I wonder why the single core benchmarks are higher on the 15" when comparing i7 vs i7 when the clock on the 13" is higher
Are you serious?
I wonder why the single core benchmarks are higher on the 15" when comparing i7 vs i7 when the clock on the 13" is higher
I think there won't be huge Benchmark increases for a while now.
Any future processor performance increase will be used as a way to further decrease the clock speed to save energy and make devices even thinner and lighter.
Comments?
I have an early 2011 MBPro 15", 2.3 GHz i7, 8 GB RAM, 512 GB SSD, and comparing my scores to those of the new models:
15-inch MacBook Pro:
- My 15" MBPro, 2011 : Single-Core 2810, Multi-Core 10405
- i7-4750HQ @ 2.0 GHz: Single-Core 2844, Multi-Core 10887
- i7-4850HQ @ 2.3 GHz: Single-Core 3100, Multi-Core 11771
- i7-4960HQ @ 2.6 GHz: Single-Core 3379, Multi-Core 12813
Frankly the fact that I can still drop an upgraded hard disk in there any time I want (instead of being locked-down to the disk (and RAM) sizes when I but the Mac from Apple,) means I'll be sticking with my current Mac for a while.
It is interesting to note the multi-core values are about 1000 points or about 10% from speed to speed but the price differential is closer to 20-30%. So the lower end i7's are a "better value".article said:15-inch with quad-core CPU:
- i7-4750HQ @ 2.0 GHz: Single-Core 2844, Multi-Core 10887
- i7-4850HQ @ 2.3 GHz: Single-Core 3100, Multi-Core 11771
- i7-4960HQ @ 2.6 GHz: Single-Core 3379, Multi-Core 12813
Macs are designed to last for longer than a year! If you look after it and are willing to watch the technology world race ahead (as it inevitably will), then that machine should last you 3-5 years, if Mavericks is still available to Macbook Pros built in 2007, then you can expect 6 years of support from Apple's end
The retina display isn't a "meaningful distinction"?