2.6 vs 2.7 i7 quad

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by sk8r1230, Jun 11, 2012.

  1. sk8r1230 macrumors 6502

    sk8r1230

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Location:
    Indiana
    #1
    just wondering if the 250 upgrade is really worth it? i do processor intense tasks but dont know if the up in power will really help all that much
     
  2. skiffx macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
  3. sarre9 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    #3
    Depends - the main differences in the two CPUs are the base frequency and thus the Max Turbo Frequencies and L3 cache (6 vs 8 KB)

    Intel Core i7-3820QM, 2.7 GHz, 8KB L3
    Intel Core i7-3720QM 2.6 GHz, 6KB L3

    The benchmark differences vary depending upon the test. The 3820 performs about 11.8% better in benchmarks. Your mileage may vary.

    It is interesting to note, that Apple is pretty much passing the difference in price between the two CPUs on to customers.

    http://tinyurl.com/7mqygdp for processor specs.
    http://tinyurl.com/28qgpn for benchmarks
     
  4. NetCatman macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2012
    #4
    Shh! You're dating yourself! It's a 2 MB difference in cache! :D
     
  5. hi-there macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Location:
    Melbourne
    #5
    I thought it was interesting as well. After agonising, I did go for the 2.7Ghz. I rather spend a bit extra at the start then, later think, maybe I should have... (especially, if I am waiting for a task to complete). Now I have to eat 2-min noodles for 3 months straight!! : )
     
  6. sarre9 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 22, 2008
    #6
    Doh! I gray corrected.
     
  7. bniu macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    #7
    This is the same as last year's 2.2 vs 2.3 and then 2.4 vs 2.5 debate. Difference is 100 MHz per core and 2MB of cache. Difference is $250.

    I sprang for it because of my policy: If it ain't worth maxing out, it ain't worth buying.

    It's rare for me to compromise on computer specs. I like having the highest config, it keeps my ego satisfied, works faster in some key tasks, and I don't have this thing nagging me (you should've got the better one...). $250 is a weekend softball tournament's worth of games to officiate. No biggie...
     
  8. Nielsenius macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2011
    Location:
    Virginia
    #8
    I've thought about the difference between the three processor options in the new 15" MacBook Pros a lot and here's what I've come up with:

    Here's how you calculate the processor's calculations per second (in millions):
    2.3 GHz x 4 = 9.2
    2.6 GHz x 4 = 10.4
    2.7 GHz x 4 = 10.8

    Now, you can calculate the processing difference between these three:
    2.3 GHz is 11.5% slower than 2.6 GHz and 14.8% slower than 2.7 GHz
    2.6 GHz is 11.5% faster than 2.3 GHz and 3.7% slower than 2.7 GHz
    2.7 GHz is 14.8% faster than 2.3 GHz and 3.7% faster than 2.6 GHz
    Example: 9.2/10.4 = 0.885 > move the decimal 88.5 > 100-88.5 = 11.5.

    These calculations can be confirmed by Geekbench results for the Retina MacBook Pro (http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks) which show the 2.3 GHz model at 11680, the 2.6 GHz model at 13045, and the 2.7 GHz model at 13429. If you look at the percent difference between these benchmarks, they are almost identical to the above calculations.

    So, what is the value of a processor upgrade in the new MacBook Pros? Well, there's a significant difference between the 2.3 GHz model and the two higher-end options. The 2.6 GHz model is only a few percentage points slower than the 2.7 GHz model, however the L3 cache in the 2.7 GHz model is 2 MB larger than in the other two models.

    It's up to the user to determine which processor they believe best suits their needs. For most simple tasks the difference between each model won't be noticeable. For tasks that are very processor intensive, the difference will be more noticeable.
     
  9. sk8r1230 thread starter macrumors 6502

    sk8r1230

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Location:
    Indiana
    #9
    Great info ^ I ended up going with 2.7. I'm pleased with my decision. In the end it's only money I suppose lol
     
  10. darwinian macrumors 6502a

    darwinian

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Location:
    In R4, more or less
    #10
    Where are you seeing the 12% difference?
     
  11. eijnaix macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #11
    I pulled the trigger at 2.6ghz 512ssd 16 gb ..... Now wondering if I should had just max out the processor as well. Theory wise it 2mb cache and 100mhz more.... Any one knows how much different or how many programmes do I have to run at the same time to actually feel the differenceS ?

    I'm wondering if i should call them to replace it to the higher end
     
  12. apolloa macrumors G3

    apolloa

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #12
    How much difference in games like Starcraft 2 or Diablo 3 would you notice between the 2.6 and 2.7? None or a bit?
     
  13. sookainian macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2008
    Location:
    Singapore
    #13
    Are you sure the rMBP 2.7Ghz come with 8MB cache ?

    The new mobile powerhouse.
    This notebook has the power to do amazing things. Third-generation Intel Core i7 Ivy Bridge processors with a state-of-the-art 22-nanometer single-die microarchitecture provide the fastest quad-core performance ever in a notebook. Hyper-Threading technology allows two threads to run simultaneously on each core. And with speeds up to 2.7GHz, 6MB of shared L3 cache, and Turbo Boost speeds up to 3.7GHz, these processors are great for running professional applications like Aperture and Final Cut Pro. They also support up to 16GB of superfast 1600MHz memory. Which means the all-new MacBook Pro is ready to take on whatever you can dream up.

    http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/features/
     
  14. Nielsenius macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2011
    Location:
    Virginia
    #14
    Yes, the 2.7 GHz i7 has 8 MB of L3 cache. Take a look at the spec sheet on this page: http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/family/macbook_pro/select
     
  15. MacBookProzak macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    #15

    Good choice. I push the new machine you see in my signature with heavy video editing and every little bit helps. Enjoy your new machine!
     
  16. gmanist1000 macrumors 68030

    gmanist1000

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    #16
    Nothing. Games are mostly graphics cards anyways. Not processors.
     
  17. apolloa macrumors G3

    apolloa

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #17
    Yes but not games like Starcraft 2, and I imagine Diablo 3? they have lots of enemies with AI etc that uses the CPU on screen or in the game at once. Hence the question about those games in particular.
     
  18. the-wanderer macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Location:
    twilight zone
    #18
    Never be on the top of the performance curve, behind a couple of steps is the best ROI or bang for the buck.
     
  19. skiffx macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2008
    #19
    yep thats what I think as well and hence for 2.6
     
  20. apolloa macrumors G3

    apolloa

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #20
    Hmm, well the machine I would get with my discount is the 2.6 with 512GB SSD and 16GB Ram.
    It costs me £2263.20 UK or $3556.23 US. The 2.7CPU bump costs me £220.80 UK or $346.94.

    I didn't really look at this cost before, but to me it does look expensive even with my discount. 400mhz and 2mb cache, not sure it's worth half the cost of an iPhone?
    If you want the upgrade at the normal retail non discount price Apple charge you £240 UK or $377.09 US. Is it worth it? I'm not so sure. And I THINK I am right in saying this is more expensive then the top CPU option I paid for in my current 2010 MacBook Pro?
     
  21. HishamAkhtar macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2011
  22. apolloa macrumors G3

    apolloa

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #22
    No, it's an extra 2MB cache memory and 100MHz PER CORE so it's 400MHz. Still , does seem overpriced.
     
  23. eijnaix macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #23
    I do editing on Lightroom 4 for photo and occasional video editing .....game sc2 , does it justify the upgrade to 2.7 i7 ?

    But I thought the 2.7 i7 is sandy bridge ?
     
  24. thomaskc macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    #24
    No both are Ivy Bridge, you can always tell by the Intel 4000 series onboard gpu. If that is present! its Ivy Bridge :)
     
  25. jcpb macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    #25
    If you think that's bad, look at the pricing when you go from 2.7 (top of the line QM, 45W TDP) to 2.9 (XM, 55W TDP).
     

Share This Page