Apple’s new 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina Display is here and available in a few different configurations. We’re take a closer look at the 2.5 GHz model with 16GB of RAM, and 512 GB of internal storage today, but also comparing some benchmarks to Apple’s two other 15-inch configurations for this year.
This MacBook features slight improvements in the battery department, makes the switch from NVIDIA to AMD for discrete graphics, faster internal storage, and also includes Apple’s new Force Touch trackpad as we’ve seen with other MacBook releases this year….
You won’t find any surprises inside of the box. Included is a quick start guide, Apple stickers, microfiber cleaning cloth, 85W MagSafe power adapter, and a power cord. The MacBook Pro’s design has remained the same as last years model, but I decided to spice things up a bit with a smooth matte black skin to keep it scratch free and add a little personality.
As mentioned, Apple has moved away from NVIDIA this year and the 2015 MacBook Pro now includes an AMD Radeon R9 M370X with 2GB of RAM. There may not be a huge performance difference between the two, but the AMD card seems to work better for my needs when it comes to video editing and motion graphics.
Check out our unboxing, benchmarks, and comparison video below:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5gNuGXM6k4]
In the above video, we take a look at benchmarks from this MacBook Pro using GeekBench 3, BlackMagic Disk Speed Test, and CineBench R15. We’ll also compare this MacBook’s benchmark scores to the 2.2 GHz and 2.8 GHz models that Apple offers for the 15-inch model. Keep in mind though, the 2.2 GHz model does not include discrete graphics and only features Intel’s Iris Pro.
In Geekbench 3, we got a single-core score of 3678 and a multi-core score of 14372. With BlackMagic Disk Speed test, Apple’s faster storage is lightning fast coming in with a write speed over 700 MB/s and read speeds between 1200 and 1800 MB/s. Finally in CineBench R15, we got an OpenGL score of 62.58 fps and a 600cb CPU score. Nice performance all around, but should you upgrade?
These may be the latest and greatest from Apple, but are any of them worth upgrading to? That’s really going to depend on your needs, but there are only slight differences here when compared to last year’s models. Technically, you’re getting more for your money, but as far as performance goes there aren’t any huge gains to look forward to. For pricing and availability, check out Amazon or Apple’s Online Store.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Many people feel that Cinebench is tuned more for the CPU and not GPU, and doesn’t really demonstrate GPU differences very well.
I’ve heard some people who’d be curious about gaming performance have tried “Heaven” a cross platform Benchmarking tool modeled in game fashion, similar to 3dMark:
https://unigine.com/products/heaven/
Read speed of 700 MBs and write speed of 1800 MBs? That can’t be right…
…and you are right.. because it’s the other way around man.
100 percent correct! Flipped the wording around. Had it right in the video. Thanks!
What kinds of reads and writes?? Sequential? Random? What’s the IOPS figure?? No details? How much better than last year??
The review could have a little more depth. :)
I’m somehow getting FAR higher numbers than that on Black Magic, especially in the 5GB stress test.
I wish this review had been a little bit more than a couple of paragraphs. I hate to complain, but it seems like every site is now going for SEO blocks of words rather than real content (along with ads). Nothing at all wrong with generating tons of revenue – just break the review up into 5 pages of little blocks of words in a couple of paragraphs, but this review is very poor and does not describe my experience with the new MBP at all.
Samir was exactly right — more depth please!
Compare it the 2013 rMBP with the 750m card PLEASE
I’ve always found CPU upgrades the least useful upgrades compared to others.
Upping the storage prevents frustration. Doubling RAM ensures future proofness. Upgrading the HDD in an iMac to at least a fusion drive is the best upgrade possible. Adding a dedicated nvidia/ati GPU enables the machine to do stuff that simply isn’t possible on Intel Iris graphics.
But paying hundreds for minor CPU differences?
I’d like to see Intel take the Apple A# approach to CPU’s. Just offer the best possible CPU (for each category: ultrabook, laptop, desktop, workstation) and have one year product cycles to improve speed, power consumption, heat emission and integrated graphics performance. Cut those minor variations that are as expensive as they are pointless. This focus would clear things up for customers and probably allow for greater YOY improvements.
I don’t think you understand CPU/GPU manufacturing process. If they only offered what you would consider is the best, the CPU would cost 3X as much due to waste.
Er…that’s basically what Intel already does. They follow a tick/tock pattern. On ‘tick’ years, the CPU lineup makes huge strides with tons of new features, speed, battery life, etc–usually on a new architecture. On the ‘tock’ years, the architecture remains the same, but there are usually improvements to overall power consumption, performance, and boosts to graphics, and so on. That seems pretty close to what Apple does with their A# line, with the exception that Apple has far fewer device form factors to build for.
I suppose maybe you’re talking about the differences between i3/i5/i7/M/Celeron and the several models / configurations that fall into each of those lines? Each of those fits a specific area of the market and has to meet the needs of both upper and lower ends of the spectrum for PCs in addition to Macs. Having a single line for each device “category” just doesn’t make sense. Some people want as much performance as possible, no matter the power curve. Others want as much battery life as they can get, and they’re willing to accept a tradeoff in performance or capability.
Apple’s simplistic approach fills one niche, but it comes nowhere close to filling them all. Choice is king. :-)
Sure, it’d be nice. Things evolve. Innovations come out frequently. I like the MBP’s use of storage. I currently am using a windows machine with classic shell, I like the sense of how much space I am using. That was one thing that my prior MBP didn’t give me very well. The current MBP’s I think use something different from HDD’s I guess it’s something closer to solid state, but I’m not positive. I like the photos and the internet.
What exactly are you saying? Closer to solid state?! It is solid state, or SSD if you like. And I don’t understand what you mean about classic shell?!
I would like to see Cinebench R15 results comparing Intel Iris Pro versus the discrete graphics model if this is possible.
I’m more curious about if people are [not] liking the one port setup.
Sometimes I have several devices plugged in all at the same time, either external HD, mouse, Wacom, SD cards, etc. Is the only option to now have a USB-C hub? Are there any complications with I/O if wanting to charge the laptop at the same time as using peripherals?
The thought of adding another thing to take up space in what’s become my computer bag seems ridiculous.
This article refers to the MacBook Pro, which has the usual number of ports on recent models: 2x USB 3.0, 2x Thunderbolt, 1x HDMI, audio out and power. The new MacBook is the only model with the USB-C port. Thus far, no other Apple models utilize this port.
Thanks for clarifying that the current MBP still has a number of ports.
great review .. dont see an option to get black coated cover :-)..
Click the hyperlink. It’ a third party skin.
If I was in need of a upgrade I would wait until this fall. I believe by then we will see another upgrade that will include USB-C and “maybe” larger SSD’s (1.5tb?).
Re-designs are leaked months in advance from reputable sources because of re-tooling required of manufacturing lines. Unlikely to come this year if we haven’t heard about it already.
You’re going to be waiting a long time for a 1.5tb ssd, and when you do the price will make you choke. These laptops do have an improved ssd that is 3-4 times faster than the previous pcie speeds which goes further towards speeding up the biggest bottleneck in the computer world.
I’m curious about the OpenCL performance. (CL rather than GL). I’m an Adobe user and without an Nvidia chip to use CUDA processing, Premiere would use OpenCL for acceleration. I’m trying to decide if the dGPU is worth the cost or if Iris Pro is stronger with OpenCL