even with issues or expensive or angry, yes! for me apple is the best, is not just a product is a way to see some things in life; but well I hope that kind of vision dont change in the next years... we dont want an angry Steve!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
15" MacBook Pro Retina 2.3GHz vs 2.6GHz
- Thread starter SimonFi
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
even with issues or expensive or angry, yes! for me apple is the best, is not just a product is a way to see some things in life; but well I hope that kind of vision dont change in the next years... we dont want an angry Steve!
johnnylarue said:
Sorry Starfyre, I m like johnnylarue I don't understand your point : even thought there is less fluctation on the 2.6 Ghz (6,5 hours), there is still a 1,5h difference your test which seems to be representative of a classical use, no ?
If you go with a 1TB they have them in the store , they are not listed anywhere on line but they keep the max. config in store for up selling reasons. I bought one Saturday and replaced it yesterday but had nothing to do with yellow screen or any of that stuff. I had some repair permission issues and turns out my laptop was never registered in Apples own system on production so it could not be seen by there servers and could not be repaired. They had another one in store and it is as good as the first one with great screen and no issues.
Put it simply, using percentages. Both laptops are fairly consistent in the rate that that 100% decreases as more battery is consumed despite the same tasks being performed.
The time remaining on the 2.6 says X hours, the time on the 2.3 says Y hours... Y is greater than X initially. As both percentages go down the X and Y fluctuates depending on whats happing. (i.e. when opening the web browser and decreasing brightness to 50% from 100%, battery shows 10 hours. X fluctuates too, less than 10 hours though). Over time, even though percentages still go down, battery life appears to change for up and down (generally down for the 2.6). However, at some point (playing of the video and browsing the web, combined with running a few benchmarks) the 2.6 ends up ahead by a few percent compared to the 2.3. The lower it goes, the less fluctuation in time is shown and I observed less battery life remaining on 2.3 than 2.6.
Gotcha!
I realize this is purely anecdotal data--it's not really a fair comparison unless you are making both computers do exactly the same tasks for the same amount of time--but it's nonetheless still valuable in supporting the theory that, in real world use, the difference in battery life between the two models is negligible.
I have both the 2.3 and 2.6 (16 / 1 TB / 750M). I am performing some tests to compare them -- performing real-world tasks, looking at the heat generated and the battery life. I'm recording my results in an Excel spreadsheet and would like to post them. Can anyone suggest a hosting site?
FYI -- I'm capturing the "battery life" (% remaining and the hours remaining); iStatPro CPU and GPU temps, and the fan speed.
FYI -- I'm capturing the "battery life" (% remaining and the hours remaining); iStatPro CPU and GPU temps, and the fan speed.
+1 !
Sorry to be low brow but why do you care so much the battery indicator, if it s accurate or stable ? As for me i care about the time i can use my mac without searching for my charger, but maybe i' m missing something...StarFyre said:
Last edited:
I continuously ran the 2.3 and 2.6 until the battery drained (16 / 1 TB / 750M). These corroborate Starfyre's observations.
Here are my own observations - based on my personal usage (folks will have higher battery life than me):
This is still a work in progress - I still need to finish entering data for 2.3:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3KSNW4vEOBoX2ItX1Zhdk9LM0U/edit?usp=sharing
My set-up / tasks:
Here are my own observations - based on my personal usage (folks will have higher battery life than me):
- the heat (what I feel on the bottom of the laptop and also the palm rests) felt the same on both machines
- 2.3 gave me about 45 minutes more of battery life for my usage (2.3: 6 hrs vs. 2.6: 5 hrs 15 mins)
- Fan speeds were pretty equal throughout (2000 rpm on left and right)
- 2.3 takes longer to cool down after intensive tasks
- I ran subsequent test with Handbrake: the fans were about 5500 rpm on right & 6000 on left (similar on both machines); 2.3 temps ran about 4 to 6 F degrees higher than 2.6; the 2.3 took slightly longer to cool down
This is still a work in progress - I still need to finish entering data for 2.3:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3KSNW4vEOBoX2ItX1Zhdk9LM0U/edit?usp=sharing
My set-up / tasks:
- Itunes, Evernote, Chrome (4 to 5 tabs open), Google Drive, Adobe Reader, Microsoft Outlook, Microsfot Word; ScanSnap, Neat
- Brightness: 75%
- Bluetooth: On (with pair, audio streaming to Big Jambox)
2.0 Ghz processor
If people are getting the 2.3 Ghz over the 2.6 Ghz to increase battery life, why not go for the 2.0 Ghz using the same logic (assuming no need for the discrete graphics card)? Are there any missing features/functionality in the 2.0 Ghz CPU?
Has anyone done any real-world testing of bettery life on the 2.0 Ghz version?
If people are getting the 2.3 Ghz over the 2.6 Ghz to increase battery life, why not go for the 2.0 Ghz using the same logic (assuming no need for the discrete graphics card)? Are there any missing features/functionality in the 2.0 Ghz CPU?
Has anyone done any real-world testing of bettery life on the 2.0 Ghz version?
FYI your chart is no good (for cpu temps) because you are measuring CPU HEATSINK which is the physical heatsink temp and NOT the CPU Die temp (which is the actual cpu, and the temp that matters)... CPU Heatsink temp is NOT CPU temp... aka worthless measurement.
Download iStat Menu to get an accurate CPU temp reading... I don't know why people keep using iStat Pro...
