15" rMBP: i7 2.3 or 2.6 GHz?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by macchiato2009, Jan 15, 2013.

  1. macchiato2009 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    #1
    hi all

    is there any noticeable difference in overall performance between the i7 2.3 and the i7 2.6 Ghz on the first model of 15" Retina MBP ?


    i'm going to order with 16 Gb of RAM and 256 SSD but still hesitating for the processor

    not a gamer, editing lots of RAW pics when returning from trips, otherwise no intensive work

    but wondering if extra frequency really gives additional speed


    thanks
     
  2. Orlandoech macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #2
    If $100 extra isnt a big deal to you, than 2.6

    2.3 will have SLIGHTLY better battery life and not that significant of performance increase, unless you like to show off benchmarks.
     
  3. xShane macrumors 6502a

    xShane

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    Location:
    United States
    #3
    If it's truly only $100 extra, than I'd say to definitely go for it.
     
  4. Jaro65 macrumors 68040

    Jaro65

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #4
    I was asking myself the same question a few months ago, and then just went with the 2.6 GHz model. Haven't thought about that question since. I also certainly don't regret spending a little extra.
     
  5. Schranke macrumors 6502

    Schranke

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Location:
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    #5
    I have the 2.7ghz I do raw editing myself and love the power. I do game once in a while. go for 2.6GHz
     
  6. vpro macrumors 65816

    vpro

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    #6
    why cut yourself off from the best?

    wait till mid 2013 and pick up a 3.6Ghz Haswell for the same price if not cheaper than your options now :)
     
  7. KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #7
    For $100 more for 300MHz extra speed (both at the base and turbo boost) going from the 2.3GHz to the 2.6GHz seems worth it. I'm not sure why people would spend the extra $250 to go from the 2.6GHz to the 2.7GHz, though.
     
  8. Schranke macrumors 6502

    Schranke

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2010
    Location:
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    #8
    I went with the 2.7GHz because of the 8MB Chache and the more turbo boos.
    And when i buy a machine i would like for it to be top class.
    And at the time i bought it money wasn't the question
    The SSD on the rMBP can be upgraded and i think its only a question about time before there are more options for upgrading SSD.
     
  9. macchiato2009 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    #9
    i wasn't really concerned about price because there is a very little gap between these 2

    but the thing is, do we really notice a difference in performance ?

    and also, what about battery life ?

    would i lose 10, 15, 30 minutes in battery life if going from 2.3 to 2.6 ?

    and another concern: will it be much warmer ?


    these are few details even for $100

    but do i really need extra power and lose battery time + warmer mac ?

    i'm looking for the best compromise
     
  10. M5RahuL macrumors 68020

    M5RahuL

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Location:
    Colorado
    #10
    Mine usually runs pretty cool.. unless I have 3 VMs open + whatever's running on the OS X side.. Even then it's no more than 85 degrees...

    For $100, I would just get the 2.6 and not think too much about it... As for battery life, I have no idea what the 2.3 gets, but I get around 7.5 - 8 hrs on mine when using casually... 5 - 6 when really making it work!
     
  11. macchiato2009 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    #11
    ok thanks :)

    apple should offer less confusing choices

    or is this just a marketint trick to do upselling and encourage people to spend more money on options :rolleyes:
     
  12. DatWunGai macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2008
    Location:
    in Satans frying pan (Las Vegas)
    #12
    It seems to me - from what I've been reading here - that the most economical way to go would be spend the $100 for 2.6 and call it a day for most users. That is if you're hell-bent on not having a stock machine.

    For myself, I use Reason and AudioDesk (music) and I think I'm going to go with the 2.6 because I plan on keeping this machine for 6 years or so. My '07 iMac and '07 MacBook are both still performing well so I use that as my own personal longevity mark. I'm only looking to upgrade and consolidate.

    So, any musicians out there with a 2012/13 rMBP? If so, what are your experiences with your relative CPU choices and what would you do differently if you could?

    Thanks in advance! :)
     
  13. broad macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2009
    #13
    i had a 2.3 which i went back cause due to IR issues. i briefly had both the 2.3 and the 2.6 i ordered to replace it and ran a few quick tests. a handbrake video conversion of a 44 min long SD video file from avi to mp4 took about 2 min 29 secs on the 2.6 as opposed to iirc 2 min 40 secs on the 2.3Ghz

    take from that what you will.
     
  14. macchiato2009 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    #14
    but did you notice any change in the battery life or heat ?

    what i don't like sometimes with apple products is extra power coming with more power consumption and more heat

    i saw that on some previous macs and on the ipad
     
  15. vpro macrumors 65816

    vpro

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2012
    #15
    It is confusing.

    It is confusing because those are not really any options for the consumer, Apple just leads you on to thinking there are options but the best way to buy apple is to buy the top of the top of the line at all times. With Apple you 'get what you pay for' literally, you have to bypass the fake options and choices made just to sell all their products and go RIGHT to the maxed out components - then you will be gliding and singing for over 8+ years down the road of blissful computing on a single machine (when I finally converted to a 17"MBP in 2006 from a 1998 PC, my life changed forever) only recently did I add to my Apple collection!!
     
  16. HishamAkhtar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2011
    #16
    You really won't notice a difference between the two unless you're a power user. I used the $100 to upgrade the RAM to 16 GB and kept the CPU at 2.3.
     
  17. runebinder macrumors 6502a

    runebinder

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2009
    Location:
    Nottingham, UK
    #17
    That's not just an Apple thing. The more power you put into circuitry the more heat will be created, and the more energy used. It's a case of thermodynamics, if you buy a Windows laptop and upgrade the CPU then the higher specced unit will get hotter, and have a shorter battery life.
     

Share This Page