Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

15" rMBP 2.3 GHz vs. 2.6 GHz

B

bmunge

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Mar 7, 2012
320
400
I'm looking at getting the rMBP and I'm debating the processor upgrade. On one hand it seems like a decent upgrade in clock speed for a decent price, but I'm unsure what the real world applications are. I'm an app developer and game a bit, would I even notice the difference?
 
I went from the 2.3 to the 2.7 model (both 16GB RAM) and never noticed the difference. I don't really think it's worth it unless you know you'll need it and have the extra money for it. If price isn't a concern for you then get it, you'll have better resell value when you sell it later.
 
My take is that if you really needed it, you'd know it. It takes a lot to go to the limit of a 2.3GHz quad-cores... So unless you know you use CPU-heavy appications, like heavy video editing, keep the money. You'll notice the difference in your wallet much more than the difference in your laptop ;-)
 
I went for the 2.3 GHz because battery life was more important than power. But anandTech claims that scrolling issues can be improved by opting for the 2.7 GHz system, since single-threaded frequencies are higher.
 
I've noticed no difference from my 2.3 model to a 2.7 model from a friend in the applications I usually use (Autocad 2013, regular browsing/e-mail). Maybe it makes some difference in gaming. But I guess the upgrade price doesn't worth it.
 
zipur said:
So how do you feel about your battery life now?
Click to expand...

Dunno yet. Shipped on the 15th and won't arrive til the 28th. Made the mistake of ordering an extra adapter, which will cost me about one week in delivery time. But Engadget reported a big difference in battery life between the two cores, with the 2.3 GHz lasting over 9 hours on a single charge! Pretty hard to believe, but they claimed to have run the test several times with consistent results.
 
bmunge said:
I'm looking at getting the rMBP and I'm debating the processor upgrade. On one hand it seems like a decent upgrade in clock speed for a decent price, but I'm unsure what the real world applications are. I'm an app developer and game a bit, would I even notice the difference?
Click to expand...

You'll compile ever so slightly faster, and that's it. You'd be hard pressed to see a difference elsewhere.
 
For how long will you own the machine? If you get 2.3 and it is OK now...will it be still OK at the end of the X years you plan to keep it. Remember, don't purchase for today, purchase for the end of the life/duty cycle. That is why I got 2.7 CPU and 16GB of memory. I want to still be happy with my rMBP at the end of Apple Care.
 
I went 2.6 but mostly because I wanted the 512 ssd.. 100bucks extra for the processor at that point seemed inconsequential. Of course being on sale at BBY made the difference slightly less.
 
I'd go for the 2.3. Unless you do computational things a lot, you won't ever notice the difference. Paying extra for a CPU bump is usually not worth it, IMO. If we were talking dual-core vs quad-core, then that would be different but not for a slight increase in clock speed.
 
I'm very happy with my base model but only you know your requirements. But if you don't have a lot of incredibly intense processes to run, I can't imagine the base processor would let you down.
 
I'd like to add that either one will be excellent I think. I finally got around to setting mine up and so far this is the best computer I have ever owned.
 
Ended up going with the 2.6GHz and 16 GB of RAM. I run parallels often with eclipse, while keeping XCode and chrome with several pin tabs open at all times. I can't wait to get it, seems like it will be a beast!
 
I do a bunch of Fourier processing of large imagery (50 megapixels and up), so the 2.6 GHz bump up was worth it for me. So if you can identify a large cpu-intensive task like that, then that might be a reason to consider the faster processor.
 
ssn637 said:
I went for the 2.3 GHz because battery life was more important than power. But anandTech claims that scrolling issues can be improved by opting for the 2.7 GHz system, since single-threaded frequencies are higher.
Click to expand...

I am damn sure a 3.3GHz core can scroll a freaking webpage just as well as a 3.6GHz one. They turbo all cores to 3.1GHz as well when needed (3.4GHz for 2.6GHz model). Base speed these days in the mobile landscape is a pointless indication. With a timer you would notice. Regular use probably not. I opted for 2.6 anyway cuz I like the big numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back