have the 1.3/2.9ghz model…. it absolutely has no issue whatsoever with VMs. Im running Parallels with Windows 8.1 VM, the latest Windows 10 pre-release, and also multiple Linux VMs. Everything runs fantastic. As a dual core system it is important to configure your VMs to 1 cpu, not 2 though… and that hasn’t affected my experience in any way at all.
The media has completely blown the Core M question completely and ridiculously out of proportion. Granted I have the fastest cpu option. The 1.3 has Geekbench scores higher than the base i5 processor from the MBA and iMac of 2014, and is very close to matching the 2015 models.
For reference sake… I have owned 3 gens of MBA from 2011-2013, 4 gens of MBP (the last one being a late 2013 model), and I also have a completely maxed out 5k iMac in addition to this Macbook at present. In no way have I ever felt the new Macbook comes up short in performance whatsoever. Im not going to state the obvious that this is not the appropriate machine for Final Cut Pro or compiling code. It is perfectly fine at doing iMovie level stuff though. With the PCI-e SSD this thing really flys in general use.