Both with the best processor, 16G of RAM, 1TB flash storage, but different GPU. Is the 15-inch with Quad-Core processor and discrete GPU really that much faster? Is it worth the extra $$$, size, and weight?

GRAPH LEGEND

15-in rMBP 2.9GHz - 'late 2016' Retina MacBook Pro 15-inch, 2.9GHz Quad-Core i7-6920HQ (Turbo Boost to 3.8GHz), 16G of 2133MHz LPDDR3 memory, AMD Radeon Pro 460 (4G), 1TB flash storage (APPLE SSD SM1024L)

13-in rMBP 3.3GHz - 'late 2016' Retina MacBook Pro 13-inch, 3.3GHz Dual-Core i7-6567U? (Turbo Boost to 3.6GHz), 16G of 2133MHz LPDDR3 memory, Intel Iris Graphics 550 1TB flash storage (APPLE SSD AP1024J)

CPU INTENSIVE

AFTER EFFECTS 2014 - Render TotalBenchmark Project using all cores.

(LOWER TIME IN SECONDS = FASTER)

FINAL CUT PRO X - BRUCEX 5K EXPORT TO PRORES 4444 XQ

(LOWER TIME IN SECONDS = FASTER)

FINAL CUT PRO X - GAUSSIAN BLUR RENDER

(LOWER TIME IN SECONDS = FASTER)

PHOTOSHOP CC - NOISE REDUCTION -- includes preview and final render time

(LOWER TIME IN SECONDS = FASTER)

GPU INTENSIVE

PHOTOSHOP CC - IRIS BLUR FILTER -- includes preview and final render time

(LOWER TIME IN SECONDS = FASTER)

DAVINCI RESOLVE - NOISE REDUCTION RENDER DURING PLAYBACK

(HIGHER FRAMES PER SECOND = FASTER)

MOTION - Play RAM Preview of Atmospheric Template

(HIGHER AVERAGE FRAMES PER SECOND = FASTER)

STORAGE TESTS

AJA SYSTEM TEST - LARGE SEQUENTIAL DATA TRANSFER

(HIGHER MEGABYTES PER SECOND = FASTER)

QUICKBENCH - SMALL RANDOM DATA TRANSFER

(HIGHER MEGABYTES PER SECOND = FASTER)

WHAT DID WE LEARN?

RANDOM READ PUZZLER

We were startled by the difference in small random transfer speed of the flash storage. Both had 1TB flash storage option but the 13-inch MacBook Pro was more than twice as fast doing small random READs as the 15-inch. However, if follow-up testing, when observed that if we "Allow Cache Effects," the small random read rate of the 13-inch rMBP drops to 655MB/s (average of 4K to 1024K transfer size). It would seem that cache effects would make give a faster result.

Meanwhile, if you compare the random transfer rate of just the 1024K transfer size, the 15-inch was faster (1300MB/s vs 1200MB/s). I'm going to repeat the random tests using some alternate benchmarking software to see what I learn.

On the other hand, the 15-inch was faster doing random WRITEs. According to System Profiler, the flash blades have different model numbers. Even if both have Apple controllers, the 15-inch appears to be using Samsung NAND and the 13-inch is using SanDisk NAND -- which begs the question: Are all 13-inch rMBPs getting the SanDisk version or is there a random distribution of both models of flash blade?

THE 15-INCHER ROCKS

The 7 tests using 5 Pro Applications reveal the dominance of the 15-inch model with Quad-Core i7 processor and discrete AMD Radeon Pro 460 GPU over the 13-inch with Dual-Core i7 processor and integrated Intel Iris Graphics 550.

COST/BENEFIT RATIO?

The 13-inch costs $2899 as configured. The 15-inch costs $3499 as configured or 21% more. The extra $$ buys you a bigger screen, an average of 40% faster performance running CPU intensive pro apps, and an average of 110% faster running GPU intensive pro apps.