2.3 GHz or 2.7 GHz 13" MBP?

[kabuto]

Is the 400 MHz bump for a 2.7 GHz processor over the 2.3 GHz one really something one would notice?

I know the 2.7 GHz MBP it will also include a 500GB HDD, but I use a SSD anyway, so getting the more expensive one boils down to the question whether the increase in speed is worth the higher price.

 

[DarkFlame]

bump. I would love to hear some opinions on this. I think apple priced it perfectly.

 

[brentsg]

I find it interesting that Handbrake tests I've seen had the 2 dead even.

I'm wondering if the 13" chassis' thermal limitations put the two dead even when trying to engage "turbo" under heavy load.

 

[Macsavvytech]

Checking now but i believe its not just a Clock Frequency Jump

 

[skyrider007]

I'd go for the i7.

 

[brentsg]

Clock speed, VM feature few will care about, additional encryption feature that might be good for full disk encryption, and a small cache bump I believe.

Best case, the extra CPU clock (and better turbo) help a bit, but I've not seen this in real world benchmarks. Even so, it should contribute to additional heat and fan noise.

Worst case, the 13's cooling limits won't let the i7 significantly outperform the i5.

I went with the i5. The most compelling thing for me were the unsupported features, but in the end I was more concerned with lower thermals.

 

[jboyzh]

Went for the 13' i7 SSD just for Logic Pro, am happy I did. Gearslutz has a good benchmark thread at http://thurly.net/150a where the i5 ran 29 tracks, the i7 35 tracks (see pages 52-53, which I could confirm here), so a 20% improvement. This lets the i7 run this more synths, effects, and tracks, and gives a real and welcome headroom in Logic over the i5. For everyday tasks, I'd have chosen the i5 however.

 

[scottgroovez]

In the UK the price difference is £300. I'd rather put that towards an SSD

 

[adztaylor]

In the UK the price difference is £300. I'd rather put that towards an SSD

This is what I'm doing. A much more noticeable improvement would be seen by doing this.

 

[leman]

This is what I'm doing. A much more noticeable improvement would be seen by doing this.

Depends on what you usually do. An SSD won't speed up numerical calculations, a better CPU would. An SSD makes the computer very nice to work with though

 

[Naimfan]

Search is your friend. There are a number of identical threads already.

 

[josh2007]

Went for the 13' i7 SSD just for Logic Pro, am happy I did. Gearslutz has a good benchmark thread at http://thurly.net/150a where the i5 ran 29 tracks, the i7 35 tracks (see pages 52-53, which I could confirm here), so a 20% improvement. This lets the i7 run this more synths, effects, and tracks, and gives a real and welcome headroom in Logic over the i5. For everyday tasks, I'd have chosen the i5 however.

I got over 30 on my i7 13" Those are some seriously heavy plugs. I can remember my QS 867 g4 on DP would take only "one" Waves reverb to peg the meter. Now it's 30+ Space Designers, compressors, softsynths etc...... in real time. That little test cranked me up to 65c.

 

[mr1]

I find it interesting that Handbrake tests I've seen had the 2 dead even.

Where?


kabuto,
If you are using just for daily tasks (ie web browsing, text editing) then I would go with the i5. The speed jump to the i7 isn't very noticeable to the eye unless you are doing heavy workload...

However I did read that in some cases the 13'' i7 is outperforming the base(?) 15 inch in single/low threaded applications, (although probably not very noticeable). I'll try to find the article... EDIT: article here, not sure how practical that test is though.

Personally, I have the i7 and am happy with it. It feels slightly more 'future proof' just b/c the higher clocks but I know I would also be happy with the i5. The only complaint I have is the LOUD mechanical drive I am now forced to replace...

 

[brentsg]

Where?..

one example..

https://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12082108&

Maybe dead even isn't the right term. How about negligible?

 

[mr1]

one example..

https://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12082108&

Maybe dead even isn't the right term. How about negligible?

The user that ran the i7 4gb test which you are referring to is unreliable. They ran the test a 4th time and noticed a HUGE improvement.

I personally ran the same test (but with 8gb ram) and got much better results. There are just too many unknown variables for me to rely on that thread!

But even if that thread was accurate, wouldnt that still be ~5-10 percent improvement over the i5?

 

[kobyh15]

Saw in Anand's review where the i7 supports AES-NI and Vt-d whereas the i5 does not. Will these technologies become used more prevalently as time passes? The i7 can also turbo to 3.4 whereas the i5 turbos to 2.9 with enough thermal headroom, obviously. I don't think that is insignificant. Planning on running Win7 in Fusion/Parallels in addition to OS X and having the machine for 4 years or more. Otherwise I don't consider myself a heavy user. Would it be smart move to go ahead and get the i7 if I can afford it?