2.3GHz (Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz) vs 3.1GHz (Turbo Boost up to 3.5GHz)

[kindaichi81]

• 2.3GHz dual-core 7th-generation Intel Core i5 processor
• Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz

• 3.1GHz dual-core 7th-generation Intel Core i5 processor
• Turbo Boost up to 3.5GHz

Which one has better performance?

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

• 2.3GHz dual-core 7th-generation Intel Core i5 processor
• Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz

• 3.1GHz dual-core 7th-generation Intel Core i5 processor
• Turbo Boost up to 3.5GHz

Which one has better performance?

3.1Ghz, rarely will you push it to full load (If ever), but in doing so it cannot sustain that for long and will throttle. So the 3.1Ghz will give a more optimum sustained level of performance. The 2.3Ghz will provide a (100mhz...) peak gain in burst performance.

Really depends on what you mean by 'performance'. If you want the best geek bench score, then the 2.3Ghz will probably give it. If you want the better machine, then the 3.1Ghz.

People should really just ignore those TurboBoost numbers, not important. It's a lightning fast processor that can if required be safely factory overclocked for a limited period in order to crunch some numbers quickly. But think of the general speed of a processor more than what it can do when required.

 

[kindaichi81]

3.1Ghz, rarely will you push it to full load (If ever), but in doing so it cannot sustain that for long and will throttle. So the 3.1Ghz will give a more optimum sustained level of performance. The 2.3Ghz will provide a (100mhz...) peak gain in burst performance.

Really depends on what you mean by 'performance'. If you want the best geek bench score, then the 2.3Ghz will probably give it. If you want the better machine, then the 3.1Ghz.

People should really just ignore those TurboBoost numbers, not important. It's a lightning fast processor that can if required be safely factory overclocked for a limited period in order to crunch some numbers quickly. But think of the general speed of a processor more than what it can do when required.

Ic. Thanks a lot for the sharing.

 

[ZapNZs]

I am far from a CPU expert, but in my personal opinion, I would argue that it depends on your work and how you define "performance."

For standard-use business-class and entertainment Apps that are NOT CPU intensive, there really is no noticeable difference (I've played with them side-by-side). For longer-term sustained high CPU-intensive load (for example, rendering a very high def movie that pegs the CPU to near max load for 30+ minutes), most posts here seem to favor the 3.1 slightly with its +1 fan. The TB may also be favorable if you plan to drive two 4k displays from a general performance perspective (including reduced noise.) For certain types of work requiring peak burst performance more than sustained (for example, one program I use that benefits here is SPSS), the nTB's i7 may be favored over both options (with the TB's i7 favored over this) - but, for most work, much of this will not be noticeable to the User.

If you define battery life as a component of performance, the nTB with the 2.5 has an advantage (although the TB with the 3.1 still does quite well.) Depending how someone uses their computer and what they want from it, the nTB's battery life may make it a better performer than the TB?

Through personal non-scientific observation, when using Apps like Microsoft Word/PowerPoint, Mail, Chrome (without a ridiculous amount of tabs/extensions), primitive photo editing software for basic tasks working with raster images, OmniFocus, Messages, etc., there is virtually no obviously noticeable differences in performance between my 2011 MBP15 w/ 2.3 GHz i7 quad, 2014 MBP 15 w/ 2.5 GHz i7 quad/dGPU, 2016 MBP13 w/ 2.0 Ghz i5 dual, and a base model 2015 MacBook Air w/ 1.6 GHz i5 dual. With other programs, the differences among the systems can be pronounced. YMMV.