15" MacBook Pro Retina 2.3GHz vs 2.6GHz

[BeeAnt]

I tried to play starcraft 2 ultra extrene settings on 2.3. Its quite smooth but when i turned the settings to medium i realized that ultra extreme settings isn't that smooth.

Another problem is that when i resize chrome windows by dragging the side or corner of the window, i can see some lag latency compared to resizing finder.

Would mbp running on 2.6 have this problem?

 

[Starfyre]

I tried to play starcraft 2 ultra extrene settings on 2.3. Its quite smooth but when i turned the settings to medium i realized that ultra extreme settings isn't that smooth.

Another problem is that when i resize chrome windows by dragging the side or corner of the window, i can see some lag latency compared to resizing finder.

Would mbp running on 2.6 have this problem?

What resolution are you running? Can you take a screenshot of your configuration?

 

[BeeAnt]

Its on max resolution 1920x1200.
And ya the chrome window resizing is better on lower resolution, but i can still feel some lag.

I havent tried on the starcraft problem

 

[Windows&Apple]

Its on max resolution 1920x1200.
And ya the chrome window resizing is better on lower resolution, but i can still feel some lag.

I havent tried on the starcraft problem

Try it and report back. The studding would be the GPU's fault, if anything.

 

[SmileyDude]

Its on max resolution 1920x1200.
And ya the chrome window resizing is better on lower resolution, but i can still feel some lag.

The downside with the Retina display is that when you choose 1920x1200, the machine really renders the entire UI to a 3840x2400 offscreen buffer and then scales it down to the native panel resolution of 2880x1800. It's rendering 78% more pixels than there are available to display on, which is why you incur a performance penalty for those modes.

And the performance penalty is almost all for the initial render at 3840x2400, not the scaling down. With any modern GPU, that scaling should almost come for free, minus the overhead of having to sample from the additional pixels.

 

[BeeAnt]

I just tried starcraft 2 on 2.3Ghz.
First of all the graphics is beautiful. I can play 4 v 4 (ultra settings, 2490x1556) pretty smoothly at the start of the game, but as the units gets more, I started to feel some latencies.

Do these latencies got anything to do with the CPU, do you think I would have less latencies on 2.6 Ghz?

another problem I noticed would be browsing sites like http://mashable.com/
It's kind of laggy when I scroll down through the page on Chrome, but smoothly on Safari

 

[rMBP2013]

so do you think I should exchange mine for the 2.6?
I normally use it for web development, and I used my previous mbp for about 3 years.

If it is better to switch to 2.6 then I probably get it with 1TB too, since that's what they have on stock.
I don't really use that many storage, and I only have 256GB SSD on my previous macbook.

You probably won't even notice the extra speed difference in your day-to-day tasks. I'd save the money now 'cuz you want to replace it in 3 year's time anyways so use the saved money now to buy the new laptop in the future.

I would never "max it out." Not because I can't afford it, but because (like most folks here) I like to have the newest technology every 3 years and it would be redundant spending extra money now and then again in 3 years' time.

 

[darkenedhue]

I'll definitely go for the 15" model with dedicated graphics card. But I'm not quite sure if I should order the 2.3 GHz model or the 2.6 GHz model.
I usually keep my laptops for > 4 years and use them mainly for engineering tasks (software development and CAD).
Do you think that the 2.6 GHz CPU is worth the premium over the 2.3 GHz model?

I got the 2.3 GHz, and its super fast for my requirements (photoshop, fcpx etc).

This year's top CPU choice (2.6), unlike last years top model is only 6MB L3 cache. With the 2.7 last year you got 8MB so all you are getting now is a tiny bit more turbo boost and higher GHz baseline. This'll mean while its slightly faster overall, you'll be getting less battery life as a result.

Save your money and buy more SSD space or a decent external TB/USB3.0 HDD is my recommendation.

 

[BeeAnt]

Yes, actually I'm happy with my 2.3. It's really fast, comfortable and gives good feeling when I use it.

However, I'm still wondering whether 2.6 would solve all the problems I mentioned above, would it be just about the same, or just slightly better with the lag still only less of them.

I'm planning to buy MacPro on Dec, so considering this, I need to save some money too.

 

[Starfyre]

The > 4 years part makes me lean towards 2.6. Especially since there are some reports of battery life being close or exceeding 8 hours. (Would love to hear more)

Leaning towards the 2.6 myself, I use solidworks, and good 3D performance is a plus, which the 2.6 gives that extra boost to the Iris Pro on top of the 320. The idea being that if not being plugged in and on the go, I can still use something to turn off the discrete GPU and just have the integrated GPU do some (maybe not as intense) 3D rendering. It is the most powerful laptop processor to date, and can still get over 7 hours of battery life (i hope more owners can support this fact), I see no reason not to get the 2.6 if you have the money.

Interestingly, I've looked at some of the older 2010 and 2011 macbook pros, and it appears that at Idle, the noise level of the machines actually are more quiet for machines with higher clock speeds than ones with lower clock speeds, so theoretically speaking, the 2.6 might actually be more silent and run cooler than the 2.3 despite being speedy, which is a major plus. I recall another user Quu, saying that it is cool and silent, which appears to support that observation.

 

[Atomic Walrus]

Yes, actually I'm happy with my 2.3. It's really fast, comfortable and gives good feeling when I use it.

However, I'm still wondering whether 2.6 would solve all the problems I mentioned above, would it be just about the same, or just slightly better with the lag still only less of them.

I'm planning to buy MacPro on Dec, so considering this, I need to save some money too.

The limitation here is CPU side, however it shouldn't be; Mavericks offloaded some of these operations to the GPU, and more "outsourcing" to the GPU will be required to solve these problems. If you want to see something interesting, compare your performance at full native resolution (you'll need a 3rd party app or some terminal know-how to do this). You'll quickly discover that full 2880x1800 actually performs better in these kinds of tests than even "native" retina (1440x900 HiDPI). Scaled retina resolutions are even worse, because even more frame-composing work is being done by the CPU.

The 2.6 will almost certainly not solve stuttering seen when resizing, or frame dropping when scrolling. It can improve those issues, but solving them entirely from an 8% CPU speed increase is not possible.

Look at it like this: If you're currently getting 40fps when scrolling on a 2.3 (which will show some stuttering; anything below 60 will) the 2.6 will get at best, if we give it a full 10% to make the math easier, 44 fps. That may look slightly smoother, but you'll still see stuttering. If window resizing is getting you 20 fps (entirely possible) a 10% boost could produce 22 fps.

The short version is: the only thing that will solve retina scrolling or resizing stutters is additional OS-level optimizations (which I'm sure are in the works since retina is here to stay). That, or a massive CPU performance boost in a future Intel generation, but this would be a terrible way to solve the problem.

If you're really in need of 1920x1200's screen real-estate for certain usage situations you might want to try non-retina 1920x1200 (again you'll need a simple 3rd party utility for this). It looks very good (though you lose super-sampling advantages to aliasing quality on extremely small details) and actually uses significantly less CPU power than even native retina.

The only sensible reason to upgrade to the 2.6 is because you want the actual processing power for CPU-intensive tasks. And that can be a very good reason. But I wouldn't recommend it just because you think it might have some major impact on daily usage (it won't). (Edit: As a tech junkie I would also accept "wanting the fastest thing possible just because" as a good upgrade reason )

 

[Starfyre]

The limitation here is CPU side, however it shouldn't be; Mavericks offloaded some of these operations to the GPU, and more "outsourcing" to the GPU will be required to solve these problems. If you want to see something interesting, compare your performance at full native resolution (you'll need a 3rd party app or some terminal know-how to do this). You'll quickly discover that full 2880x1800 actually performs better in these kinds of tests than even "native" retina (1440x900 HiDPI). Scaled retina resolutions are even worse, because even more frame-composing work is being done by the CPU.

The 2.6 will almost certainly not solve stuttering seen when resizing, or frame dropping when scrolling. It can improve those issues, but solving them entirely from an 8% CPU speed increase is not possible.

Look at it like this: If you're currently getting 40fps when scrolling on a 2.3 (which will show some stuttering; anything below 60 will) the 2.6 will get at best, if we give it a full 10% to make the math easier, 44 fps. That may look slightly smoother, but you'll still see stuttering. If window resizing is getting you 20 fps (entirely possible) a 10% boost could produce 22 fps.

The short version is: the only thing that will solve retina scrolling or resizing stutters is additional OS-level optimizations (which I'm sure are in the works since retina is here to stay). That, or a massive CPU performance boost in a future Intel generation, but this would be a terrible way to solve the problem.

If you're really in need of 1920x1200's screen real-estate for certain usage situations you might want to try non-retina 1920x1200 (again you'll need a simple 3rd party utility for this). It looks very good (though you lose super-sampling advantages to aliasing quality on extremely small details) and actually uses significantly less CPU power than even native retina.

The only sensible reason to upgrade to the 2.6 is because you want the actual processing power for CPU-intensive tasks. And that can be a very good reason. But I wouldn't recommend it just because you think it might have some major impact on daily usage (it won't). (Edit: As a tech junkie I would also accept "wanting the fastest thing possible just because" as a good upgrade reason )

This depends on the FPS. If it just happens to be close enough to unstutterability, then it just might make it smooth. Plus, with the Iris Pro graphics also getting a clock speed boost would help too when the dGPU is not being used that could help with the smoothness. Either way, choppiness is really sad for a machine of this cost if its as bad as at sounds. I mean, come on, Windows on a Dell XPS 15 wouldn't stutter and your not paying anywhere near what the 15'' rMBP costs.

 

[johnnylarue]

This depends on the FPS. If it just happens to be close enough to unstutterability, then it just might make it smooth. Plus, with the Iris Pro graphics also getting a clock speed boost would help too when the dGPU is not being used that could help with the smoothness. Either way, choppiness is really sad for a machine of this cost if its as bad as at sounds. I mean, come on, Windows on a Dell XPS 15 wouldn't stutter and your not paying anywhere near what the 15'' rMBP costs.

Is it disappointing that a company which designs its own hardware and proprietary software can't quite make the two work together flawlessly prior to release? Well, yes, but that's not to suggest they won't figure out a way to improve the experience in the coming months. Compare the lag on a 2012 rMBP using Mountain Lion with the same machine with Mavericks installed and, well, the proof's in the pudding, as they say. It's a work in progress.

A CPU increase of 0.3GHz, or 10%, will never result in any perceivable gain in "smoothness" with regards to the UI--especially when you consider that the CPU is only one part of the equation. Without wanting to put words in the Walrus' mouth, I think the point he was making was that there is no fixed range of 4 FPS that can realistically take you from "choppy" to "smooth as silk".

 

[Atomic Walrus]

This depends on the FPS. If it just happens to be close enough to unstutterability, then it just might make it smooth. Plus, with the Iris Pro graphics also getting a clock speed boost would help too when the dGPU is not being used that could help with the smoothness. Either way, choppiness is really sad for a machine of this cost if its as bad as at sounds. I mean, come on, Windows on a Dell XPS 15 wouldn't stutter and your not paying anywhere near what the 15'' rMBP costs.

Yeah, if you were right on the line at 55fps you could get up to 60fps in that case. I don't think I'd pay $200 for that one extreme case, but it's not my place to tell others what's a good value/performance ratio (and if you're already doing the upgrade because of your CPU-bound processing operations it's a potential bonus).

Unfortunately a GPU clock increase isn't going to help; without further OS-level optimizations the Iris Pro isn't even close to being fully taxed (try the same tests with the 750m and you'll see it makes no difference). I actually doubt even HD 4000 is being fully utilized when these things are going on.

It's still a software issue no matter how you approach it. So you can blame Apple for not having the graphical optimizations Windows has (which is very true) but you can't blame the hardware. Again, if you run at full 2880x1800 everything is perfectly smooth so it's definitely the OS's "HiDPI" scaling that's causing any slowdown.

It's also not nearly as bad as what you may be getting from this discussion. For example, 90% of the time in Safari scrolling appears to be exceeding 60fps and there is no stuttering. Window resizing is another matter, however I don't believe I've ever seen OS X do stutter-free window resizing so this shouldn't be a surprise.

Install Windows on the 15" rMBP and it will perform just as well as the XPS 15 (assuming you compare models with the same CPU clocks). This is simply a result of MS's devotion to graphical optimizations, both at the 2D OS level and in their development of the Direct3D API.

I'm going to be eaten alive here, but Windows is at its core a far more advanced OS than OS X, entirely due to the massive amount of money MS has invested in its development over the years. You can argue that it's a subjectively worse OS in many respects (for example I can't express my hatred for Metro enough), but suggesting that OS X is more powerful in performance terms? Just not realistic.

 

[Starfyre]

Install Windows on the 15" rMBP and it will perform just as well as the XPS 15 (assuming you compare models with the same CPU clocks). This is simply a result of MS's devotion to graphical optimizations, both at the 2D OS level and in their development of the Direct3D API.

I'm going to be eaten alive here, but Windows is at its core a far more advanced OS than OS X, entirely due to the massive amount of money MS has invested in its development over the years. You can argue that it's a subjectively worse OS in many respects (for example I can't express my hatred for Metro enough), but suggesting that OS X is more powerful in performance terms? Just not realistic.

Considering Mountain Lion gave OSX the ability to resize windows on all sides that is built into the OS... its almost embarrassing. Then again, Microsoft is adding that "Precision Touchpad" software enhancement that is pretty much what OSX has had all along to Windows 8.1.

----------

Is it disappointing that a company which designs its own hardware and proprietary software can't quite make the two work together flawlessly prior to release? Well, yes, but that's not to suggest they won't figure out a way to improve the experience in the coming months. Compare the lag on a 2012 rMBP using Mountain Lion with the same machine with Mavericks installed and, well, the proof's in the pudding, as they say. It's a work in progress.

2012 rMBP using Mountain Lion... its been over a year and they still haven't gotten rid of this issue near 100%? It seems like a poor decision to cripple the Classic MBP line to what it is now as at least those had no problems with this sort of thing.

 

[Atomic Walrus]

Considering Mountain Lion gave OSX the ability to resize windows on all sides that is built into the OS... its almost embarrassing. Then again, Microsoft is adding that "Precision Touchpad" software enhancement that is pretty much what OSX has had all along to Windows 8.1.

I did forget about Apple's focus on touchpad handling at the OS level, that has been a big advantage in laptops for quite a while. It's actually one of the main reasons I continue to use OS X for my regular daily laptop usage.

While I'm here I should probably say that when I called Windows more advanced, I primarily meant it in terms of performance; MS has spent the money to improve raw performance wherever possible. Under a different definition of powerful/advanced I can see it going either way (say, if you're fairly comfortable with a *nix terminal, where there's a lot of a different kind of power available to the user).

Either way, if Apple wants to stay serious in the computer OS game they need to get a stronger focus on core performance. Graphical optimizations, even gaming performance really. OS X graphics drivers shouldn't be out of date by definition, etc. I shouldn't even be able to say "remember when OS X got the ability to resize windows from all the edges not long ago?" I think they probably know this as well as anyone (hence Mavericks as a primarily performance-focused upgrade).

OS X represents the only real Windows alternative for regular users (let's not even get into why Linux doesn't count). It's always a shame to see Apple let their OS get marginalized over these kinds of issues.

 

[BeeAnt]

Thank you for all your inputs!

So in summary, the UI smoothness is more related with software not the hardware in this case. The 300Mhz more in 2.6 will ONLY? noticeable when it's doing CPU intensive tasks such as video rendering and 3D rendering stuffs (how about games?).

Thus, since I am doing it only mostly for web development, I don't need that 2.6 upgrade?

Am I getting it right?

It would be best if someone who has 2.6 can test that UI stuttering problem and new graphics-heavy games on max out settings.

 

[Atomic Walrus]

Thank you for all your inputs!

So in summary, the UI smoothness is more related with software not the hardware in this case. The 300Mhz more in 2.6 will ONLY? noticeable when it's doing CPU intensive tasks such as video rendering and 3D rendering stuffs (how about games?).

Thus, since I am doing it only mostly for web development, I don't need that 2.6 upgrade?

Am I getting it right?

It would be best if someone who has 2.6 can test that UI stuttering problem and new graphics-heavy games on max out settings.

There might be some situations where game performance could increase, but this would have to be a seriously CPU-bound game. The 750m is going to be the weak link 90% of the time.

Even the 2.3 CPU produces 97.4% of the performance of a desktop i7-3770 (this would be the top of the line not-unlocked desktop CPU from the Ivy generation), a system which only becomes CPU-bound in games when you pair it with something a good bit faster than a GTX 680. I'm familiar with this because I have a 3770K desktop with a 680 which I usually run at stock speeds.

So basically your game would have to be even more CPU-bound than Skyrim before the CPU would become the weak link. The 750m is just too slow to keep up with modern CPUs.

This is almost certainly why the new Dell XPS 15 uses not only a lower clock CPU (boost to 3.2) but also a lower TDP CPU; they know that for most users the only CPU-intensive task they'll be running is a game, and that the 750m isn't going to max out these high end CPUs.

The 2.6 is only going to improve actual CPU-bound tasks. It is also a slightly more power-efficient CPU by definition (this is the binning again), so we'll see a very odd battery life curve from it compared to the 2.3 (just like on the Air): At super-low usage states it might get just slightly better battery life, and then as your CPU usage ramps up a bit it will get slightly less, and then possibly a solid chunk less as you approach load (but at this point we're killing the battery in an hour or two either way).

I mean, if you're really on the fence just do it, right? I've never heard anyone say "this computer is just too fast, I don't like it." I probably would have picked the 2.6 myself if I hadn't already set my sights on a Broadwell/IGZO rMBP (BTO CPU upgrades don't generally increase resale because it's hard to explain to non-tech people why your model is more expensive compared to the models they can see on store.apple.com).

 

[Windows&Apple]

For me, it's a $718 price increase to get the 2.6Ghz and 1TB SSD. I'd rather put $718 towards a custom PC with Broadwell or better yet, Skylake. Not worth it for me, and plus, the returns through the online store are a pain in the ass. Go to the retail store, return if needed, walk out.

 

[SimonFi]

Are there already any comparisons between the 2.3 and the 2.6 GHz models in terms of battery life, noise/heat out there?
I would love to order the machine soon but couldn't find any solid information on the higher energy usage / heat of the bigger model.

Thanks
Simon

 

[Starfyre]

I am waiting on real heat comparisons myself. From what Ive heard from owners of both the 2.6 and the 2.3 15'', there is not much of a difference between battery life. The only thing in common between them is that the batteru life fluctuates.

Gamingwise, the CPU can help you get a few FPS that you would not have had otherwise, so it theoretically could be smoother. Iris Pros clock speed is also higher, so if you are gaming with an internal card you should get faster FPS on your integrated card compared to 2.3, which has lower clock speeds in its version of Iris Pro.

In day to day normal tasks, the 2.6 should be noticably faster as its average clock speed is higher. When you go from 2.0 to 2.3, users have reported noticibly better performance in the overall usage of their machine.

The 2.6 processor is equivalent to the top of the line Ivy Bridge processor intended for 17 inch notebooks. Thanks to Haswell, that same processor is now at a lower TDP that supports a 15 inch chassis while sucking up liwer heat and liwer power, which in my mind is quite a feat of engineering.

Battery lufr cwn always be killed. Running full load benchmarks, a 2.3 can be run out inabout 1 hr 37 mins. I am sure if you were pushing your notebook that hard, yes, it will run down faster. But chances are, your not, and you have the comfort of knowing you have the top of the line.

Value depreciating over time isnt really with the processor, but with the SSD. If you are paying 500 bucks for that 1TB, that is the biggest possible mistake as flash memory will undoubtedly go down in price. The way I think of it, since the 2 6 is at a higher clocksped and is only 180 nore, then there might actually be greater resale value among the sea of 2.3s which is essentially the base model high end mbp.

 

[Jah2013]

Make sure to note hat the price of base highend15" without 750m is the same as with 750m if specced to 2.6 GHz, 512 Gb, 16GB ram. You get the gpu for free, if you ask for it.

- - - - -

About the 2.6 GHz. My reason to go for it was, that Intel probably selects the better cpu's of a production charge (lower leakage) and clocks them to 2.6GHz. This might mean higher room in terms of turbo boost. But it is some kind of lottery, if it will be 130% as good or 110%. If you search geekbench for 4960HQ, you see what i mean. Some score 13k while others hit 15k with the same processor and benchmark environement (64 bit)..
There is also yet another reason to go for the 2.6 GHz : if you want to have the biggest phalus in town and would feel unhapp with an processor having just 2.3 Ghz label. You sound like you would regret, if you wouldnt have the 2.6 GHz version. Go for it. Will it make a difference for your work ? Probably not, spending those bucks on delicious energy drinks would give you more speedup

 

[SimonFi]

@ Starfyre:
First of all, thanks for the great summary of your research!! Where did you get the information about battery life from? To me all the topics I read sounded like the 2.6 is significantly worse in terms of battery life.

@ Jah2013:
Honestly - I don't care at all how my CPU is labeled. I'm just REALLY concerned about every day performance. And as I read the reviews of the 13 inch model it just gets worse. I think the old retinas had a horrible performance when they were used in scaled resolution mode. And since I need a lot real estate on my screen I'm not interested in using the "best for retina" setting. Therefore since the 2.6 GHz CPU also has a 100MHz higher clock speed on the integrated graphics side I thought it might be worth the 180$ in order to get higher frame rates when using things like mission control. Am I wrong?
The only thing holding me back from ordering is the possible higher heat generation due to the higher clock speed as well as the mentioned lower battery life...
P.S.: Even more energy drinks...? I don't know if that's such a good idea ;-)

 

[Guy Mancuso]

My 2.6 is running very cool. Does not seem to be a issue.

 

[SimonFi]

How is your battery life?