Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Buying Tips and Advice

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jun 13, 2012, 08:32 PM   #1
DM1986
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
How Big Is The Difference?

I'm either choosing

MacBook Air 2012

2.0GHz Intel Dual-Core Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.2GHz
8gb Of ram

OR

MacBook Pro 2012 13"

2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i7
Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
8GB 1600MHz memory

Is there a HUGE difference between the two processors?
DM1986 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2012, 08:55 PM   #2
FrankHahn
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2011
Big difference on CPU intensive jobs, such as number crunching! Basic math: (2.9-2.0)/2.9 = 0.31 = 31%.
FrankHahn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2012, 12:29 AM   #3
Destroysall
macrumors 65816
 
Destroysall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: United States
It also depends on what is it your planning on doing. Of course, the MBP would be able to pull a larger load and work faster than the MBA.
Destroysall is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2012, 04:50 PM   #4
rays09
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destroysall View Post
It also depends on what is it your planning on doing. Of course, the MBP would be able to pull a larger load and work faster than the MBA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankHahn View Post
Big difference on CPU intensive jobs, such as number crunching! Basic math: (2.9-2.0)/2.9 = 0.31 = 31%.
What bout 2 core i7 vs 4 core i7??
rays09 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2012, 08:44 PM   #5
macrominnie
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by rays09 View Post
What bout 2 core i7 vs 4 core i7??
This is only early testing, with more tests with pro apps to follow. (MBP's tested with more RAM)

"Both MacBook Pros [2011 & 2012' are much faster than both MacBook Airs with the exception of Memory Performance which is close."

http://barefeats.com/mba12a.html
macrominnie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2012, 09:50 PM   #6
Oracle1729
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankHahn View Post
Big difference on CPU intensive jobs, such as number crunching! Basic math: (2.9-2.0)/2.9 = 0.31 = 31%.
Too bad basic math is beyond most people. Including you.
(2.9-2.0)/2.0 = 0.45 = 45% increase from the 2.0 to the 2.9.

Or if you prefer, 2.0/2.9 = 0.69 = 69%, so the 2.0 is 69% the speed of the 2.9.

And to check my work. 0.69 * (1 + 0.45) = 1.0005 (which is within my rounding error of 1).
Oracle1729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2012, 10:04 PM   #7
Black.Infinity
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Apple tree-Toronto
Wait few days to see the benchmarks on http://barefeats.com/
Black.Infinity is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 2012, 03:57 AM   #8
Destroysall
macrumors 65816
 
Destroysall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by rays09 View Post
What bout 2 core i7 vs 4 core i7??
Are you planning on doing anything CPU intensive?
Destroysall is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 2012, 05:13 AM   #9
monokakata
macrumors 65816
 
monokakata's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hilo, Hawai'i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle1729 View Post
Too bad basic math is beyond most people. Including you.
(2.9-2.0)/2.0 = 0.45 = 45% increase from the 2.0 to the 2.9.

Or if you prefer, 2.0/2.9 = 0.69 = 69%, so the 2.0 is 69% the speed of the 2.9.

And to check my work. 0.69 * (1 + 0.45) = 1.0005 (which is within my rounding error of 1).
I won't say "false precision," but considering all the variables involved I'd go with the quick-and-dirty estimation, easily done in the head:

2.9 is nearly 3, so the difference must be about 2 vs 3, or about half again.

I've read that estimation is a lost art. If so, that's a pity.
monokakata is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 2012, 02:00 PM   #10
rays09
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destroysall View Post
Are you planning on doing anything CPU intensive?
yeah aprture,adb ps,finalcutprox. what do u think? is the 13" macbook pro can handle heavy mac software?its only using dual core i5..


Quote:
Originally Posted by monokakata View Post
I won't say "false precision," but considering all the variables involved I'd go with the quick-and-dirty estimation, easily done in the head:

2.9 is nearly 3, so the difference must be about 2 vs 3, or about half again.

I've read that estimation is a lost art. If so, that's a pity.
still don't get it bro
rays09 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2012, 01:46 AM   #11
Oracle1729
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by rays09 View Post
yeah aprture,adb ps,finalcutprox. what do u think? is the 13" macbook pro can handle heavy mac software?its only using dual core i5..
MBP is much more powerful than the MBA, the people who say otherwise just don't get it. They're the ones who say an SDXC card is as fast as an SSD...My SSD is over 500MB/s while the fastest SD cards are rated for 10MB/s or 1/50th as fast. Even the theoretical limit of your USB port is only about 50MB/s.

In some apps, an MBA with its SSD is almost as fast as an MBP with an HDD. Put an SSD in the MBP and it blows the air out of the water across the board. On top of that you can up the pro to 16 gig for under $100 and you can replace the optical drive with an extra terabyte of internal storage (a lot nicer and more portable than a thinner air + external drive).

As far as 2 vs 4 cores it depends on the applications you're running. Turbo boost is a feature where it will turn off 2 cores and overclock the other 2 to try and give you the best of both worlds, so 4 is better than 2 now.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by monokakata View Post
I won't say "false precision," but considering all the variables involved I'd go with the quick-and-dirty estimation, easily done in the head:

2.9 is nearly 3, so the difference must be about 2 vs 3, or about half again.

I've read that estimation is a lost art. If so, that's a pity.
I agree with you and I generally do that in my head faster than I even realize I am, but I can't really tell someone his math is totally messed up and use a rough approximation to demonstrate it.
Oracle1729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2012, 02:35 AM   #12
FrankHahn
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2011
I am sorry that I started an argument on the percentage in the change of performance of the CPUs. Giving it a little thought, I would like to say that both of the following two methods of the estimation are correct.

1. (2.9-2.0)/2.9 = 31%.
2. (2.9-2.0)/2.0 = 45%.

For the first method, the result says that the performance goes DOWN about 31% if the CPU goes from 2.9 GHz to 2.0 GHz.

For the second method, the result says that the performance goes UP about 45% if the CPU goes from 2.0 GHz to 2.9 GHz.

What do you gales and guys say? I am open for criticism and comments.

From this instance, we could see how important it is to make a statement clear; otherwise, misunderstanding could arise.
FrankHahn is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2012, 02:46 AM   #13
FrankHahn
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: May 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oracle1729 View Post
Too bad basic math is beyond most people. Including you.
It will be kind of you if you do not use this kind of words.
FrankHahn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2012, 04:07 AM   #14
Destroysall
macrumors 65816
 
Destroysall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by rays09 View Post
yeah aprture,adb ps,finalcutprox. what do u think? is the 13" macbook pro can handle heavy mac software?its only using dual core i5..
Go with Macbook Pro, especially if you can shoot for the 2.9GHz Dual Core i7 version. The thing about Intel's Core i7 is that it has four threads. Meaning, it will work like a quad core theoretically. Plus with the Macbook Pro, you will have Nvidia's GT 650m. That is a much larger bonus as the Macbook Air uses only integrated graphics and while that's okay, you'll have a smoother work experience with a dedicated graphics chip when using an Adobe software or Final Cut. You will also be able to take advantage of technologies such as Nvidia's CUDA.

Hope that helps!
Destroysall is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2012, 05:07 AM   #15
rays09
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destroysall View Post
Go with Macbook Pro, especially if you can shoot for the 2.9GHz Dual Core i7 version. The thing about Intel's Core i7 is that it has four threads. Meaning, it will work like a quad core theoretically. Plus with the Macbook Pro, you will have Nvidia's GT 650m. That is a much larger bonus as the Macbook Air uses only integrated graphics and while that's okay, you'll have a smoother work experience with a dedicated graphics chip when using an Adobe software or Final Cut. You will also be able to take advantage of technologies such as Nvidia's CUDA.

Hope that helps!
thanks bro. i make up my mind to macbook pro now... go to retina display or just take the non retina? i thinking about non retina cause it's upgradeable hardware, and much room for hard disk, the retina it's absolutly cool stuff! but i cannot upgrade anything later and my budget limited to the basic model retina mbp with 8gb rams. what do you think?
rays09 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2012, 05:35 AM   #16
Destroysall
macrumors 65816
 
Destroysall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by rays09 View Post
thanks bro. i make up my mind to macbook pro now... go to retina display or just take the non retina? i thinking about non retina cause it's upgradeable hardware, and much room for hard disk, the retina it's absolutly cool stuff! but i cannot upgrade anything later and my budget limited to the basic model retina mbp with 8gb rams. what do you think?
Go with what you can afford. You can wait to see what the future holds if you like. Rumor is that Apple might be working to release a 13-inch retina display, but who knows when that will happen? If you feel the retina display is something you want and it fits your budget, go for it. Yet don't go for it because its "hip and new". You want something that you can work with (both in productivity and budget). If you are on the road a lot, one thing to consider is that the regular Macbook Pro does have an internal disc drive, whereas the retina does not.

Like I said before, go with what you can afford. If you feel the retina display is in your budget, go for it. Sure, you will not have any upgradeable possibilities as far as internal storage goes but memory can be upgraded up to 16GB, which is a nice thing to have. Yet if it is not in your budget, just remember that the retina display Macbook Pro will always be there and if you can't get one now, you can sometime later in the future. Once again, hope that helps!

Last edited by Destroysall; Jun 16, 2012 at 05:41 AM.
Destroysall is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2012, 06:32 AM   #17
rays09
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Destroysall View Post
Go with what you can afford. You can wait to see what the future holds if you like. Rumor is that Apple might be working to release a 13-inch retina display, but who knows when that will happen? If you feel the retina display is something you want and it fits your budget, go for it. Yet don't go for it because its "hip and new". You want something that you can work with (both in productivity and budget). If you are on the road a lot, one thing to consider is that the regular Macbook Pro does have an internal disc drive, whereas the retina does not.

Like I said before, go with what you can afford. If you feel the retina display is in your budget, go for it. Sure, you will not have any upgradeable possibilities as far as internal storage goes but memory can be upgraded up to 16GB, which is a nice thing to have. Yet if it is not in your budget, just remember that the retina display Macbook Pro will always be there and if you can't get one now, you can sometime later in the future. Once again, hope that helps!
hmm... what about it's screen? does it looks terrible on non retina? i saw the 13" screen was terrible... idk the 15" one. what do you think bout the screen?? it's retina display and slim design really worth for sacrificing the disk drive, firewire, and 1 usb3 slot, non upgradeable HW,and all things retina don't have.. i think the highend 15" non retina it's beast!! except the screen..
rays09 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2012, 04:36 PM   #18
Destroysall
macrumors 65816
 
Destroysall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by rays09 View Post
hmm... what about it's screen? does it looks terrible on non retina? i saw the 13" screen was terrible... idk the 15" one. what do you think bout the screen?? it's retina display and slim design really worth for sacrificing the disk drive, firewire, and 1 usb3 slot, non upgradeable HW,and all things retina don't have.. i think the highend 15" non retina it's beast!! except the screen..
The Retina display and non-Retina display both use IPS technology. The only difference between the two is resolution.

As far as features are concerned, there are (or will be) cable adapters that utilize the thunderbolt port for firewire. Apple's latest keynote does discuss this, briefly. Also, there are actually two USB3 ports. If you need more ports, you can always purchase a USB hub.

The only issue with the retina display is that if you plan on utilizing most of these features, and are planning to use it other than at home, you will have to carry a larger load. So it almost draws down to if you will use it a lot more on the go or not. If you will, then I would say go non-retina as it will work to your best advantage (everything will be there). Yet if you don't mind the tad extra load or will do most of the work requiring the extra features, go retina. Hard disk can be a bit of a problem for larger load files, but you can always keep an external drive with you.
Destroysall is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2012, 05:33 PM   #19
Dindorio
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
The difference is very small between these two. I have noticed the only one difference among them. Its the storage capacity.
Dindorio is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Buying Tips and Advice

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is the big difference if any [8gb vs. 16] lthomas926 MacBook Pro 63 Jan 25, 2014 08:12 PM
BIG difference between Siri and Google Now kat.hayes Alternatives to iOS and iOS Devices 21 Dec 7, 2012 03:04 PM
iPad: 2 to 4, will I notice a big difference with Retina? c14nhl iPad 27 Oct 31, 2012 06:03 AM
Big difference in i7 reno56k Mac mini 14 Oct 26, 2012 05:13 PM
Ok.... Whats the big difference?? coolweirdo MacBook Pro 58 Oct 19, 2012 09:45 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:27 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC