2.6 GHz vs 2.7 GHz Retina Macbook Pro Real World Difference

dpnguye2 said:

Hi Everyone,

I am planning to purchase the new Macbook Pro, and was wondering how much a difference there would be between the 2.6GHz processor and the 2.7 GHz processor in real world use.

Clearly it would be faster, but is it noticeably faster? and is it worth the $250 for the upgrade?

Click to expand...

It's about 8.1% faster (CPU Benchmarks). $250 is about 8-12% of the cost, depending on configuration. I'd say no unless you do a lot of video rendering or benchmarks.

dpnguye2 said:

Hi Everyone,

I am planning to purchase the new Macbook Pro, and was wondering how much a difference there would be between the 2.6GHz processor and the 2.7 GHz processor in real world use.

Clearly it would be faster, but is it noticeably faster? and is it worth the $250 for the upgrade?

Click to expand...

Walk away from your desk, get coffee or go to the bathroom and come back. You won't notice the difference unless you are doing major video or Pixar 3d work, in which case you'd have a server farm to render.

You would better off investing the $250 and putting it to your next Mac in a few years. ( as long as there isn't another financial meltdown. )

I'm really debating this one!!!

Is the upgrade to 16GB ram worth it? Personally, the most CPU intensive task I do is run windows under fusion. However, is it worth buying it now to futureproof it? (Sorry for going off topic, but I thought it'd be relative).

BigZ9 said:

Is the upgrade to 16GB ram worth it? Personally, the most CPU intensive task I do is run windows under fusion. However, is it worth buying it now to futureproof it? (Sorry for going off topic, but I thought it'd be relative).

Click to expand...

This upgrade I do believe is justifiable for certain people. You qualify for it since you're virtualizing OSs. I'd do it.

Epic Xbox Revie said:

This upgrade I do believe is justifiable for certain people. You qualify for it since you're virtualizing OSs. I'd do it.

Click to expand...

^ Also, you are more future proof. Lion already needs 4gigs on startup. Apple is on an "OS Per Year" release schedule. If you plan on keeping the laptop for five years, that's five Mac OS X's from a 4 gig minimum.

dokujaryu said:

^ Also, you are more future proof. Lion already needs 4gigs on startup. Apple is on an "OS Per Year" release schedule. If you plan on keeping the laptop for five years, that's five Mac OS X's from a 4 gig minimum.

Click to expand...

I'm currently running Lion on 3GB of ram and it isn't bad at all. Though you make an excellent point with the "OS per Year" thing. For $180 I might as well splurge on the 16GB of ram. Thanks!

The 2.7GHz processor bump is not worth it IMO. The best config, I think, is the base spec with 16GB RAM. I would prob get the higher model (+16GB RAM) if it was my solo machine.

The only thing it really nets you is a bit more Turbo. I wouldn't worry about it.

BigZ9 said:

Is the upgrade to 16GB ram worth it? Personally, the most CPU intensive task I do is run windows under fusion. However, is it worth buying it now to futureproof it? (Sorry for going off topic, but I thought it'd be relative).

Click to expand...

I don't believe in futureproofing with most things, as it's not always possible to predict a future line in the sand kind of situation. Overall I find ram to be better for this than a slightly faster cpu.

BigZ9 said:

I'm currently running Lion on 3GB of ram and it isn't bad at all. Though you make an excellent point with the "OS per Year" thing. For $180 I might as well splurge on the 16GB of ram. Thanks!

Click to expand...

It depends what you do with it. For anything ram hungry, I go by the point of where the gains stop being significant.

thekev said:

It depends what you do with it. For anything ram hungry, I go by the point of where the gains stop being significant.

Click to expand...

Well, I'll be starting my undergrad in engineering this year and I want a computer that will last me atleast 5 years, the length of the program. As of now, I absolutely don't need 16GB of ram, but it's really hard for me to say what kind of things, work related or hobbies, I'll get into that will require the extra oomph. Hence why, I feel futureproofing is a big deal for me. Then again, I've been running on 3GB for the longest time and can't fully comprehend what 16GB means

BigZ9 said:

Well, I'll be starting my undergrad in engineering this year and I want a computer that will last me atleast 5 years, the length of the program. As of now, I absolutely don't need 16GB of ram, but it's really hard for me to say what kind of things, work related or hobbies, I'll get into that will require the extra oomph. Hence why, I feel futureproofing is a big deal for me. Then again, I've been running on 3GB for the longest time and can't fully comprehend what 16GB means

Click to expand...

#1 As some one who is finding the step down from 8GB to 4GB painful, I say get the 16GB. You'll thank yourself later.

#2 you can't upgrade in the future. That's the one really obnoxious thing about that laptop. Not being able to upgrade the Airs was suspect but not being able to upgrade a "Pro" laptop seems crazy. Precisely because my needs as a pro change and I'm sure yours will to as a student.

#3 more RAM means less swapping which means less wear on your SSD which Apple charges a pretty penny for.

Ram is not upgradeable!!

BigZ9 said:

Is the upgrade to 16GB ram worth it? Personally, the most CPU intensive task I do is run windows under fusion. However, is it worth buying it now to futureproof it? (Sorry for going off topic, but I thought it'd be relative).

Click to expand...

Keep in mind that the Ram is not upgradable in this computer. Nothing is in fact. The ram is fused to the motherboard, so there is no adding it later. I for one think that I will regret not maxing it out from the get-go.

BigZ9 said:

Is the upgrade to 16GB ram worth it? Personally, the most CPU intensive task I do is run windows under fusion. However, is it worth buying it now to futureproof it? (Sorry for going off topic, but I thought it'd be relative).

Click to expand...

Plus it seems the RAM is not user upgradable it might even be soldered onto the mainboard and no longer a SIMM. So I'm going to futureproof and get the max RAM.

EDIT: Damn they beat me to it ^

Nice

I never realized that using a PC had such an adverse effect on ones income. Seems like a no brainer to upgrade to a Mac.

My personal opinion is that CPU "upgrades" are virtually pointless. Here are the Geekbench scores for the various Retina Macbook Pros:

2.3ghz (base) - 10831
2.6ghz (mid) - 11632
2.7ghz (high) - 11948

Geekbench isn't the end-all-be-all, but since the numbers are readily available across platforms, it is an easy quick comparison. The only reason I even see someone go for the Mid is if you need the 512GB SSD (since you can't upgrade to that from the base).

Based on the numbers up there, the extra 10% in speed from the base to high end, isn't going to get you more than at best 6 more months of usage. You would be better served to save the 800 in price difference and put towards an upgrade to a new MBP sooner (again unless you need the 512GB drive).

I would; however, upgrade to the 16GB of RAM if you do any VM's or Audio/Video work especially since you can't upgrade that later.

dpnguye2 said:

Hi Everyone,

I am planning to purchase the new Macbook Pro, and was wondering how much a difference there would be between the 2.6GHz processor and the 2.7 GHz processor in real world use.

Clearly it would be faster, but is it noticeably faster? and is it worth the $250 for the upgrade?

Click to expand...

Take that money and buy an applecare plan, you'll need that far more than a few extra flops for what u need. Remember the retina MBP has almost ZERO repairability.

Santabean2000 said:

The 2.7GHz processor bump is not worth it IMO. The best config, I think, is the base spec with 16GB RAM. I would prob get the higher model (+16GB RAM) if it was my solo machine.

Click to expand...

I agree, except you cannot upgrade the storage on the base model, which is quite limiting. Is it realistic to have an SDXC card permanently in the slot to boost storage?

Moonjumper said:

Is it realistic to have an SDXC card permanently in the slot to boost storage?

Click to expand...

No. It sticks out.

eron said:

No. It sticks out.

Click to expand...

Thanks, at least I could archive projects on SDXC cards and have easy access to them without filling up the SSD.

If it takes 60 minutes to encode a video on the 2.3 it will take about 53 minutes on the 2.6. Hardly worth the costs of the upgrade unless you need the disk space.

If it takes 60 minutes to encode a video on the 2.3, it won't fit on the SSD in the first place.

benpatient said:

If it takes 60 minutes to encode a video on the 2.3, it won't fit on the SSD in the first place.

Click to expand...

It's not a great idea to keep vid files on your primary drive; we could assume TB or USB3 external.

Usually when it comes down to it, those who need it, know they do, so they don't ask. If you have to ask, you don't need it.