![]() The variability for the 2016 MBP was observed in more one test (best results shown for all machines). ![]() What these results do not show is that the 2016 MBP tends to more variable in its performance (perhaps because of tuning for power consumption?) its 414 second result was 432 seconds in another run-slower than the 2013 MacBook Pro, which turned in times of 425 and 431 seconds. There was significant variability, for unknown reasons (system was rebooted, the 6.1GB file opened, and everything observed to be idle before testing). Combine that with a workflow test that doesn’t use cores well, and it affords a reasonable explanation. So with 2 cores, its overhead is at a minimum. Past testing has showed that Photoshop does not scale well due to increasing scheduling inefficiencies with more cores. Photoshop does not use CPU cores well for this test, though it is not single threaded. But running and re-running the tests several times keeps confirming the same thing. This particular job was one performed only a few days prior for this lens comparison, repeated here on all four test machines.Īt least that is the only plausible explanation for how the 2016 MacBook Pro 13" 2.4 GHz dual-core model (turbo boost to 3.4 GHz) beats out but one of the other Macs-it’s an insane result. This test is as real world as it gets, one that Lloyd does day in and day out for generating lens rendering aperture series. MPG tested a fully-loaded 2016 MacBook Pro with 2TB SSD. MPG gets credit if you buy through those links. all 13" Apple MacBook Pro 2016 models. ![]() all 2016 MacBook pro models at B&H Photo.Updated - Send Feedback Related: 2016 MacBook Pro, GPU, laptop, Mac Pro, MacBook, MacBook Pro, Macs, Photoshop, SSD, video
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |