2.6 vs 2.7 i7 quad

[awer25]

Another thing to think about is the Turbo frequencies. The higher chips usually overclock higher with more cores running.

For example, the 2.3GHz may be set to 2.3GHz when all 4 cores are running simultaneously, 2.4GHz on 3 cores, 2.6 on 2, and 3.3GHz when one core is running. The 2.7GHz chip may be 2.7 on 4, 3.0 on 3, 3.3 on 2 and 3.7 on 1.

This is a bigger deal than the base clock, b/c with four cores there's a 400MHz difference but with three cores, there's a 600MHz difference, and with two cores the difference jumps to 700MHz.

Those are only examples as I can't find the real numbers at the moment. However, the higher model CPUs generally overclock in larger steps with multiple cores running. It's just an added bonus besides the 100MHz and 2MB cache.

 

[Nielsenius]

Another thing to think about is the Turbo frequencies. The higher chips usually overclock higher with more cores running.

For example, the 2.3GHz may be set to 2.3GHz when all 4 cores are running simultaneously, 2.4GHz on 3 cores, 2.6 on 2, and 3.3GHz when one core is running. The 2.7GHz chip may be 2.7 on 4, 3.0 on 3, 3.3 on 2 and 3.7 on 1.

This is a bigger deal than the base clock, b/c with four cores there's a 400MHz difference but with three cores, there's a 600MHz difference, and with two cores the difference jumps to 700MHz.

Those are only examples as I can't find the real numbers at the moment. However, the higher model CPUs generally overclock in larger steps with multiple cores running. It's just an added bonus besides the 100MHz and 2MB cache.

While it may be true (I honestly don't know if it is or not) that higher-end processors overclock via Turbo Boost at greater intervals, it's irrelevant. The benchmarks speak for themselves (http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks). The numbers don't lie and the difference between the three processors is this:

2.3 GHz base performance > 2.6 GHz +11.5% performance > 2.7 GHz +3.7% performance

If it takes the 2.3 GHz 60 minutes to encode a video it'll take the 2.6 GHz 53.1 minutes and it'll take the 2.7 GHz 50.9 minutes.

 

[tamvly]

I just went with the 2.3 GHz model ... and saved $400 over the 2.6. I'd rather spend the money on RAM and an SSD.

Then again, I have a Mac Pro for more processor intensive work.

 

[awer25]

While it may be true (I honestly don't know if it is or not) that higher-end processors overclock via Turbo Boost at greater intervals, it's irrelevant. The benchmarks speak for themselves (http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks). The numbers don't lie and the difference between the three processors is this:

2.3 GHz base performance > 2.6 GHz +11.5% performance > 2.7 GHz +3.7% performance

If it takes the 2.3 GHz 60 minutes to encode a video it'll take the 2.6 GHz 53.1 minutes and it'll take the 2.7 GHz 50.9 minutes.

That's true when four cores are running - what I was saying is that with tasks that require less power, there will be a greater performance increase. Benchmarks usually test performance with CPU-heavy tasks.

In any case, I agree that the increase is still negligible. I was just adding to the benefit list.

 

[heimbachae]

I just went with the 2.3 GHz model ... and saved $400 over the 2.6. I'd rather spend the money on RAM and an SSD.

Then again, I have a Mac Pro for more processor intensive work.

I thought I read somewhere that the RAM is soldered into the motherboard on these newer systems, so switching out isn't exactly going to be a cakewalk.

 

[the-wanderer]

I thought I read somewhere that the RAM is soldered into the motherboard on these newer systems, so switching out isn't exactly going to be a cakewalk.

another reason, i'd NEVER buy one.

 

[Riemann Zeta]

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

I've got the same philosophy--I always max out the CPU and GPU and opt for the 7200rpm HDD and 1680*1050 screen (highest res for the classical design). Then I can comfortably use the machine for several years, as the higher-end configurations tend to be "future proofed."
With the 2012 MBP, I ordered the 2.7 GHz CPU, as I intend to keep this machine for a long time (as Apple will discontinue the classic design for next year, making this the last Mac with Ethernet and user replaceable parts).

 

[emailsfh]

I've got the same philosophy--I always max out the CPU and GPU and opt for the 7200rpm HDD and 1680*1050 screen (highest res for the classical design). Then I can comfortably use the machine for several years, as the higher-end configurations tend to be "future proofed."
With the 2012 MBP, I ordered the 2.7 GHz CPU, as I intend to keep this machine for a long time (as Apple will discontinue the classic design for next year, making this the last Mac with Ethernet and user replaceable parts).

Ditto. I plan to do the same in a week or two. Not happy about the redesign and what it spells, and will be happy to have a 2012 MBP machine for a good 4-5 years with a few upgrades to keep it peppy somewhere in there. Also love the anti-glare high res screen option.

 

[HishamAkhtar]

No, it's an extra 2MB cache memory and 100MHz PER CORE so it's 400MHz. Still , does seem overpriced.

Good point.

 

[calaverasgrande]

This is the one thing about Apple I really do not like. An upgrade from 2.6 to 2.7ghz is not going to make any perceptual difference. There was a study done a while back that showed that for there to be a perceptual difference in computer usage there needs to be a 50% increase in computational power.
This articificial product segmentation insults the Mac buyers intelligence. You would be much better off with ram uprades or maxing out the SSD than paying $250 for a less than 5% performance bump.
That is so insignificant the amount of performance difference could easily be wiped out by having a couple extra applets running in the background. Or just one Flash based app!

 

[mykelala01]

This is the one thing about Apple I really do not like. An upgrade from 2.6 to 2.7ghz is not going to make any perceptual difference. There was a study done a while back that showed that for there to be a perceptual difference in computer usage there needs to be a 50% increase in computational power.
This articificial product segmentation insults the Mac buyers intelligence. You would be much better off with ram uprades or maxing out the SSD than paying $250 for a less than 5% performance bump.
That is so insignificant the amount of performance difference could easily be wiped out by having a couple extra applets running in the background. Or just one Flash based app!

I got to agreed on these. And computer bottleneck also included how good is you hardrive read and write speed. So you might considering that too. Even you have a fast processor when your HD is full of crap you be waiting some fraction of sec of computing too in the long run.

 

[MH01]

No, it's an extra 2MB cache memory and 100MHz PER CORE so it's 400MHz. Still , does seem overpriced.

I wish that was true.. Most software out there is not written to take advantage of multicores, so you will find only 1 or 2 cores being used.

Using your assumption, a 2.6 has 10400 mhz while a 2.7, 10800 mhz, still the same .1 jump

 

[vito]

I went with the 2.3 + 16GB, what do you guys think, opt for the 2.6? Benchmarks reveal very little between them all other than an 11% increase from 2.3 to 2.6?

Thanks,

 

[pandamonia]

The price of the 2.7ghz and 16GB of ram will most likely cost my upgrade costs in 2 years time if i go with the 2.6ghz and 8GB instead.

People who think 100mhz make a difference need to spend some time on a REAL computer and do some over clocking and testing.

100mhz is rubbish for the money.

AND NO!!! 100mhz on a quad core ISNT 400MHZ

 

[nickbarbs]

I went with the 2.3 + 16GB, what do you guys think, opt for the 2.6? Benchmarks reveal very little between them all other than an 11% increase from 2.3 to 2.6?

Thanks,

If you're taking a poll I just cancelled my 2.6/16 and reordered for 2.3/16 saving 420£.

That will buy me almost a galaxy s3 at 500£. For me I can live without the processor difference and ssd space. I have the money but the price differential did not add up for me and I went with a new order for base model + the ram upgrade.

I really think the i7 2.3 / 3.3 is plenty fast in most real world applications and for the others I can wait an extra 10 seconds.

This pc is mostly gpu limited and that's the same across all models.

 

[gditmeyer]

Question

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...

I see you already had a 2011 MBP. Can I ask what prompted you to upgrade already. I ask as I have a 2011 13" MBP and am contemplating upgrading to the 13" MBA with the new processor. However, I may hold out for the 13" MBPR. For me portability and power need to be balanced. The propensity for my current MBP to heat up and run the fan combined with having to lug it around have me wanting to upgrade. Do not want to upgrade now and find myself looking to go through it again next year.

Thanks.

----------

If you're taking a poll I just cancelled my 2.6/16 and reordered for 2.3/16 saving 420£.

That will buy me almost a galaxy s3 at 500£. For me I can live without the processor difference and ssd space. I have the money but the price differential did not add up for me and I went with a new order for base model + the ram upgrade.

I really think the i7 2.3 / 3.3 is plenty fast in most real world applications and for the others I can wait an extra 10 seconds.

This pc is mostly gpu limited and that's the same across all models.

I just wish the 2.3 had an option to upgrade the SSD drive to 512 as well.

 

[boomhower]

It's way overpriced and not worth it. Unless you just have money to blow to say you have the fastest it's a waste. You talking seconds in CPU intensive tasks for $250, nuts. If you have the cash and want the best more power to you, but for most users it's wasted money.

 

[icanboogie]

It's way overpriced and not worth it. Unless you just have money to blow to say you have the fastest it's a waste. You talking seconds in CPU intensive tasks for $250, nuts. If you have the cash and want the best more power to you, but for most users it's wasted money.

..if these seconds are something I have to wait longer in tasks I repeatingly do day in, day out, it might add up:

if I save one minute a day with a faster processor, it's already worth it by the end of the year.

 

[powerslave65]

I would have gladly taken the 2.6 but I did not have a laptop and needed one for a mobile editing job so the only AG MBP in store was the 2.7. Got tired of hauling my iMac all over the place and risking it breaking or getting stolen. Granted my iMac once it gets there flat out rocks! Hope the MBP can hang as well.

 

[Evil Spoonman]

I answered this question in detail here:

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15078648#post15078648


Note that desktop gaming can often be CPU limited for less demanding titles like Starcraft 2, Portal 2, and Diablo 3. However, on notebooks which have substantially slower graphics cards. Almost any title in recent years will be GPU limited. You can be sure the three games listed previously are GPU limited at any decent resolution on the GT 650M, and the IVB i7 is not sweating it.

Personally I wish the 256GB model could be built with a 2.6GHz chip. However, the 2.3GHz may be the most sensible deal from a cost/performance metric. It will probably be the way I go. Raw clocks isn't always a good way to compare CPUs, and an earlier post used them to do so. According to actual performance charts, it was off by a hefty margin in many cases.

Mountain Lion will reduce the need to use brute force CPU cycles for video encode. Quicktime is exposing an API for QuickSync in hardware. I would say that encoding will be equally fast on all of these chips with Mountain Lion and any application that takes advantage of QTKit and possibly AVFoundation in the future.

 

[bniu]

I see you already had a 2011 MBP. Can I ask what prompted you to upgrade already. I ask as I have a 2011 13" MBP and am contemplating upgrading to the 13" MBA with the new processor. However, I may hold out for the 13" MBPR. For me portability and power need to be balanced. The propensity for my current MBP to heat up and run the fan combined with having to lug it around have me wanting to upgrade. Do not want to upgrade now and find myself looking to go through it again next year.

Thanks.

----------



I just wish the 2.3 had an option to upgrade the SSD drive to 512 as well.

Uh, I'm still on my early 2011 17" MBP. I meant I sprang for the 2.3 ghz i7 quad last year over the 2.2 ghz i7 quad. The difference was worth it to me. I'm holding out on Retina until they become more common and when they will offer a 32GB ram option. Considering that the 2011 MBPs are capable of 32GB ram, my 17" MBP has a long life ahead of it. Its only limitation is USB 2.0 but I don't mind paying extra for Thunderbolt hard drives...