15" rMBP 2.3 GHz vs. 2.6 GHz

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by bmunge, Nov 16, 2012.

  1. bmunge macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    #1
    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?
     
  2. zackkmac macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Location:
    Tulsa
    #2
    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.
     
  3. pasadena macrumors 6502a

    pasadena

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2012
    Location:
    Socal
    #3
    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 ;-)
     
  4. ssn637 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Location:
    Switzerland
    #4
    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.
     
  5. zipur macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2011
    Location:
    The great state of Texas
    #6
    So how do you feel about your battery life now?
     
  6. do1984 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2012
    #7
    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.
     
  7. Brian Y macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    #8
    I went for the 2.6 - it felt like the best "bang for buck" choice.
     
  8. ssn637 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Location:
    Switzerland
    #9
    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.
     
  9. snaky69 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #10
    You'll compile ever so slightly faster, and that's it. You'd be hard pressed to see a difference elsewhere.
     
  10. pgiguere1 macrumors 68020

    pgiguere1

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    #11
    According to geekbench scores, you'll compile around 8% faster for a 4% price extra.
     
  11. MCAsan macrumors 601

    MCAsan

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #12
    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.
     
  12. Mdwall macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    #13
    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.
     
  13. mslide macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    #14
    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.
     
  14. bobr1952 macrumors 68020

    bobr1952

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    #15
    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.
     
  15. Mdwall macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2012
    #16
    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.
     
  16. henry72 macrumors 65816

    henry72

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2009
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #17
    Nah I don't think it is worth the price to be honest! I'd upgrade the Ram instead or Apple Care.
     
  17. bmunge thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    #18
    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!
     
  18. jw2002 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2008
    #19
    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.
     
  19. derbothaus macrumors 601

    derbothaus

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2010
    #20
    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.
     

Share This Page