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

$225 Price Difference From 2.6ghz vs 2.7ghz Macbook Pro. Worth it?

V

VideoNewbie

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 6, 2009
476
6
Is the $225 price difference from a 2.6ghz to a 2.7ghz macbook pro worth it??

for me i can justify the $400 difference for the 2.3ghz/256gb memory to 2.6ghz/512gb memory

but this extra 225 for 0.1 more ghz eh....

i will be using the computer A LOT i run multiple applications at a time and I always find that I run out of space (yes i can always purchase an external harddrive) but its a hassle to have to lug that thing around and plug it in everytime i need to get something.
 
If you have money to burn, it is worth it. As far as seeing real world difference in everyday computing, I seriously doubt it.
 
Never mind 2.6 to 2.7. It's hardly even worth it to upgrade from 2.3 to 2.6 unless you're after the other bits and bobs that are added

Benchmarks Core i7-3610QM (2.3) Core i7-3720QM (2.6)

Super Pi 2M (Lower in better) 26.1 seconds 23.8 seconds

3D Mark 06 CPU 6097 6606

Windows 7 Experience Score 7.6 7.6

Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit: 6.2 6.5
 
The processor upgrade also includes a L3 cache, if that makes a difference to anyone.

I still think it's rather ridiculous.
 
Well, it says

You can upgrade the processor in your MacBook Pro to the 2.7GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor, featuring 8MB L3 cache and Turbo Boost speeds up to 3.7GHz.
Click to expand...

So I have no idea what kind of L3 cache the 2.6GHz processor has just from that.
 
so would you all say that even the $400 difference for 2.3ghz/256gb memory to 2.6ghz/512gb memory is NOT worth it??

what if i were to buy the regular 15inch retina 2.3ghz/256gb ? in this case would upgrading from 8 gb ram to 16gb ram be worth the extra $180?
 
Last edited:
VideoNewbie said:
so would you all say that even the $400 difference for 2.3ghz/256gb memory to 2.6ghz/512gb memory is NOT worth it??

what if i were to buy the regular 15inch retina 2.3ghz/256gb ? in this case would upgrading from 8 gb ram to 16gb ram be worth the extra $180?
Click to expand...

1. That upgrade is worth it.

2. *sigh* What are you going to be using the computer for?
 
In Canada the difference from 2.6 to 2.7 is $270 so I really don't think this is worth it but I'd like to know if anyone thinks it could be worth it?

I would mainly need the raw CPU power for generating 1:1 previews in LR4 while working on Canon 5D3 Raw files at around 28MB per file. This process is fairly slow even on my late 2009 maxed out CPU iMac with 2.8 GHz i7. Is the newer processor any better than what is in my imac right now?? Anyone with more knowledge on recent CPUs? I'm sure this one must be better being 3 years newer??

So I really would like anyones opinion on if the 2.6 in the Retina MacBook Pro would be faster than my current imac and if anyone sees any reason that 2.7 would be any better than the 2.6.

Thanks for any advice/opinions/facts!!
 
apple always ticks me off with their absurd processor upgrade options.
from 2.3 to 2.4 is pretty much nothing.
They have a similar ploy on almost every computer they sell.
The ram tax is understandable, the hard drive likewise.
But CPU is not an easy thing to upgrade on Macbooks. That their options are so slight in terms of performance increase is very annoying.
 
calaverasgrande said:
apple always ticks me off with their absurd processor upgrade options.
from 2.3 to 2.4 is pretty much nothing.
They have a similar ploy on almost every computer they sell.
The ram tax is understandable, the hard drive likewise.
But CPU is not an easy thing to upgrade on Macbooks. That their options are so slight in terms of performance increase is very annoying.
Click to expand...

I agree, I couldn't believe it when I saw the 2.6 to 2.7 for over $200. There is no way that could make a difference to anyone in the real world. However, I wonder if the 6GB to 8GB Cache difference may be more meaningful? Anyone know what sort of tasks this L3 cache helps with??
 
Xcelerate said:
Do we know the base configuring has the 3610QM as opposed to the (worse) 3615QM? Both are 2.3 GHz.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you think the 3615QM is worse? It's the same CPU, but has a slightly faster Intel 4000 IGP.

Anandtech.com said:
Move to the OEM parts and the story is again similar to what we saw with the Sandy Bridge launch, only with a few extra parts out of the gates. The i7-3615QM drops down another 300MHz from the 3720QM, and the GPU clock also drops 50MHz. The 3610QM is basically the same part but with a different package and a lower maximum GPU clock.
Click to expand...

Were you not thinking of the 3612 QM? It has a 2.1 GHz base clock.
 
Absolutely not worth it. The Ivy bridge chipsets itself are very minimal in performance compared to Sandy Bridge, in fact it is only up to 15% higher. Also, rendering speeds will be very few seconds faster. If you have that kind of extra money to spend, I would waste more and get more SSD storage.
 
boto said:
Absolutely not worth it. The Ivy bridge chipsets itself are very minimal in performance compared to Sandy Bridge, in fact it is only up to 15% higher. Also, rendering speeds will be very few seconds faster. If you have that kind of extra money to spend, I would waste more and get more SSD storage.
Click to expand...

on the website,
i dont see the option on the 15"mbpro retina 2.3ghz to get "ssd storage"?
it says that it only has a set storage of 256gbflash
 
i had the same ? should i max out with 2.7 is the difference the L3
cache? I bought a laptop mac pro one year ago and I have a
OWC top of the line ssd drive so I am not sure the MBP will be much faster
I have 2.3GHZ i7 with mercury pro 6G extreme ssd any opinions?
 
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
Back