Hosted by site sponsor WebMate.
Touch Bar MacBook Pro Q&A
Published December 5, 2016
All Mac Q&As >> Touch Bar MacBook Pro Q&A (Home)
To be notified of new Q&As, sign up for EveryMac.com's bimonthly email list.
How fast are the "Late 2016" MacBook Pro models compared to one another? How fast are they compared to the models replaced?
Please note that the "Late 2016" MacBook Pro models have been discontinued. However, this Q&A is up-to-date and can be helpful to someone considering one of these models on the used market.
In the corporate press release for the "Late 2016" Touch Bar MacBook Pro models, Apple mentions performance six times, but only quantifies performance in terms of graphics.
Specifically, Apple boasts that the 13-Inch "Late 2016" MacBook Pro models have graphics that are "up to two times faster" than their "Early 2015" predecessors, and that the 15-Inch "Late 2016" MacBook Pro models have graphics that are "up to 2.3 times" faster than their "Mid-2015" predecessors.
Apple only mentions that the SSD storage is "super-fast" and "blazing-fast" in the press release. In other marketing copy, specifically in pre-release testing of the MacBook Pro "Core i7" 3.3 13" Touch Bar/Late 2016, Apple more precisely claims that it has "up to 100% faster flash storage" than the model it replaced, the MacBook Pro "Core i7" 3.1 13" Early 2015.
Photo Credit: Apple, Inc. (Late 2016 MacBook Pro Models)
Although improvements in graphics and storage speed always are worthwhile, with no precise claim of an increase in the speed of the processors, it is a safe bet that the overall performance increase is modest.
How modest, though, requires benchmarks and real world testing. Independent testing also can be useful for objectivity removed from the hyperbole of any company's marketing department.
General Performance Overview
For a general overview of overall performance between the "Late 2016" MacBook Pro models and earlier notebooks, EveryMac.com's own Ultimate Mac Comparison makes it quick to compare side-by-side 32-bit and 64-bit Geekbench benchmark averages with all other G3 and later Macs for thousands of possible performance comparisons.
For example, the Geekbench 4.0 benchmark shows that the standard Touch Bar-equipped 13-Inch MacBook Pro -- the MacBook Pro "Core i5" 2.9 13" Touch Bar -- is a mere 3%-6% faster than the standard entry-level 13-Inch MacBook Pro without a Touch Bar -- the MacBook Pro "Core i5" 2.0 13".
Likewise, it shows that the standard 15-Inch MacBook Pro -- the MacBook Pro "Core i7" 2.6 15" Touch Bar -- is a modest 6% faster in single core tasks and a massive 63% faster in multicore tasks than the standard MacBook Pro "Core i5" 2.9 13" Touch Bar. The 15-Inch models have four cores rather than two which explains the huge multicore performance difference.
For those interested in the ultimate in performance from this line, Geekbench 4.0 shows that the custom-configured MacBook Pro "Core i7" 2.9 15" Touch Bar, which is a US$300 processor upgrade for the standard MacBook Pro "Core i7" 2.6 15" Touch Bar is 7% faster in single core tasks and 10% faster in multicore tasks. As it costs 12.5% more, it is an okay value, but not a great one.
Using the Geekbench 3.0 benchmark and comparing the "Early 2015" 13-Inch MacBook Pro "Retina" models replaced, the standard "Late 2016" 13-Inch MacBook Pro "Touch Bar" models are modestly faster overall:
| Early 2015 MBPr | Late 2016 MBPtb | Percent Faster |
| "Core i5" 2.7 13" | "Core i5" 2.0 13" | 2%-3% |
| "Core i5" 2.9 13" | "Core i5" 2.9 13" Touch | 3%-4% |
Compared to the "Mid-2015" 15-Inch MacBook Pro "Retina" models replaced, the standard "Late 2016" 15-Inch MacBook Pro "Touch Bar" models also are a bit faster:
| Mid-2015 MBPr | Late 2016 MPBtb | Percent Faster |
| "Core i7" 2.2 15" (IG) | "Core i7" 2.6 15" Touch | 1%-7% |
| "Core i7" 2.5 15" (DG) | "Core i7" 2.7 15" Touch | 3%-5% |
Certainly in terms of benchmarks, the performance increase between these models and their predecessors is decidedly small.
Other Benchmarks & Real-World Test Results
Geekbench 3.0 and 4.0 benchmarks provide a solid overview of overall performance, but other benchmarks and real-world tests also can be useful for perspective, particularly given Apple's advertised focus on disk and graphics performance.
In a pair of reviews, ArsTechnica confirms that the overall performance increase is middling, but that the SSD storage is much faster:
Even if you're upgrading from a 2013 model [to a Late 2016], the speed increases here aren't amazing. The equivalent 2015 model had a CPU that was about 100MHz faster, which just about wipes out the modest architectural improvements that Skylake brings to the table. It's better if you're coming from a 2011 or 2012 model, though still not earth-shattering -- if you're desperate for a CPU upgrade, make sure the new Pro you buy has a faster-clocked CPU than your old one. That's going to make more of a difference than the improved CPU architecture will. . .
[SSD] write performance in this year's 13-inch model is roughly even with last year's 15-inch model and slightly ahead of last year's 13-inch model. But read performance is dramatically increased in both cases -- it nearly doubles the read speed of last year's 13-inch Pro, and it's about 40 percent faster than the read speed of last year's 15-inch Pro.
In real-world use, the WSJ reported nearly identical overall performance but much faster dedicated graphics performance:
In everyday use and in testing, I found that the processing power in the new 13-inch MacBook Pros wasn't faster than their predecessors. There was no significant improvement, for instance, in exporting a 4K video in Adobe Premiere. The new laptops also lack Intel's new seventh-gen processors (though they would probably boost efficiency more than power). The new machines were faster than the older ones in graphics-intensive tasks like video rendering, however, with the new 15-inch Pro blowing them all away.
Finally, in detailed -- and damning -- Photoshop and Lightroom tests, MacPerformanceGuide found what might be a GPU driver bug that degrades performance over time, and concluded:
This is the first and only Mac I've purchased with the intent to keep and use and then returned. Which speaks volumes about Apple's priorities in hardware development. The 2016 MacBook Pro is an excellent machine, superior to the 2013/2014/2015 models in most all way, and were I buying a laptop for the first time or replacing a far older one, I would be delighted. But it just does not offer meaningful value for me vs the 2013 MacBook Pro I already own.
Regardless of the benchmark or application test used, it is clear that the "Late 2016" MacBook Pro does not provide a major boost in overall performance compared to its predecessors.
Performance Summary
Ultimately, the "Late 2016" MacBook Pro models do provide better graphics and disk performance than their predecessors, but effectively no significant performance improvement overall. There also may be software bugs that are holding them back, too. It is hoped that the software will be improved with future macOS releases.
Permalink | Report an Error/Typo | Sign Up for Site Update Notices
<< Touch Bar MacBook Pro Q&A (Main) | All Mac Q&As
Established in 1996, EveryMac.com has been created by experts with decades of experience with Apple hardware. EveryMac.com includes, and always has included, original research incorporating detailed, hands-on inspection of packaging, computers, and devices as well as extensive real-world use. All information is provided in good faith, but no website or person is perfect. Accordingly, EveryMac.com is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind whatsoever. EveryMac.com, and the authors thereof, shall not be held responsible or liable, under any circumstances, for any damages resulting from the use or inability to use the information within. For complete disclaimer and copyright information please read and understand the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy before using EveryMac.com. Copying, scraping, or use of any content without expressed permission is not allowed, although links to any page are welcomed and appreciated.