For the past few months I've been looking for a new laptop to edit videos on. As you probably know, I'm a Windows user, but because Apple just refreshed their MacBook Pro line two days ago, I decided to throw one into the mix as well. The results of my tests were both shocking and depressing.
Let me first tell you what I wanted in a laptop. I wanted it to cost less than $3,000 (because I don't use laptops very often), I needed at least 16 GB of RAM, 512 SSD, a fast quad-core processor, an accurate 4K screen, SD card reader, and an Ethernet port. As laptops are getting thinner and thinner, finding a new machine that still has Ethernet is very difficult. I would have been happy to buy another Alienware but for some reason they have kept the Ethernet but have gotten rid of their SD card readers. Sadly, I was not able to find a laptop with all of these features that I was happy with, but I did compare five of the most popular laptops on the market today and I came to some very interesting conclusions.
Here are the five computers I tested.
Dell XPS 15 9550
- i7 6700HQ
- 16 GB RAM
- GTX 960M
We've owned this computer for one and a half years and it has been amazing. We have had issues with our USB to Ethernet dongles but I think we finally got to the bottom of the issue by updating drivers and purchasing a Dell USB C to Ethernet adapter. This is Patrick's main computer and I would have purchased another one if it had Ethernet but I was really excited to remove all dongles from my life and therefore I wanted a new computer that had all of the ports I needed.
Surface Book
- i7 - 6600U
- 16 GB RAM
- GTX 965M
I've owned this computer for a while now and it really is a fantastic laptop. The only reason that I wanted to purchase another machine was because this laptop doesn't have Ethernet (without a giant hub that is a pain to travel with) and it only has two underpowered USB ports which struggle to power my Logitech mouse dongle and anything else at the same time. With the dock this laptop works perfectly, I just hate having to travel with it.
HP Zbook Studio G4
- i7 7700HQ
- 16 GB RAM
- Quadro M1200
I purchased the Zbook because I thought it was the perfect laptop. It had everything I wanted plus two thunderbolt ports, Ethernet, and a fingerprint reader. Sadly when I got it I noticed that the screen had significant dimming on the edges. Everyone else in the office said I was crazy for even noticing this but I couldn't justify spending $2,500 on a laptop with a crappy screen.
Dell Inspiron 15 7000
- i7 7700HQ
- 16 GB RAM
- GTX 1050 Ti
The next laptop I purchased was the new Dell 7000. It was almost the same laptop as the Zbook above minus the fingerprint reader and two thunderbolt jacks and it was also $1,100 cheaper. This laptop would have been perfect for me except that the screen was even worse than the Zbook's. Instead of edge dimming, the colors of the screen were so inaccurate that I had trouble working on it. I tried to calibrate it and I couldn't get it close to looking right.
MacBook Pro 15-Inch
- i7 7700HQ
- 16 GB RAM
- Radeon Pro 555
I was ready to run the test with the four computers above but Apple literally updated their laptops two days ago and so I decided to run to the Apple store and buy a MacBook Pro with and identical processor to the Zbook and Dell 7000. The MacBook literally cannot be used without dongles because it only has USB type C ports which is my biggest nightmare, but I added this for test purposes only.
The Test
This laptop will be used almost exclusively for Adobe Premiere and so I only cared about how it performed with this program. I transferred the same project to all five computers' local SSD drive and I exported the footage with the same encoding options. Surprisingly the oldest computer, the Dell XPS 15, was able to render the footage the fastest and the new MacBook Pro was by far the slowest.
Results (Less time is better)
1. Dell XPS 15 9550: 3:35
2. Dell Inspiron 15 7000: 3:44
3. HP Zbook Studio G4: 4:35
4. Surface Book: 5:01
5. MacBook Pro 15-Inch: 6:04
I then ran the test again without GPU acceleration disabled and got almost identical results. This seems to prove that either the GPU didn't help in any way in the first test or that the GPU was still helping on all computers in the second test even though I turned it off.
I tried one other test on each of the computers that I failed to mention in the video. I tried to play back the 4K footage in the timeline at double speed on each of the machines. The only laptop that struggled with this was the Surface Book because at times it would start to drop frames but it wasn't a significant problem, nothing like the first one that I tested over a year ago. All of the other four laptops performed almost identically.
Conclusion
The new Kaby Lake processors may not be a significant jump over their predecessor on either Windows or Mac platforms. When it comes to Adobe Premiere, they may actually be worse. I've seen similar results with other benchmark tests but I was shocked to see our one-and-a-half-year-old laptop beat four of the newest, and most expensive laptops currently on the market. I decided to give up on my search for the "perfect laptop" and instead I went on eBay and purchased a used XPS 15 which is identical to ours and has a two year warranty for just $1,100. If you don't want to deal with a used laptop, B&H is currently selling this laptop for just $1,500 brand new. It's always nice when the most affordable option is also the best.
Interesting comparison, but a test that only takes in to account Adobe Premiere Pro rendering times is flawed unless all you ever do is render videos out of Adobe Premiere Pro. As you experienced, Premiere Pro on the Mac just flat out sucks. It's a crash fest and in rendering speed it lags behind the PC version. This isn't a testament to anything other than Adobe putting out garbage. Final Cut Pro X is a huge plus on the Mac side. It's a much superior editor to Premiere Pro, and it crushes rendering with background rendering while you work. Not to mention that FCP X is a one time purchase of $299 that you can use on as many Macs as you own, while Adobe will soak you for $240/year or $600/year (if you get the full CC suite). People who bought FCP X six years ago are still getting free feature updates.
I own and use both Windows and Mac, and I honestly could never shell out more than $1000 for a Windows laptop. The simple truth that even the best Windows laptop is crippled by crappy trackpad drivers is reason enough, but there are others as well.
The conclusion of the test is really that Premiere is shitty software. No difference between GPU acceleration on and off? No performance gain on a faster CPU generation? This software isn't optimized for anything, it doesn't scale. That should be your main concern, not the hardware. You'll find yourself in 5 years still using the same laptop if Adobe continues to "develop" Premiere that way.
I'm about to buy that specific MacBook Pro model for the following reasons:
1) It has more than enough power for Capture One Pro, which is my primary photo software
2) FCPX blasts through 4K video without breaking a sweat
3) The screen is incredible
4) I like going straight to the Apple Store for service
5) I love MacOS and integration with my iPhone
I would like an SD card reader and a plain old USB port, but every computer is a compromise.
Overall, this is the package that works for my situation. I don't need the most powerful computer in the world. I just need the thing to help me get work done, and I want good service when I have a problem.
Macs are not about getting raw horsepower for your dollar, and they never will be.
So why do people act surprised when a cheaper Windows machine is faster?
If you are looking for the best specs, you should not buy a Mac.
Just go with Windows, ESPECIALLY if you are a Premier user or a gamer.
But seriously, the crowd above is right - FCPX is a speed demon...
>> 1) It has more than enough power for Capture One Pro, which is my primary photo software
So does a used X220 Thinkpad you can buy on ebay for $250 with tougher hardware and drives you can swap out with a screwdriver.
>> So why do people act surprised when a cheaper Windows machine is faster?
They don't. People act surprised when an ENORMOUSLY cheaper Windows machine is MUCH faster.
nice review! What about the Razer Blade ?
Have you look into it?
I have. The small one didn't have ethernet and the big one was like 5 grand so I never seriously considered it.
Ok, this is a fair question(s) Lee:
Final Cut does not work on PC machines, and it is a very competent editing solution. Why not edit the same sequence on Final Cut on the Mac? It would actually beat out all the machines in time.
Shouldn't the Mac gets bonus points for having the ability to run both final cut and premier?
I have used premier and and final cut, and personally prefer Adobe.
That's one way to look at it. Another way is say software available for both systems runs significantly slower on the mac. What if the test was done with Lightroom which is the industry standard for culling photos?
1- Photo mechanic.
2- If my car was optimized for Diesel , but also ran Gas fuel, you would argue that your car gets better MPG running gas, even thought thats all it runs.
Photo Mechanic is the industry standard for culling sports photos but the market share of that program compared to Lightroom is not even comparable. What if I phrased it this way, Lightroom is the industry standard for culling and batch processing raw files?
I would agree, I have not used Photo mechanic since college, i was being facetious.
these benchmarks results with gpu disabled are strange, did you check the windows power plan settings on all your laptops ? (even "maximum performance" power plan when on ac power can be tweaked) the best is to check it in real time with cpu-z, it will show you cpu and memory speed while premiere is rendering. of course also make sure you don't have crapware or antivirus using cpu,memory or ssd at the same time as your premiere benchmark (you can also check that in real time when rendering in premiere with windows task manager)
I feel like these articles, as useful information as it is, never sway anyone either way. It just becomes a primer for intense arguments between defensive consumers. So unfortunate.
Hey Lee, I think the explanation is that for some reason, Premiere is not optimized under MacOS.
On the opposite side, rendering with FCPX (obviously on MacOS) is really fast! And should you need it, it is also a the fastest software to transcode to ProRes (i.e. optimized media in FCPX) or transcoding to proxies for an offline edit and reconnect after, but I digress :-)
Hey Lee I didn't see the video yet but reading your article I can understand the most important part in the video render is the CPU so have you took a look on the ZBOOK 15 G3? or G4 if it's already available in the US (I'm in Italy so I don't know). It got Xeon processor that are more suitable for this kind of works. It is slightly heavier than the Studio but it got the SD card reader and the Ethernet, also you can find a model with DreamColor screen.
Mac's are not well optimized for Adobe, that is why many Mac users use Final Cut Pro X for video. I myself as a photographer don't mind that the preview of a gaussian blur on my mac takes a a second longer since I love the OS. Someday I might have to build a Win PC for productivity if Apple no longer serves the pro market at a reasonable cost but that they is yet to come thankfully.
"… because it only has USB type C ports which is my biggest nightmare"
OUCH. How utterly, painfully CLUELESS. Just more classic biased nonsense from this guy. Wow. Using PREMIERE, the most pathetically SLOW and outdated garbage from Adobe for a SPEED test… 😂 … hilarious. And actually thinks he's doing someone a favor.
FCP X would blow any and ALL those craptops out of the water with a tired smile.
I don't think you did anything wrong on the Macbook Pro. I think the Premiere is just slow on the macbook. If Premiere is the only choice for video editing, there's not much you can do. If you ever get a chance to use Final Cut Pro, You'll find it MUCH MUCH MUCH more efficient than Premiere Pro.
This post is really an analysis if how poorly adobe implemented Premiere on macOS, not about the hardware.
If you look at the geekbench benchmarks, the Macbook pro (mid 2015 I7-4980HQ, I couldn't find the later cpu) with a multi-core score of 16,182 beats the the Dell XPS 15 9550 (i7-6700) with its score of 13,969.
I'd be curious how this test works with , say, batch processing in CaptureOne or some other still image batch tests in CC or something.
what about a lightroom batch export comparison? please :)
Thanks for taking a bite from the apple Lee. Didn't taste so good. (Thanks for being our taster)
Can't disagree with any of your methods or results, Adobe is better optimized for windows OS. Mac doesn't get the love from Adobe. Just compare an export from Final Cut to Premier of the same simple clip. Incredible difference. This does extend to Lightroom as well, it runs better on windows in almost all regards. But I still prefer Mac.
I think Adobe is getting payback for the Flash debacle when Steve Jobs blocked flash from working on iPads and basically called it a pile of $%#@. Adobe probably took offense and stuck in some "loops" to slow down Premier on OS X. :-) But I'd be interested in the Final Cut compare.....
It's goes further back than that, it was during the transition from x86 to x64 when Apple burned Adobe (and a lot of developers) during the Cocoa/Carbon conversion. Everyone was told that Carbon x64 was the future and Adobe sank a lot of time and resources into converting the Creative Suite, only to find out (along with everyone else) when Apple announced to the world at their WWDC that they was going Cocoa. This was why When CS 4 was released it was x86 only whereas Windows was x64.
A lot of companies still distrust Apple over this and the Creative Suite never received the same amount of optimisations as Windows. Also Microsoft invests into the Adobe R&D program now especially for integration with Windows Ink and hardware divisions going by Adobe demo videos in recent years.
#appleisdead
Memory bandwidth - overheating - missing recompilation
When performing simple rendering tasks you are mainly testing the I/O subsystem. A matching balance of CPU speed, RAM speed and SSD speed is necessary to get the best performance at a reasonable price. In some systems we see at work, manufacturers are using a very good CPU but slow memory (for several reasons - not just for saving money).
Depending on the visual effects you are using in PP, the CPU (or GPU) might get something serious to do as well. That also means, that the CPU as well as the RAM of the system is heating up. Depending on the ability to cool the system the CPU might clock down to lower frequencies in order not to overheat. It would have been nice to see the development of the CPU temperature as well. I am working in the field of high performance computing. We actively cool CPUs so that their cores are in Turbo-mode all the time. That of course is not feasible in a Laptop. However, it seems that the gaming laptop is the best cooled one.
Another aspect with the new CPUs is that it is mandatory to recompile and to use the optimization for those explicitly. Only then you get most of the performance of those CPUs. Here, Adobe has the challenge to ship products which have to work on a large variety of CPUs - not only the one you have in your Laptop. I guess that is something which Adobe can easily solve with the CC Application but for now it does not seem to be the case.
Wish the review would have included Lenovo. Just got a T570 with i7-7600, 16G RAM, 512G SS HD, NVIDEA 940MX GPU, 4K display and it has Ethernet and a SD card reader. Seems to fit most of the criteria, but the GPU might not be enough. Wonder how it would have compared.
Interesting comparison and somewhat depressing for the mac... in regard to the mac, I assume you ran the test in OSX. I wonder how it would perform running in windows on the mac... also, I had heard that the touchbar with fingerprint reader is also responsible for some form of security... I had noticed, for example, that accessing passwords in keychain was way slower than with the non-touchbar version. I'd be interested to see the difference between the touchbar and non touchbar versions.
In terms of ports, at first I found the lack of ports somewhat distressing but I have grown to like it. I have two identical Satechi dongles. One lives at work, the other in my backpack. When I get to work I plug in a single USB c cable, and instantly my charger, 4K monitor, wireless mouse and keyboard are connected. From that perspective it is nice. I don't use Ethernet. The wireless gives me close to 100mhz transfer rates, so that doesn't bother me. Of course I can see how the lack of SD card slot would be annoying. I personally don't care too much. But if I used it everyday I would.
What fascinates me is the performance difference benchmarks seem to show between FCP and Adobe - if the bms are accurate, this dwarfs the difference between laptops. So why does anyone use Adobe???
Why does anyone use Adobe? They are the industry standard for a ton of software. You don't use Photoshop?
I think everyone is missing the point, why is the MacBook Pro almost twice as slow as the Dell!!!???? I think once I got the results of the test on the MacBook Pro I would have made two phone calls, one to Adobe and the second to Apple and have them explain this to me.
In light of the fact there is no performance data to look at (look up using bash, top, sar) I can only assume the following:
1. That Adobe Premiere was not using all four CPU cores, or that it was using them poorly.
2. That there could be a power setting that set the machine into a reduced power mode and thus accounted for the poor showing.
There are more possibilities but these are the two most likely culprits. While I am not a Mac fanboi, I am a senior UNIX/Linux system administrator and a photographer and I would have found an answer as to why the MacBook Pro was slow and reported it, that would have been an interesting read!!!
PC is the master race. * tips hat *
The sad thing is most will think newer is better. These are the kinds of reviews and comparisons we need so we don't have to spend the money for less performance.
BTW, LOL at the comments, all the knuckledraggers with their excuses.
I think I just like macbooks because I'm lazy.
NO ONE should use Adobe Premiere on a mac. It's just not builtfor it. If you are using Premiere use a PC. If you are using FCP use a mac. FCP crushes Premiere in literally every way render times, proxy times, etc. Kaby lake or not doesn't matter. However the moment you start using Premiere on mac, forget it you've just wasted your money.
When it comes to laptop displays, there is a lot to say there. As image enthusiasts/professionals, it is worth getting familiar with different type of displays and what the pros and cons are. For example, you shouldn't expect much out of a TN type display vs IPS. But OLED could probably blow you away. Color accuracy and range can contribute a lot to the way the images are processed. I would recommend at least making sure that the display is IPS on a laptop before making a purchase.
As a professional and a Mac user for many years, I'll admit that Apple has neglected the Pros and has really pushed our patience to the edge. It says a lot if I'm still using a 17" Macbook Pro from 2011. But I believe your issue has less to do with the new Macbook Pro and more to do with Adobe and their optimization of Premiere for the Mac Platform.
Adobe has been doing a TERRIBLE job writing for the Mac over the last few years. Premiere has become such a buggy mess on every Mac machine I use. Their constant yearly updates of adding more and more features have ballooned the program into an unstable mess. Force Quits are common in Premiere, so much so, that I've moved to Resolve for many projects. I truly hate (the new) Final Cut Pro, so if Resolve doesn't end up doing it for me, it'll be Avid and lastly FCP. I despise the Windows OS and I'll change my editing program before I switch computer platforms.
Hopefully Adobe gets their sh%&* together, but unfortunately, they don't get a lot of flack so I doubt they'll get the message. They need to focus on stability and optimization instead of constantly pushing fancy, new features. They push their programmers into corners with impossible deadlines and flashy updates with a laundry list of new features that will help sell their CC subscription. Reminds me of what happened to Word through the late 90's / early 2000's when Microsoft just kept adding more and more features, making a wonderful Word processor into a bloated, buggy mess. I really wish this article was called "Look at How Crappy Adobe is on the Mac" instead of taking the angle that the Mac is just painfully slow. In this case, it is Adobe's fault and they need more editors and writers holding them accountable.