2.6 Ghz with 6mb cache vs. 2.7 Ghz 8mb cache... worth $250 price difference?

wmouazzen

macrumors member
Original poster
Dec 29, 2008
49
0
I recently placed an order for the new Retina Macbook and I chose the 2.6ghz configuration, because I didn't think it was worth an extra $250 for a .1ghz boost in processor speed. However, I didn't realize that there was also a jump in the cache by 2mb and now I am wondering if I should have just upgraded since I am already spending a lot on this machine.

How much of a difference does this make? If I reconfigure my order now, I'll have to wait an extra week for shipping. Sorry for the first world problem post. Just hoping someone has some insight on this.
 

charlieegan3

macrumors 68020
Feb 16, 2012
2,395
14
U.K
If you really want to go out and spend the extra to have the absolute top of the range then do it soon before it ships. I can't see it making a huge amount of difference though.

I recommend taking a look at the geekbench results browser and comparing 2 comparable machines there.
 

Queen6

macrumors 604
Frankly if you needed the additional performance you wouldn't need to ask, for those that need every last posible percentage of performance the 2.7 option makes sense, for the vast majority the 2.3 & 2.6 are more than fast enough. The 2.7 will only be faster under certain specific conditions and the matched software, and then only by a small margin. Your not going to get onto MacRumors any faster put it that way :p
 

88 King

macrumors 6502
Jun 18, 2011
377
0
London, UK
Well time equals money, so if you are working on a deadline then the extra time you save with the slightly faster CPU will pay off in the long run.

I normally compile codes and covert videos during the night, so time is not a major factor for me.
 

calderone

macrumors 68040
Aug 28, 2009
3,679
99
Seattle
No, it would reset my place in line apparently. I called to ask this specifically.
Just stick with it, you likely wouldn't notice the difference.

I am going with it only because I am buying store and that is the only option with 16GB.
 

jcpb

macrumors 6502a
Jun 5, 2012
860
0
Generally, if you have to ask whether an upgrade is worth it, it usually isn't.

The 2.7 is maybe 2-4% faster than the 2.6, assuming the performance of some tasks scale linearly and ignoring the effects of the larger L3 cache. It's not noticeable for most things unless the apps you use are CPU-intensive.
 

wmouazzen

macrumors member
Original poster
Dec 29, 2008
49
0
Generally, if you have to ask whether an upgrade is worth it, it usually isn't.

The 2.7 is maybe 2-4% faster than the 2.6, assuming the performance of some tasks scale linearly and ignoring the effects of the larger L3 cache. It's not noticeable for most things unless the apps you use are CPU-intensive.
Other than an everyday computer, I was planning on using this computer from some music production and DJing. Occasionally some photoshop and games.
 

88 King

macrumors 6502
Jun 18, 2011
377
0
London, UK
Other than an everyday computer, I was planning on using this computer from some music production and DJing. Occasionally some photoshop and games.
Would you be working with tight deadlines? Fore example if you find youself waiting around for the CPU to finish whatever tasks it is doing with 100% usage, then by all means get the 2.7GHz CPU with the larger cache.
 

fskywalker

macrumors 65816
Nov 6, 2009
1,223
3
Have anyone done real life tests with both models to compare speed and battery consumption?
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.