Surface Book vs. MacBook Pro: It isn't twice as fast. It's three times as fast (Ruh-roh!)

PC World ^ | Oct 22, 2015 | Gordon Mah Ung

[dayglored]

Of course we had to pit the Surface Book vs. the MacBook Pro. It’s like Ford vs. Chevy, or Coke vs. Pepsi. Each side has its diehard fans, plus others who just want to know which is better.

Microsoft claims its new Surface Book is “twice” as fast as its equivalent MacBook Pro. Well, we ran some benchmarks, and hate to say it, but Microsoft lied. The Surface Book isn’t twice as fast.

It’s three times as fast. Read on for the details.

What Microsoft meant

First, let’s clarify what Microsoft meant when it said the Surface Book would smoke the MacBook Pro. The company specifically means the MacBook Pro 13 inch model. That’s a very important distinction, because the MacBook Pro 15 is a different class of laptop. It’s larger, heavier, and packs a quad-core CPU and fairly beefy AMD discrete graphics. For Microsoft to say the Surface Book out performed the MacBook Pro 15 would be absurd. It would be like Apple saying the MacBook Pro 15 outperforms, oh, an MSI GT 80 Titan SLI laptop in gaming. So the target for the Surface Book is the MacBook Pro 13. Microsoft even compares the two directly in its reviewers guide.

How I tested

...

(Lots and lots of detail at the source...)

[Swordmaker]

iCloud, Apple Music, Apple TV, iHealth, app Store, iPay, in-app purchases, off the top of my head. Forgetful?

Uh, Okie, Apple TV is a product. . . has been for a little over nine years. In fact, there are more Apple TVs on the market than any other streaming set-top boxes, with almost 30 million sold.

[norwaypinesavage]

"Nor reinstalling Windows. Nor constant driver updates."

You're living in the 20th century. I run ten, or so, Win 7 machines. I've never done a reinstall, or driver update on any.

[Swordmaker]

However, the point of the article at the end was for $1500 you get that improved speed BECAUSE of the graphics included in the Surface Book.

Actually, no, you can't. The Microsoft Surface Book that sells for $1499 is an Intel i5 8GB RAM with a 128GB SSD and Intel® Iris HD Graphics 520 (non-GPU). To get the GPU version, you have to upgrade, for $200 more, to the $1699 version. Source — Microsoft Store

[arielguard]

I looked at what’s involved with building a Hackintosh out of curiosity once. Way too much involved for too little return. You can build a lot into it for less but there’s really no support for it so it just wasn’t worth it. If Apple actually supported their OS on custom systems then I’d probably dual boot it for fun.

[dayglored]

> I’ve never seen any measurable performance hits due to registry bloat. The real problem is the amount of software out there that loads something at startup, at minimum the update checker.

Well, that load-at-login/startup crap is unquestionably a killer factor. I've seen systems take 5+ minutes to boot, and when you just disable it all in MSCONFIG (or the Windows Registry HKLM...Run area), suddenly bootup is under a minute.

> Another more serious issue I’ve been encountering with my customers over the past year has been the bundling of crapware with downloads from sites such as CNET; the installers are designed so that the average user won’t notice he’s adding junk. A pox on CNET for failing to enforce their own TOS in this regard.

Those download sites do love to bundle crap along with the real payload. And that doesn't even count the misleading "BEGIN DOWNLOAD" buttons that try to fake the user into clicking something that has nothing whatsoever to do with what they came for. I hate that stuff.

[Swordmaker]

Not sure what benchmarks they are using, but the one I use “GeekBench” shows that the MacBook 13” beats the Surface Book, and the MacBook Pro 15” smokes it by 2X. (And these are “older” (June 2012 release for the Pro) Apple products, due for a CPU update soon).

Your links are outdated and this is about a new as yet unreleased Microsoft product, the New Microsoft Surface Book.

[CyberAnt]

Well .. what’s there to be sad about ..??

[ThunderSleeps]

My build is much more modest. A mid range gigabyte motherboard, i3, 4 GB of memory. I did invest in a 128 GB SSD for the OS, with /home mounted on a 1 TB 10k spinner. I love that SSD/HDD split, makes a very noticeable difference, even with modest components.

[ImJustAnotherOkie]

A product requiring a subscription. Just another me-to trolling picking up crumbs.

[Swordmaker]

Uh, Okie, Apple TV is a product. . . has been for a little over nine years. In fact, there are more Apple TVs on the market than any other streaming set-top boxes, with almost 30 million sold.

No, Okie, it doesn't. . . although you can access subscription service for many companies using it, it does not require a subscription to use it. It's obvious YOU do not own one and have never used one. It is hardware.

[TXnMA]

"See the link to my FR profile that's in comment #34 above if you want details."

No doubt, I don't have to inform some one who's been a FReeper since 2005-06-11 of this, but your FRName at the bottom of all your posts is also a link to your FRProfile page... '-)

[dayglored]

> No doubt, I don't have to inform some one who's been a FReeper since 2005-06-11 of this, but your FRName at the bottom of all your posts is also a link to your FRProfile page... '-)

There you go, you went and truly made me Laugh Out Loud!

Of course you're absolutely right, and I use that feature myself daily to find out who I'm conversing with.

I occasionally post a link to the "Computer" section of the profile right in the comment text because perhaps a) the comment context suggests doing a bit of 'splainin', and b) not everybody knows or remembers about our handles being profile links.

The other factor is that more often than I like, I get labeled a Mac fanboi by Windows devotees, a Windoze fanboi by Mac-heads, a commie-lover when I say something nice about Linux, and so on. Pointing them at a clickable link is less pompous than "You have no idea who you're addressing", and way more polite than "Back off, Jackhole".

But yes, you're quite correct. ;-)

[arielguard]

I’ve thought about doing the same hard drive setup. Are you running W10 on it? If so, what is your boot time like?

[Bidimus1]

Yup, not even virus writers support mac ;)

Shame that the world runs on windows

but hey 7.2% market share is pretty good.... oh wait that’s less than XP... well at least mac is ahead of Vista.

https://www.netmarketshare.com/operating-system-market-share.aspx?qprid=10&qpcustomd=0

All fun aside I think of all the unix systems out there Mac is probably the best built for desktop use

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

“Those download sites do love to bundle crap along with the real payload. “

Yea why do you have to actively opt out of a Yahoo toolbar when you go to Oracle to update Java? Does anyone besides some poor unsuspecting ba$&*#d ever download that?

[ThunderSleeps]

No, I’m running Linux Mint 17 (latest). Boot time is a few seconds in BIOS, a few seconds loading to the sign-on screen, then a few seconds to load components and KDE. Typically at a usable desktop in 20 to 30 seconds.

[Swordmaker]

but hey 7.2% market share is pretty good.... oh wait that’s less than XP... well at least mac is ahead of Vista.

Total all versions of OS X and you get 7.72% not 7.2%, but who's quibbling.

All fun aside I think of all the unix systems out there Mac is probably the best built for desktop use

I agree but go farther.

[Bidimus1]

oops mystyped. ;)

[arielguard]

20 seconds huh? Well, I think I know what’s for Christmas now Freend. Perhaps I’ll decorate my SSD gift up with a Powercolor R9 390X Devil graphics card! Yeah.... That’s the ticket. Until the wife finds out.

[ThunderSleeps]

Yeah, I just rebooted to measure it. 3-4 sec in BIOS. 6 or 7 seconds loading to the sign-on screen. A couple of seconds while I type in a lame password. ;-) Then about 8 seconds to load the Linux Mint & KDE GUI.