2.6 vs 2.7 i7 quad

sk8r1230

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Aug 3, 2010
342
40
Indiana
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
 

sarre9

macrumors newbie
May 22, 2008
3
0
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
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
 

hi-there

macrumors member
Mar 8, 2007
84
0
Melbourne
It is interesting to note, that Apple is pretty much passing the difference in price between the two CPUs on to customers.
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!! : )
 

bniu

macrumors 6502a
Mar 21, 2010
989
181
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...
 

Nielsenius

macrumors 6502a
Apr 16, 2011
565
0
Virginia
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.
 

sk8r1230

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Aug 3, 2010
342
40
Indiana
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
 

darwinian

macrumors 6502a
Jan 4, 2008
600
1
In R4, more or less
...

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
Where are you seeing the 12% difference?
 

eijnaix

macrumors newbie
Jun 12, 2012
5
0
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
 

sookainian

macrumors regular
Feb 16, 2008
202
18
Singapore
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/
 

Nielsenius

macrumors 6502a
Apr 16, 2011
565
0
Virginia
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/
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
 

MacBookProzak

macrumors regular
Nov 16, 2011
131
0
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

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!
 

apolloa

Suspended
Oct 21, 2008
12,318
7,796
Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
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?
 

eijnaix

macrumors newbie
Jun 12, 2012
5
0
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 ?
 

thomaskc

macrumors 6502
Aug 19, 2010
347
0
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 ?
No both are Ivy Bridge, you can always tell by the Intel 4000 series onboard gpu. If that is present! its Ivy Bridge :)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.