The article brings up integration with the newest chipset from intel: Skylake. I am sure the 3 computers I referenced above have different iterations of processor, even in the same "family". Am I missing larger improvements by reading too much into the specs? Is a Skylake processor or a jump from intel 4100 - 6100 graphics that large. I am an Apple fan, but a sub 2ghz processor seems very small for a laptop. Does the clock speed (i believe that is the metric) not matter and they are much superior now?
I find it hard to "feel" much improvement after buying a new laptop, so even in concert there doesn't feel like much speed improvement / better experience from hardware, at least within the Apple ecosystem.
Thoughts?
As for the new Skylake i5 - Iris graphics are a huge step up from the 4100 model, but overall there isn't much reason to upgrade. CPUs have been stagnating in terms of performance for a few years now.
I wonder what the Macbook would be like as an IntelliJ machine. 8GB of RAM is good, and the screen coaxed into native resolution mode has lots of real estate. But how would the CPU hold up? Especially during full Maven builds...
However, I just mean do the ghz mean anything? In 3 years the flagship MBP has moved .1ghz about. From a hardware stand point, is the type (e.g. skylake) a bigger indicator of performance than 2.9ghz or something.
I guess in most basic terms, for all intents and purposes, how much faster is a 2012 MBP with intel i5 2.6ghz v 2015 MBP with intel i5 2.6ghz. All other things equal?
