Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2.7 dual i7 13" faster than 2.0 quad i7 15"?

I could be wrong, but Turbo Boost 2 boosts the 13' i7 to 3.4Ghz Single core while the Quad Core only goes to 2.9Ghz single core. The tests performed are single core tasks, so the 13' was faster in single core. The quad core will only be faster in Multi-Core optimized applications like Photoshop CS5


EDIT: WTF the i7 performed better in Photoshop CS5?!
 
Well, actually, a core i5 with more Mhz will beat up any Core i7 with significant lesser frequency. It depends if the application is intensive multi-threaded or single-threaded.


In any way, the future is multi-threading, so go for the new i7.
 
Yeah, single-threaded stuff will be slower on the 2.0 quad than the 2.7 dual, just due to frequency. However if you look at the same two CPUs in the Handbrake comparison, the quad destroys the dual core.
 
Sorry to thread jack, but I will be doing A LOT of PS5 work with my new MBP. MacWorld shows CS5 as better on the 13" machine. Will I be better off going the dual core way, or can PS CS5 be configured to use all of my cores?
 
frunk said:
Sorry to thread jack, but I will be doing A LOT of PS5 work with my new MBP. MacWorld shows CS5 as better on the 13" machine. Will I be better off going the dual core way, or can PS CS5 be configured to use all of my cores?
Click to expand...

CS5 probably can't be (correct me if I'm wrong), but considering Adobe is working on CS6 already, multithread support may be improved.
 
frunk said:
Sorry to thread jack, but I will be doing A LOT of PS5 work with my new MBP. MacWorld shows CS5 as better on the 13" machine. Will I be better off going the dual core way, or can PS CS5 be configured to use all of my cores?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about it. The performance difference is pretty small, and the 2.0 is by no means a slouch.
 
Thanks everyone

So just to verify, the reason why the 13 dual core is faster than a 15 quad core is because of certain programs being written for single core, therefore the dual core being able to dialup to 3.4 ghz vs the quad's boost of 2.9 ghz.

So now the question is...are all programs are currently being designed to be multi-core? And if a program is written to be dual core instead of quad core....will the 13 still beat the quad 2.0 15?
 
those scores seem to say that the quad is faster. I don't see where the dual is faster. Am i missing it?
 
Last edited:
mac jones said:
those scores seem to say that the quad is faster. I don't see where the dual is faster. Am i missing it?
Click to expand...

I must be missing something to. The quad i7 2.2 15" (which I have) was pretty much the same as the i7 17" that was the fastest at everything. Nowhere did I see the 13" MacBook finish first..
 
HBOC said:
I must be missing something to. The quad i7 2.2 15" (which I have) was pretty much the same as the i7 17" that was the fastest at everything. Nowhere did I see the 13" MacBook finish first..
Click to expand...

The the OP again. There are a few benchmarks where the i7 2.7Ghz dual core is faster the the Quad 2.0 15"
 
WillMak said:
Thanks everyone

So just to verify, the reason why the 13 dual core is faster than a 15 quad core is because of certain programs being written for single core, therefore the dual core being able to dialup to 3.4 ghz vs the quad's boost of 2.9 ghz.

So now the question is...are all programs are currently being designed to be multi-core? And if a program is written to be dual core instead of quad core....will the 13 still beat the quad 2.0 15?
Click to expand...

Yes if a program is designed to only take dual core (as many still are like this) then the i7 dual core should perform better than the lower clocked quad. The i7 dual can turbo both cores up to 3.2 I believe. That's pretty nice as opped to the quad boosting 2 cores up to 2.6. A lot of things still are not utilizing quads. Benchmarks will of course use all the hyperthreading available but it's not always indicative of the real world performance of many applications that are still dual core based. Even many games are not utilizing quads to their fullest. A quick look at WoW and SC2 benchmarks show from 1 core to 2 core is a huge jump, but from 2, 3, or 4 cores there is barely a dent in FPS increase. It then ends up being which is higher clocked.
 
aznguyen316 said:
Yes if a program is designed to only take dual core (as many still are like this) then the i7 dual core should perform better than the lower clocked quad. The i7 dual can turbo both cores up to 3.2 I believe. That's pretty nice as opped to the quad boosting 2 cores up to 2.6. A lot of things still are not utilizing quads. Benchmarks will of course use all the hyperthreading available but it's not always indicative of the real world performance of many applications that are still dual core based.
Click to expand...

So if one were buying a computer today for the next 3-4 years...would it be better to go with a dual or quad? Naturally I would assume quad, but I read a lot about how programming for 4 cores is a hassle to a lot of developers who would rather just stick to programming for dual. If so, it seems that there is no point to future proof with a 2.0 quad since programs will still be written for dual cores for the next few years...?
 
WillMak said:
So if one were buying a computer today for the next 3-4 years...would it be better to go with a dual or quad? Naturally I would assume quad, but I read a lot about how programming for 4 cores is a hassle to a lot of developers who would rather just stick to programming for dual. If so, it seems that there is no point to future proof with a 2.0 quad since programs will still be written for dual cores for the next few years...?
Click to expand...

I would say a quad is more future proof than a dual cores. If turbo boost was not available, I would say otherwise. But the dual core turbo boosting in these quads are pretty good! The 2630qm can boost two cores up to around 2.7 ish which isn't bad.
 
...

Just wondering im looking to get a 2011 13" had a few questions about the processor...does the 2.7 ghz dual core i7 have the turbo boost 2.0...and also is the high resolution and anti glare only available on the 15" and 17"
 
Macinsince07 said:
Just wondering im looking to get a 2011 13" had a few questions about the processor...does the 2.7 ghz dual core i7 have the turbo boost 2.0...and also is the high resolution and anti glare only available on the 15" and 17"
Click to expand...

Apple advertises that yes it does have Turbo 2.0, so dual core is like 3.2Ghz and single core boost is 3.3Ghz. and yes only 15" has high res and AG option while 17" is already higher rez option and I believe AG is automatic? At least from the ones I've seen in store. SOmeone correct me if I'm wrong.
 
aznguyen316 said:
Apple advertises that yes it does have Turbo 2.0, so dual core is like 3.2Ghz and single core boost is 3.3Ghz. and yes only 15" has high res and AG option while 17" is already higher rez option and I believe AG is automatic? At least from the ones I've seen in store. SOmeone correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Hi-Res is automatic but AG is not, $50 option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back