Test: Apple MacBook Pro 15 (sent 2016, 2,6 GHz i7) (sammanfattning)
| Networking | |
| iperf3 transmit AX12 | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450) (Klaus I211) | |
| Apple MacBook Pro Retina 13 inch 2013-10 (Klaus I211) | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 13 2016 (Klaus I211) | |
| Acer Spin 7 SP714-51-M09D (jseb) | |
| Dell XPS 13 9360 QHD+ i7 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T460s-20FA003GGE | |
| iperf3 receive AX12 | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450) (Klaus I211) | |
| Apple MacBook Pro Retina 13 inch 2013-10 (Klaus I211) | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 13 2016 (Klaus I211) | |
| Dell XPS 13 9360 QHD+ i7 | |
| Lenovo ThinkPad T460s-20FA003GGE | |
| Acer Spin 7 SP714-51-M09D (jseb) | |
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Distribution av ljusstyrkan: 92 %
Mitt på batteriet: 483 cd/m²
Kontrast: 1464:1 (Svärta: 0.33 cd/m²)
ΔE Color 1.4 | 0.5-29.43 Ø4.91
ΔE Greyscale 1.5 | 0.5-98 Ø5.2
Gamma: 2.34
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450) 2880x1800, 15.4" | Apple MacBook Pro 13 2016 APPA034, , 2560x1600, 13.3" | Apple MacBook Pro Retina 15 inch 2015-05 APPA02E, , 2880x1800, 15.4" | Dell XPS 15 9550 i7 FHD 1920x1080, 15.6" | Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T LG Philips LP156WF6-SPB6, , 1920x1080, 15.6" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Display | |||||
| Display P3 Coverage | 97.1 | 61.4 | 68.5 | 61.5 | |
| sRGB Coverage | 99.8 | 90.8 | 97.2 | 80.4 | |
| AdobeRGB 1998 Coverage | 86.7 | 62.9 | 70.4 | 58.8 | |
| Response Times | -33% | -48% | 16% | ||
| Response Time Grey 50% / Grey 80% * | 47.3 ? | 47.2 ? -0% | 64 ? -35% | 40 ? 15% | |
| Response Time Black / White * | 31.2 ? | 51.6 ? -65% | 50 ? -60% | 26 ? 17% | |
| PWM Frequency | 117000 ? | ||||
| Screen | -12% | -24% | -119% | -114% | |
| Brightness middle | 483 | 600 24% | 341 -29% | 371.5 -23% | 326 -33% |
| Brightness | 465 | 564 21% | 315 -32% | 356 -23% | 316 -32% |
| Brightness Distribution | 92 | 89 -3% | 82 -11% | 92 0% | 80 -13% |
| Black Level * | 0.33 | 0.57 -73% | 0.34 -3% | 0.252 24% | 0.35 -6% |
| Contrast | 1464 | 1053 -28% | 1003 -31% | 1474 1% | 931 -36% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 * | 1.4 | 1.5 -7% | 2.07 -48% | 5.55 -296% | 5.49 -292% |
| Colorchecker dE 2000 max. * | 3 | 2.9 3% | 3.27 -9% | 10.95 -265% | 11.36 -279% |
| Greyscale dE 2000 * | 1.5 | 2 -33% | 1.9 -27% | 7.1 -373% | 4.84 -223% |
| Gamma | 2.34 94% | 2.27 97% | 2.62 84% | 2.1 105% | 2.23 99% |
| CCT | 6650 98% | 6855 95% | 6514 100% | 5971 109% | |
| Color Space (Percent of AdobeRGB 1998) | 77 | 58 | 63.4 | 53 | |
| Color Space (Percent of sRGB) | 92 | 91 | 97.9 | 80 | |
| Total Average (Program / Settings) | -23% /
-16% | -24% /
-24% | -84% /
-105% | -49% /
-88% |
* ... smaller is better
Display Response Times
| ↔ Response Time Black to White | ||
|---|---|---|
| 31.2 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 16.7 ms rise |   |
| ↘ 14.5 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.1 (minimum) to 240 (maximum) ms. » 83 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (20.9 ms). | ||
| ↔ Response Time 50% Grey to 80% Grey | ||
| 47.3 ms ... rise ↗ and fall ↘ combined | ↗ 22.1 ms rise |   |
| ↘ 25.2 ms fall | ||
| The screen shows slow response rates in our tests and will be unsatisfactory for gamers. In comparison, all tested devices range from 0.165 (minimum) to 636 (maximum) ms. » 80 % of all devices are better. This means that the measured response time is worse than the average of all tested devices (32.8 ms). | ||
Screen Flickering / PWM (Pulse-Width Modulation)
| Screen flickering / PWM detected | 117000 Hz | ≤ 80 % brightness setting |  |
| ≤ 200 cd/m² brightness | |||
The display backlight flickers at 117000 Hz (worst case, e.g., utilizing PWM) Flickering detected at a brightness setting of 80 % (200 cd/m²) and below. There should be no flickering or PWM above this brightness setting. The frequency of 117000 Hz is quite high, so most users sensitive to PWM should not notice any flickering. Flickering occurs even at high brightness setting and may have an effect on the user during everyday use. In comparison: 53 % of all tested devices do not use PWM to dim the display. If PWM was detected, an average of 8715 (minimum: 5 - maximum: 343500) Hz was measured. | |||
| Cinebench R15 | |
| CPU Single 64Bit | |
| Dell XPS 15 9550 i7 FHD | |
| Apple MacBook Pro Retina 15 inch 2015-05 | |
| Apple MacBook Pro Retina 15 inch 2015-05 | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450) | |
| Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 13 2016 | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 13 2016 | |
| CPU Multi 64Bit | |
| Dell XPS 15 9550 i7 FHD | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450) | |
| Apple MacBook Pro Retina 15 inch 2015-05 | |
| Apple MacBook Pro Retina 15 inch 2015-05 | |
| Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 13 2016 | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 13 2016 | |
| PCMark 8 Home Score Accelerated v2 | 3637 poäng | |
| PCMark 8 Work Score Accelerated v2 | 4426 poäng | |
Hjälp | ||
| 3DMark 11 - 1280x720 Performance | |
| HP Omen 15-ax007ng | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.9 GHz, 460) | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450) | |
| Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T | |
| Asus N552VX-FY103T | |
| Apple MacBook Pro Retina 15 inch 2015-05 | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 13 2016 | |
| 3DMark - 1920x1080 Fire Strike Score | |
| HP Omen 15-ax007ng | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.9 GHz, 460) | |
| Dell XPS 15 9550 i7 FHD | |
| Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450) | |
| Asus N552VX-FY103T | |
| Apple MacBook Pro Retina 15 inch 2015-05 | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 13 2016 | |
| Unigine Valley 1.0 - 1920x1080 Extreme HD Preset OpenGL AA:x8 | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.9 GHz, 460) | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.9 GHz, 460) | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450) | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 13 2016 | |
| 3DMark 06 Standard Score | 24189 poäng | |
| 3DMark Vantage P Result | 14245 poäng | |
| 3DMark 11 Performance | 4914 poäng | |
| 3DMark Cloud Gate Standard Score | 14305 poäng | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Score | 3027 poäng | |
| 3DMark Fire Strike Extreme Score | 1440 poäng | |
| 3DMark Time Spy Score | 1074 poäng | |
Hjälp | ||
| Fallout 4 | |
| 1280x720 Low Preset AA:FX | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450) | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 13 2016 | |
| Acer Spin 7 SP714-51-M09D | |
| Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz | |
| 1920x1080 High Preset AA:T AF:16x | |
| Dell XPS 15 9550 i7 FHD | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450) | |
| XCOM 2 - 1920x1080 Medium Preset AA:FX AF:2x | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450) | |
| Deus Ex Mankind Divided | |
| 1280x720 Low Preset AF:1x | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450) | |
| Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T | |
| Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 13 2016 | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 13 2016 | |
| Acer Spin 7 SP714-51-M09D | |
| 1920x1080 High Preset AF:4x | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450) | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450) | |
| Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T | |
| Acer Aspire E5-575G-549D | |
| låg | med. | hög | ultra | 4K | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Witcher 3 (2015) | 40.9 | 20.3 | |||
| Dota 2 Reborn (2015) | 67.2 | ||||
| World of Warships (2015) | 44.6 | ||||
| Anno 2205 (2015) | 87 | 18.3 | |||
| Fallout 4 (2015) | 70 | 24.1 | |||
| Rainbow Six Siege (2015) | 39.6 | 34.1 | |||
| Rise of the Tomb Raider (2016) | 66.6 | 20.7 | |||
| XCOM 2 (2016) | 63.7 | 24.2 | 15.5 | 5.6 | |
| Far Cry Primal (2016) | 29 | 26 | 17 | ||
| The Division (2016) | 77 | 21.6 | 15.8 | ||
| Doom (2016) | 53.4 | 20.4 | |||
| Overwatch (2016) | 153 | 57 | 39.5 | ||
| Deus Ex Mankind Divided (2016) | 51.2 | 18.3 | 7.5 | ||
| Mafia 3 (2016) | 28.3 | ||||
| Battlefield 1 (2016) | 101 | 24.2 | 21.7 | ||
| Civilization VI (2016) | 61 | 25.8 | |||
| Farming Simulator 17 (2016) | 63.4 | 24.7 | |||
| Call of Duty Infinite Warfare (2016) | 58.7 | 36 | |||
| Dishonored 2 (2016) | 29.5 | ||||
| Watch Dogs 2 (2016) | 47.4 | 17.6 | |||
| For Honor (2017) | 82.3 | 29.3 | 27.9 | 19.4 | |
| Ghost Recon Wildlands (2017) | 48.2 | 21.3 | 18.5 | 8 | |
| Mass Effect Andromeda (2017) | 68.2 | 26.5 | 16.4 | ||
| Rocket League (2017) | 47.5 | 19.3 | |||
| Playerunknown's Battlegrounds (PUBG) (2017) | 63.3 | ||||
| F1 2017 (2017) | 95 | 41 | 33 | ||
| Ark Survival Evolved (2017) | 38.9 | 12 |
Ljudnivå
| Låg belastning |
| 30.6 / 30.6 / 30.6 dB(A) |
| Hög belastning |
| 34.7 / 46.3 dB(A) |
 | ||
30 dB tyst 40 dB(A) hörbar 50 dB(A) högt ljud |
||
min:  , med:  , max:  Audix TM1, Arta (15 cm avstånd) environment noise: 30.4 dB(A) | ||
(±) The maximum temperature on the upper side is 43 °C / 109 F, compared to the average of 36.9 °C / 98 F, ranging from 21.1 to 71 °C for the class Multimedia.
(±) The bottom heats up to a maximum of 40 °C / 104 F, compared to the average of 39.2 °C / 103 F
(+) In idle usage, the average temperature for the upper side is 24.8 °C / 77 F, compared to the device average of 31.3 °C / 88 F.
(+) The palmrests and touchpad are cooler than skin temperature with a maximum of 28 °C / 82.4 F and are therefore cool to the touch.
(±) The average temperature of the palmrest area of similar devices was 28.8 °C / 83.8 F (+0.8 °C / 1.4 F).
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450) audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (86 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 6.9% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (12.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(±) | higher mids - on average 5% higher than median
(±) | linearity of mids is average (9.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (9.7% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 10% of all tested devices in this class were better, 1% similar, 89% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 18%, worst was 45%
Compared to all devices tested
» 3% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 96% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Apple MacBook 12 (Early 2016) 1.1 GHz audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.6 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 11.3% lower than median
(±) | linearity of bass is average (14.2% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 2.4% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (5.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 2% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (4.5% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (10.2% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 6% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 92% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 4% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 95% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
Apple MacBook Pro 13 2016 audio analysis
(+) | speakers can play relatively loud (83.2 dB)
Bass 100 - 315 Hz
(±) | reduced bass - on average 8.4% lower than median
(-) | bass is not linear (16.7% delta to prev. frequency)
Mids 400 - 2000 Hz
(+) | balanced mids - only 4.7% away from median
(+) | mids are linear (6.3% delta to prev. frequency)
Highs 2 - 16 kHz
(+) | balanced highs - only 1.1% away from median
(+) | highs are linear (2.6% delta to prev. frequency)
Overall 100 - 16.000 Hz
(+) | overall sound is linear (9.8% difference to median)
Compared to same class
» 5% of all tested devices in this class were better, 2% similar, 93% worse
» The best had a delta of 5%, average was 19%, worst was 53%
Compared to all devices tested
» 3% of all tested devices were better, 1% similar, 96% worse
» The best had a delta of 4%, average was 25%, worst was 134%
| Av/Standby | 0.33 / 0.63 Watt |
| Låg belastning | 2.9 / 9.7 / 10.1 Watt |
| Hög belastning |
65 / 89.5 Watt |
   
| |
Förklaring:
min: ,
med: ,
max: Metrahit Energy | |
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450) 6700HQ, Radeon Pro 450, Apple SSD SM0256L, IPS, 2880x1800, 15.4" | Apple MacBook Pro 13 2016 6360U, Iris Graphics 540, Apple SSD AP0256, , 2560x1600, 13.3" | Apple MacBook Pro 13 2016 (2.9 GHz) 6267U, Iris Graphics 550, Apple SSD AP0256, , 2560x1600, 13.3" | Apple MacBook Pro Retina 15 inch 2015-05 4870HQ, Radeon R9 M370X, Apple SSD SM0512G, IPS-Panel, 2880x1800, 15.4" | Apple MacBook Pro Retina 13 inch 2015-03 5257U, Iris Graphics 6100, Apple SSD SM0128G, IPS-Panel, 2560x1600, 13.3" | Dell XPS 15-9550 i7 6700HQ, GeForce GTX 960M, Samsung PM951 NVMe 512 GB, IGZO WLED 330 cd/m² 1000:1 Hard Coating 3H, 3840x2160, 15.6" | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power Consumption | 21% | 23% | -40% | 18% | -127% | |
| Idle Minimum * | 2.9 | 3 -3% | 2.1 28% | 6 -107% | 2.8 3% | 12.5 -331% |
| Idle Average * | 9.7 | 8.9 8% | 7.6 22% | 12.8 -32% | 7.8 20% | 19.6 -102% |
| Idle Maximum * | 10.1 | 8.9 12% | 8.2 19% | 13.3 -32% | 8.1 20% | 22.8 -126% |
| Load Average * | 65 | 43.4 33% | 56.4 13% | 82.4 -27% | 52.4 19% | 102 -57% |
| Load Maximum * | 89.5 | 42.1 53% | 59.8 33% | 91.8 -3% | 62.8 30% | 107 -20% |
* ... smaller is better
| Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450) 6700HQ, Radeon Pro 450, 76 Wh | Apple MacBook Pro 13 2016 6360U, Iris Graphics 540, 54 Wh | Apple MacBook Pro Retina 15 inch 2015-05 4870HQ, Radeon R9 M370X, 100 Wh | Dell XPS 15 9550 i7 FHD 6700HQ, GeForce GTX 960M, 84 Wh | Asus Zenbook UX510UW-CN044T 6500U, GeForce GTX 960M, 48 Wh | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Battery Runtime | 39% | 14% | 42% | 9% | |
| H.264 | 516 | 620 20% | 413 -20% | 428 -17% | |
| WiFi v1.3 | 602 | 686 14% | 432 -28% | 544 -10% | 430 -29% |
| Load | 55 | 101 84% | 105 91% | 106 93% | 95 73% |
| Reader / Idle | 2557 | 1039 | 979 | 816 |
För
Emot
Nya MacBook Pro 15 bygger vidare på fördelarna med föregångaren och är en av de bästa enheter du kan köpa just nu i vissa avseenden. Chassits reducerade volym har inte påverkat kvalitet eller stabilitet. Apple har förbättrat skärmen ytterligare och den överträffar den tidigare modellen på alla punkter. Pekplattan är mycket större än tidigare och fortfarande mycket bättre än alla Windows-varianter.
Det är svårare att fälla en dom vad gäller tangentbordet. Precis som med de två mindre 13-tumsmodellerna använder Apple andra generationens ”butterfly”-mekanism. Resultatet är ett mycket exakt tangentnedslag, men det kräver en viss inlärningsperiod eftersom det saknar djup.
Fingeravtrycksläsaren på strömbrytaren är ett trevligt tillskott. Apples hajpade Touch Bar är väl genomförd, men hur användbar den blir beror främst på mjukvarustödet. I praktiken kan den t.o.m. krångla till vanliga åtgärder (som ljusstyrka eller volymkontroll) på grund av extra knapptryckningar. I sitt nuvarande tillstånd anser vi att den mest är en gimmick.
Vad gäller prestandan använder Apple den bästa tillgängliga hårdvaran i skrivande stund, inklusive Intels Skylake-processorer och AMD:s senaste GPU-arkitektur. Men med nya Kaby Lake- och Pascal-kretsar runt hörnet kan MacBook Pro 15 vara föråldrad ganska snart. Det är inte särskilt uppmuntrande med tanke på de höga priserna. Vi är lite förvånade över att den mindre batterikapaciteten inte haft större inverkan. Batteritiden blir sämre när man pressar systemet hårt, men i praktiska tester är den faktiskt bättre.
De största problemen förutom priset är buggar och portar. Det finns för närvarande problem med WLAN-anslutningar i 2,4 GHz-nät när en USB-C-enheten är ansluten samtidigt. Det kan också uppstå allvarliga problem med högtalarna när du installerar Windows via BoootCamp (vår testmodell påverkades) och grafikkortet fungerar heller inte felfritt. De här problemen kommer att lösas med uppdateringar enligt Apple.
Något som inte kommer att åtgärdas är portarna. De fyra Thunderbolt 3-portarna – varav alla kan använda hela bandbredden till skillnad från den mindre modellen – är mångsidiga och framtidssäkra, men det är ett radikalt grepp som är obekvämt i praktiken inom en överskådlig framtid. Vi tror att Apple kunde ha hittat en mer elegant och bättre lösning för användarna.
Allt som allt känns nya MacBook Pro 15 som en tillfällig lösning. Nu får vi en ny design med vissa förändringar, innan nästa modell (troligen) levererar mer prestanda och åtgärdar alla problem (vilket påminner oss om iPhone). Datorn är trots det mycket bra och många kommer säkert att bli nöjd med den, men om du inte verkligen behöver ett nytt system kan det vara klokt att vänta på nästa uppdatering.
Apple MacBook Pro 15 2016 (2.6 GHz, 450)
- 12/09/2016 v6 (old)
J. Simon Leitner, Klaus A. Hinum, Andreas Osthoff
Price comparison
