macbook m3 vs i5 (2017)

[adamios]

debating which one. m3=7y32, i5=7y54

note that intel has rebranded the m-series as i only for the i5 and i7. hence when saying i5 and i7 i am referring to the Y series 7y54 and 7y75, not the 15w U-series kabys.

i find it curious that 7y54 and 7y75 (4w kaby i5 and i7) along with kaby m3-7y30 (predecessor of m3-7y32 inside macbook 2017) all came out on Q3 2016 whereas m3-7y32 came out in Q2 2017.

also from the spec sheet the i5 and i7 have same dimension, whereas 7y30 and 7y32 also have same domension but diffferent from i5 and i7.

7y54, 7y32 and 7y30 are all marketed same price 281$ whereas 7y75 393$.

i have a feeling that the m3-7y32 inside the base macbook is overpriced and perhaps not as good as i5 or i7 despite better performance than 7y30. i feel that its almost like apple wanted a better cpu than the 7y30 for its base model but didnt want to pay more so intel just managed to tweek a few things on the same basic 7y30 and test it to function at higher frequencies. note that the i5 and i7 have lower tdp than 7y30 and 7y32 and, as stated before, different chip size.

this is what makes me think the m3 inside the base macbook 2017 may not be on par with upper i5 (and i7).

m3 is 1299$
i5 is 1599$

i know the i5 has double ssd aswell but strictly cpu oriented which one is worth more? alot of people say they are similar according to benchmark tests etc but im really sckepticle.

 

[EugW]

m3 is the best bang for the buck. If you want a real boost over the m3, then get the i7.

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...uns-of-cinebench.2073415/page-2#post-25271927

The main reason to get the i5 is just for the 512 GB SSD. It’s not much faster than the m3.

BTW, 2016 Kaby Lake Y chips were missing some key multimedia features. This was added in spring 2017 including to the 7Y30. However, at the same time Intel introduced the 7Y32 so there was no point for Apple to use 7Y30. 7Y30 is much, much slower.

TDP for m3, i5, and i7 is the same.

 

[Dave245]

There doesn't really seem to be that much in it spec wise, as EugW says if you don't need the 512GB storage maybe you should get the M3 version.

The only reason i'm personally debating whether to get the i7 version is because i know i'll need the 512GB version, the M3 to i7 seems to be the biggest jump in performance. The 16GB Ram will probably be more noticeable.

 

[mj_]

m3 and i5 are almost identical when it comes to raw processing performance. The i7 is slightly faster but also supposed to get somewhat hotter than the i5 and m3. Thus, from a price-performance-ratio perspective the m3 gives you the most bang for the buck.

This is universally true for pretty much all of Apple's products. Their pricing for CPU upgrades is ridiculous, and paying the premium for a faster CPU is barely ever worth it.

 

[bill-p]

With the 2015 and 2016 lines, m5 was best because it was the best balance of performance and thermal. m7 was throttling very badly on my 2016 MacBook.

With the 2017 line, I've had the chance to finally try the m3 and the i5 side by side and I'd agree with most of the above: if you do not need the extra storage, just stick with the m3. There is virtually no difference that I noticed between them both. More RAM would help more if you find yourself opening a lot of browser tabs or run virtual machines, but it isn't absolutely necessary.

 

[EugW]

Interestingly, in previous years, Apple sent out the m5 for 3rd party reviews. In 2017, Apple sent out the m3 for review.

That says something. I don’t think Apple was really happy with the performance of the m3 in 2015 or 2016, but that changed in 2017.

It should be noted that the 2017 m3 is faster than the 2016 m5.

 

[AVBeatMan]

I'm still trying to get my head around this. Why, if the m3 and i5 are similar do they use both? Why not use the m3 for both 256GB and 512GB?

I have the base 256GB but am still tempted to return for the 512GB. 256 is enough for now but (but but....!) 512 feels a bit more "future proofing". If there was a recognisable improvement with the i5 it would convince me to go for that.

 

[EugW]

I'm still trying to get my head around this. Why, if the m3 and i5 are similar do they use both? Why not use the m3 for both 256GB and 512GB?

I have the base 256GB but am still tempted to return for the 512GB. 256 is enough for now but (but but....!) 512 feels a bit more "future proofing". If there was a recognisable improvement with the i5 it would convince me to go for that.

Why not use both? I suspect Intel doesn't want to just sell m3s and i7s anyway.

Yes, in many things the i5 isn't a big improvement over the m3, but it still is an improvement, and Apple compensates by locking the 512 GB SSD to the i5 and up. You just need to decide if you want 512 GB or 256 GB, and decide if the price premium is worth it. For me it wasn't, because I typically use less than 100 GB on my laptops. Note though that you should usually keep up to 20-25% of the drive empty to maintain performance. So the real size might be closer to 200 GB.

I don't know how Apple allocates reserved space though. For example, on my Samsung SSDs you can set them to allocate more reserved space, so that the OS will actually see a smaller drive.

Either way though, it may be wise to think of a 256 GB drive as more like a 200 GB drive, and a 512 GB drive as a 400 GB drive. If you're like me and usually are at less than 100 GB, then a 256 GB drive is sufficient. However, if you usually would need something like 160 GB, then perhaps going to a 512 GB drive makes more sense, if you plan on keeping the computer a long while.

 

[AVBeatMan]

Why not use both? I suspect Intel doesn't want to just sell m3 and i7s anyway.

Yes, in many things the i5 isn't a big improvement over the m3, but it still is an improvement, and Apple compensates by locking the 512 GB SSD to the i5 and up.

You just need to decide if you want 512 GB or 256 GB, and decide if the price premium is worth it. For me it wasn't, because I typically use less than 100 GB on my laptops. Note though that you should usually keep up to 20-25% of the drive empty to maintain performance. So the real size is closer to 200 GB.

Yeah, in my mind and head my 256GB is enough as it works for me. I guess I was a little "spooked" with my previous 256GB MBP as it was getting full up. Now I've stored all my photo's and iTunes onto a hard drive and currently have around 200Gb free so it was a question of is the i5 much of an improvement, or worth the £350 more. I guess not...

 

[Ed1979]

There doesn't really seem to be that much in it spec wise, as EugW says if you don't need the 512GB storage maybe you should get the M3 version.

The only reason i'm personally debating whether to get the i7 version is because i know i'll need the 512GB version, the M3 to i7 seems to be the biggest jump in performance. The 16GB Ram will probably be more noticeable.

Hey - where do you get the info in the screen shots?

 

[Dave245]

Hey - where do you get the info in the screen shots?

It was on Geekbench, I looked up the specific model like the 12” MacBook.

 

[Ed1979]

Cheers mate

 

[LTENETWORK]

Any stats to compare MacBook 2016 1.1Ghz m3

 

[catlv]

m3 is the best bang for the buck. If you want a real boost over the m3, then get the i7.

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...uns-of-cinebench.2073415/page-2#post-25271927

The main reason to get the i5 is just for the 512 GB SSD. It’s not much faster than the m3.

BTW, 2016 Kaby Lake Y chips were missing some key multimedia features. This was added in spring 2017 including to the 7Y30. However, at the same time Intel introduced the 7Y32 so there was no point for Apple to use 7Y30. 7Y30 is much, much slower.

TDP for m3, i5, and i7 is the same.

What’s your guess on how the i7 would stack up against the new MBA chip?

I was hoping for a MB refresh as many were, but may end up with an 256/16/i7 instead.

Thanks!

 

[EugW]

What’s your guess on how the i7 would stack up against the new MBA chip?

I was hoping for a MB refresh as many were, but may end up with an 256/16/i7 instead.

My guess is the MB Air will be faster, but we shall see with real benchmarks just how much the MBA throttles under sustained load.

 

[JiggyJaggy]

Is there such a machine as an i7 (for best performance) which has a 512gb HD? Trying to get a maxed out Macbook 12 before they become redundant one day.

 

[JiggyJaggy]

There doesn't really seem to be that much in it spec wise, as EugW says if you don't need the 512GB storage maybe you should get the M3 version.

The only reason i'm personally debating whether to get the i7 version is because i know i'll need the 512GB version, the M3 to i7 seems to be the biggest jump in performance. The 16GB Ram will probably be more noticeable.

Anyone find the 16gb Ram that much more noticeable than the 8gb Ram?

 

[JiggyJaggy]

Also I found this site, very good to compare various Apple products' performances:

Compare Macs

 

[Fravin]

I had one of these m3 Macbooks. It was surprising fast and reliable. I remember showing how it could render a video in FinalCut for Apple’s staff in one store.