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

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by WillMak, Mar 1, 2011.

  1. WillMak macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    #1
  2. frunk macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    #2
    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?!
     
  3. Radoo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Location:
    Europe
    #3
    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.
     
  4. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #4
    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.
     
  5. frunk macrumors member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2011
    #5
    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?
     
  6. axu539 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    #6
    CS5 probably can't be (correct me if I'm wrong), but considering Adobe is working on CS6 already, multithread support may be improved.
     
  7. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
    #7
    I wouldn't worry about it. The performance difference is pretty small, and the 2.0 is by no means a slouch.
     
  8. WillMak thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    #8
    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?
     
  9. mac jones, Mar 2, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2011

    mac jones macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2006
    #9
    those scores seem to say that the quad is faster. I don't see where the dual is faster. Am i missing it?
     
  10. HBOC macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    SLC
    #10
    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..
     
  11. thunng8 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    #11
    The the OP again. There are a few benchmarks where the i7 2.7Ghz dual core is faster the the Quad 2.0 15"
     
  12. aznguyen316 macrumors 68020

    aznguyen316

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #12
    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.
     
  13. WillMak thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2005
    #13
    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...?
     
  14. aznguyen316 macrumors 68020

    aznguyen316

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #14
    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.
     
  15. Macinsince07 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2011
    #15
    ...

    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"
     
  16. Buck987 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    #16
    Yes in the pro line
     
  17. aznguyen316 macrumors 68020

    aznguyen316

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #17
    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.
     
  18. acedickson macrumors 6502a

    acedickson

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Location:
    ATL
    #18
    Hi-Res is automatic but AG is not, $50 option.
     

Share This Page