2.2 vs 2.3 quadcore - performance difference?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Skybar, Feb 24, 2011.

  1. Skybar macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    #1
    What is the difference in performance between the 2.2GHz and 2.3GHz quad-cores?
    The 2.3GHz comes with 2mb more L3 Cache - how much does that matter? What does L3 Cache do?

    I'm having a hard time deciding here, if someone could explain I would be grateful!
     
  2. lesyork macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
  3. dime21 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    #3
    Have you heard of google? :rolleyes:
     
  4. Skybar thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    #4
    Photoshop, gaming, rendering and modeling in Cinema 4d mainly.
     
  5. thepf macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    #5
    I'd like to know weather the 2.0ghz 15inch 2011 is faster than the 2.4ghz i5 2010? cheers
     
  6. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #6
    Faster for what? If you're just browsing the internet, there won't be a difference.
     
  7. syan48306 macrumors 6502a

    syan48306

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    #7
    I just bought a 2.2 because 200+ dollars for 100 Mhz and 2mb l3 cache is underwhelming. One of the reasons people opt to upgrade their CPU is so that the computer can last "longer" or remain "better" for a longer time. This is a misconception. Looking back, do you really thing a T9600 2.8 C2D or the T9800 2.93 for 250 dollars more really makes a difference when the i7's or now the i7QM's are out?

    Sure, if you want a blazing fast system pay the 200 dollars for the extra 100mhz for bragging rights, but if you want performance, i say put the 200 dollars into a 4>8 gig mem upgrade. Better yet, just pick it up for 100 dollars off newegg.

    EDIT:
    While not a direct comparison, a 2.0ghz quad core can turbo boost (2.9/2.8/2.6 GHz) 1, 2 and 4 cores respectively. Even looking at the dual core turbo boost, it's better than the 2.4 i5's.



    just my two cents.
     
  8. Skybar thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    #8
    That helped a lot. I'll go with the 2.2GHz and upgrade to 8GB ram (not from apple) instead, thanks! :D
     
  9. tjb1 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    #9
    I did notice Apple lowered the 8gb of ram to $180 for students...half of what I paid 6 months ago :mad:
     
  10. Skybar thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    #10
    Apple has never been cheap with RAM, even now with the lowered prices they are still quite high.
     
  11. wisty macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    #11
    L3 Cache is like super-fast RAM.

    If your program needs some data (i.e. part of the photo to edit), it looks in L1 cache, then L2 cache, then L3 cache, then RAM, then on the HDD. If stuff stays in cache, it makes everything faster. More cache means more stuff stays in cache.

    However, the 2.2 to 2.3 isn't going to be worth it. Save it for an SSD, more RAM, your next upgrade, or whatever.
     
  12. Skybar thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2010
    #12
    Ah that explains it. I read about it on wikipedia but I didn't understand too much :eek:. Thank you.
     
  13. intfxdx macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    #13
    i am looking for a new mbp for research in finance (mainly in matlab). Work is mainly analyzing huge data sets . i use 23000 stocks, monthly return from 1926 to 2009, doing some regression on 60 month rolling windows. With my sony vaio z, it takes more than 10 hours, i run the code night, and got results in the morning :D
    do you think that i should go with 2.3 or 2.2 ? i am already considering 8gb ram with 128 ssd in 17" but unsure about cpu. thanks for advices
     
  14. Whitelightning macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    #14
    It wont make only minimal difference, just 100 mhz more, even with the turboboost, you'll get tops of 200 mhz boost if you upgrade. Sure the 8MB cache is higher than the 6MB cache, but performance to notice that will practically unnoticable.
     
  15. rmitchell248 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2010
    Location:
    Liebsthal, Germany
    #15
    you know everything on this site could be googled so why even have it?
     
  16. dagamer34 macrumors 65816

    dagamer34

    Joined:
    May 1, 2007
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #16
    Unless your configuration already has an SSD, don't waste your money.
     
  17. rogerdee123 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 28, 2008
    #17
    Yes Exactly! I googled it and got this thread!
     
  18. intfxdx macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    #18
    I understood the difference when i was working recently on data analysis. I had to do 23119x350 ols regression in matlab and computer saves the parameter and some other values which are structures, as computer save these values during computation, they save it in a temporary memory, which is cache memory. If i can finish my work i can just save all variables in my harddisk and clear cache memory. But unfortunately i couldn't when i arrived 4500th line, the computer was out of cache memory. It took more than 3h to arrive 4500th line.
    That amounts to say, if the computer is working very long without stopping, it saves works in cache memory. I am not specialist but it seems that even you are doing heavy video editing, you won't be out of memory because i guess that a video editing operation won't take 3h (?i no idea), but if yes, you will need high cache memory.
    I ordered my 17 mbp with 2.2 because i know that i was doing this kind of work for my master thesis and i won't do so big computation for my other works. however keep in mind also that the fact that it was out of memory is because of structure of variables, you can easily create a real matrix of that size using very little memory.
    i hope that it's clear now ;)
     
  19. Hansr macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    #19
    You are confusing cache memory with regular RAM. The cache is in fact full for a single computation of the calibre your thinking of.
     
  20. intfxdx macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    #20
    well i don't know very well, you may be right but matlab gave me error about out of cache memory, not ram.
     
  21. PUMMYUK macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    #21
    From the Intel boys at work...

    The advantage of this configuration is that a single-threaded application has access to the full 8 MB of L3 cache. This was not possible on the Core 2 Quad processors, since their 12 MB L2 cache consisted of two halves, each located on one of the dual-core dies that made up the quad-core package

    Another advantage of the large L3 cache is that all four cores can work with a single set of data, rather than having to duplicate it across several caches; this saves space and allows more data to be kept in the cache. Exchanging data between cores also benefits from a major speed increase.
     
  22. SheepShaver macrumors member

    SheepShaver

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2009
    Location:
    Split, Croatia
    #22
    If everyone thought like that Google would not return ANY results, lol. :D
     
  23. AppleMacFinder macrumors 6502a

    AppleMacFinder

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    #23
    The difference in performance, according to benchmarks,
    is rarely goes above 5%. Not worth the money.
     
  24. PUMMYUK macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    #24
    A very small minority will need this, for whatever reason, and for them it is worth it. For everyone else, do not bother and get the 2.2. The extra money is better spent elsewhere.

    I have the 2.3, HR AG, but got a good deal so am sticking with it.
     
  25. tom.bcn macrumors newbie

    tom.bcn

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Location:
    Barcelona, Catalonia
    #25
    + another 1
     

Share This Page