Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Will I suffer any noticeable processor hit when upgrading?

R

raymondu999

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 11, 2008
1,009
1
I have a mid-2012 2.6GHz quad i7 Retina MBP (then top of the line). Now I'm looking to upgrade, and since I got an MBA now it rarely goes outdoors - it's more like a stowable desktop now. I'm considering eitber the current top line MBP (2.3GHz quad i7 I think?) And the current top line 21" iMac (2.9GHz quad i5?) Question is - will I suffer a processor performance hit on either buy? The rMBP has a clock speed hit, the iMac has a class hit to i5. I actually want an i7 iMac, but they're not available in my country.

The heaviest thing I do is really just the occasional StarCraft 2 or F1 2013. Other than that it's iWork or web browsing or some other.
 
Last edited:
alphaod

alphaod

macrumors Core
Feb 9, 2008
22,183
1,245
NYC
Even though the new rMBP (2.3) has a slower clock, it's still faster that your current one (2.6); it's about 8% on average faster than you old one (the new 2.6 is about 14% faster than your computer).

Anyways why not buy a display instead of a new computer? That way you'll still have a powerful portable Mac should you need it.
 
R

raymondu999

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 11, 2008
1,009
1
I really don't need so much power whenever I'm traveling, so I don't need the mobile capability. My MacBook Air does that well enough.

I do have my reasons for upgrading - because the next person in the hand-me-down chain needs an upgrade!

Would the i5 iMac (with BTO not being an option in my country) be a step up, or a step down from my current retina mbp? I'm looking at the iMac because if I don't need a mobile computer other than my Air I might as well, no?

The tradeoff in my mind would be that while the iMac is cheaper, and bigger screen, I wonder if I'd miss retina, and whether I'd be taking a step back in performance (HDD rather than SSD, i5 rather than i7)
 
dollystereo

dollystereo

macrumors 6502a
Oct 6, 2004
907
114
France
Imac with fusion is a good performer.
The imac has a desktop CPU, so it would be fast.
For the screen, you would have to try it.
 
velocityg4

velocityg4

macrumors 604
Dec 19, 2004
7,329
4,717
Georgia
raymondu999 said:
I really don't need so much power whenever I'm traveling, so I don't need the mobile capability. My MacBook Air does that well enough.

I do have my reasons for upgrading - because the next person in the hand-me-down chain needs an upgrade!

Would the i5 iMac (with BTO not being an option in my country) be a step up, or a step down from my current retina mbp? I'm looking at the iMac because if I don't need a mobile computer other than my Air I might as well, no?

The tradeoff in my mind would be that while the iMac is cheaper, and bigger screen, I wonder if I'd miss retina, and whether I'd be taking a step back in performance (HDD rather than SSD, i5 rather than i7)
Click to expand...

Going from a SSD back to a HD can be quite a noticeable performance hit. You might want to consider upgrading it yourself to a SSD or make your own Fusion drive. As for Retina to non-Retina that is more subjective. I finally sat down and used a Retina MBP and it didn't look any different to me than a non Retina.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom