How Big Is The Difference?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by DM1986, Jun 13, 2012.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #1
    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?
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    #2
    Big difference on CPU intensive jobs, such as number crunching! Basic math: (2.9-2.0)/2.9 = 0.31 = 31%.
     
  3. macrumors 65816

    Destroysall

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #3
    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.
     
  4. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #4
    What bout 2 core i7 vs 4 core i7??
     
  5. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2010
    #5
    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
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    #6
    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).
     
  7. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2010
    Location:
    Apple tree-Toronto
    #7
    Wait few days to see the benchmarks on http://barefeats.com/
     
  8. macrumors 65816

    Destroysall

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #8
    Are you planning on doing anything CPU intensive?
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    monokakata

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawai'i
    #9
    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.
     
  10. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #10
    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..


    still don't get it bro:confused:
     
  11. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2009
    #11
    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.

    ----------

    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.
     
  12. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    #12
    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.
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 17, 2011
    #13
    It will be kind of you if you do not use this kind of words.
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    Destroysall

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #14
    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! :)
     
  15. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #15
    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?
     
  16. Destroysall, Jun 16, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2012

    macrumors 65816

    Destroysall

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #16
    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! :)
     
  17. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #17
    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.. :(
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    Destroysall

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #18
    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.
     
  19. macrumors newbie

    Dindorio

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    #19
    The difference is very small between these two. I have noticed the only one difference among them. Its the storage capacity.
     

Share This Page