2.6ghz vs. 2.7ghz on next gen MBP - is there a big difference?

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

  1. stazi macrumors newbie

    Apr 1, 2010
    Hi guys - long time lurker :)

    Is there a noticeable difference between the two chips? I would like something relatively future-proof (upgrade mac every 3 years). I'm not a technical expert so in my mind paying for a '4% upgrade' is odd. Then again I'm sure that it's not really 4% but some other big difference...?

  2. mobilebuddha macrumors regular

    Jan 31, 2008
    unless you got $ to burn, skip that upgrade. you won't be able to tell the difference.
  3. PAPO macrumors 6502

    Aug 24, 2009
    for me the biggest differance COULD be cache, if it's got a larger cache I'll pay the extra money 'cause I intend on keeping it for as long as possible and more cache will make more difference than 100Mhz
  4. vladzaharia macrumors regular

    Jul 5, 2010
    That's not how the caches work. Keeping it longer would be affected by RAM far more than the L2/3/4 caches. Those are for very low level operations and they don't offer much space for storage.
  5. jcpb macrumors 6502a

    Jun 5, 2012
    100MHz faster base speed, 100MHz faster top turbo speeds, 8MB shared L3 cache.

    Is the 2.7 worth the $190 over the 2.6? Difficult question. That has to do with what you're using the new MBP for.
  6. PAPO macrumors 6502

    Aug 24, 2009
    I know that, but it still makes a difference, 'cause onboard cache is the fastest storage the CPU has access too, when that's full everything else goes to ram, than after that things go to mass storage (but that's generally long term these days given 8GB of ram is pretty hard to fill day to day)

    but on a side note, I think people underestimate the effect clock can have, I have a gaming PC with a 3.06Ghz i7 950 and I was blown away by the improvement 600Mhz gave me, even though I've NEVER hit more than 50% CPU load prior to over-clocking. yes this is only 100Mhz but if your doing something intensive for long enough the time you save will add up
  7. vladzaharia macrumors regular

    Jul 5, 2010
    No, that's still not how things work. Please, take a course on computer hardware and low-level systems before you make a comment like that.

    That's not how the L2/3/4 caches are used by the system. They're used, and cleared, automatically while a program is running, all the time. Over and over again. They aren't at all similar to RAM or HD storage, which is used for more long-term storage. It's short-term, volatile storage that's used constantly. An increase will help, but not for any of the reasons you stated. It will allow programs to store more and more closer to the CPU, sure, but it'll still be used in the same way as before, and long-term storage RAM storage is what will keep your computer feeling snappy over long periods of time, not the caches.
  8. PAPO macrumors 6502

    Aug 24, 2009
    see you just agreed with me, it will make the computer run better, I don't particularly care how, I know how a computer works, I can build one quite easily, but I don't need to know exactly how all the sub components work (a CPU is a whole component, the cache is on the CPU hence "sub component" wether it's a real term or not).
  9. macduke macrumors G3


    Jun 27, 2007
    Central U.S.
    I agree that it's better too but I thought I read somewhere that it's mainly useful for more scientific operations on large numbers and such? So if that's your thing, then great. But you might research that bit. I remember doing something similar when trying to decide between the 2.2 and 2.3 on the early 2011 models. One had 6MB the other 8MB of L3 but honestly I think L3 doesn't make as big a deal as L2 like back in the Pentium 2/3 days since L3 is further out. I think L3 was added late P3 or early P4? Moving from 128KB L2 to 512KB L2 was useful. Main difference between Celeron and Pentium later on (also pipe length I think, and bus speeds). Hope I'm remembering all that right seems so long ago now!!
  10. MisterSensitive macrumors regular

    Mar 22, 2012
    New processors support USB 3.0. That's a bigger deal than modest performance boost.
  11. NovemberWhiskey macrumors 68030


    May 18, 2009
    Personally I would say no. I remember getting the 3.06 Duo Core in my 2009 MBP for $200 more than the base 2.8 (I think) and I regret spending that money on something that I never notice. If anything I think my MBP might run a little warmer (not sure, someone correct me if I'm wrong).

    The biggest difference for me was my SSD, and I would have said spend money on that instead. But it's standard now. Still...spend money upgrading other things.
  12. echo44 macrumors 6502

    Jan 21, 2008
    ok so here are the differences from the intel web site

    I am wondering if anyone out there with more deep knowledge
    can translate this into real world differences. Looking for more than
    just someones guess. anywhere to find benchmarks for these chips?
  13. ExcitedByNoise macrumors newbie

    Jun 28, 2010
  14. vladzaharia macrumors regular

    Jul 5, 2010
    Except that, as macduke posted, it runs "better" in ways that you won't even realize. Seriously, I'm not agreeing with you. I don't see how you can even slightly say that I'm agreeing with you. I'm telling you that what you're saying is complete bull, and that you're pulling it out of your ass. That's the opposite of "agreeing".

    tl;dr: Figure out what the hell it does before trying to spew out benefits about it.

Share This Page