The 2.7G/512G would be my choice as you might find the larger SSD to be faster than the smaller one and that will probably be more of a benefit than the 0.2G extra CPU power.
Look at this way: Do you want DOUBLE the SSD or 7% more CPU?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2.7 i7 vs. 2.9 i7
- Thread starter Muslin18
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The 2.7G/512G would be my choice as you might find the larger SSD to be faster than the smaller one and that will probably be more of a benefit than the 0.2G extra CPU power.
Look at this way: Do you want DOUBLE the SSD or 7% more CPU?
If they have the same L3 and both are quad core, most apps won't be optimized or capable of maxing all 4 cores out at once or taxing the CPU to the limits.
The next major improvement won't be hardware...it will be software/apps that can split the tasks efficiently between all 4 cores, meaning you will get a SIGNIFICANT boost compared to anything you can do now.
The next major improvement won't be hardware...it will be software/apps that can split the tasks efficiently between all 4 cores, meaning you will get a SIGNIFICANT boost compared to anything you can do now.
If you're running simulations, I'd say a CPU upgrade is worth it.
I compile stuff all the time so gaining a few seconds here or there is really great because at the end of the week it might end up being a couple of hours!
I compile stuff all the time so gaining a few seconds here or there is really great because at the end of the week it might end up being a couple of hours!
512GB without a doubt, you honestly won't feel too much of a difference between 2.7 vs 2.9... the extra storage will be a huge benefit going forward, and as more and more things require more storage these days the extra space will be very beneficial in the long run for you... I personally recommend 512GB as a minimum these days.... 256GB is pushing it IMO.
512 GB imho. You'll want the extra storage for sure! I went with 2.7 and even thought it just arrived. I'm happy with it so far.
Remember storage evaporates anyway, what with updates and added programs.
Good luck. Let us know what you decide.
Remember storage evaporates anyway, what with updates and added programs.
Good luck. Let us know what you decide.
Hey, I didn't want to start a new thread and since we're talking CPU speeds I hope I'm not going too off topic.
I'm just curious if anyone has any insight as to why the base MBP with touch bar has only a very marginal beating over the base non touch bar version in Geekbench? Despite being nearly a full 1ghz faster, the score is only a few hundred points higher. At the moment I'm inclinded to buy the non touch bar one but wondering if anyone could chime in?
I'm just curious if anyone has any insight as to why the base MBP with touch bar has only a very marginal beating over the base non touch bar version in Geekbench? Despite being nearly a full 1ghz faster, the score is only a few hundred points higher. At the moment I'm inclinded to buy the non touch bar one but wondering if anyone could chime in?
Is that factored in to the geekbench 4 scores? I've only perused geekbench 3 score so far.
I don't know. I was providing a possible explanation for the small difference in scores you mentioned.
Oh OK. Yeah, I misunderstood you.
[doublepost=1483342685][/doublepost]http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core-i5-6360U-vs-Intel-Core-i5-6267U
Mildly interesting comparison if anyone cares about such things.
The 15W processor in non-TB 13" can turbo up to the level of the 28W processor in TB 13". That means if you do something in burst, they would be the same. The difference kicks in only when you do something computational intensive and prolonged, or when the GPU is in use.
I originally had the 2.6 .. but I had to replace the machine and opted for the 2.7 with all the level 3 cache talk on the forums. I notice zero performance increase in anything I do. Literally, every single thing I did while comparing both machines was nearly identical with each machine taking turns "winning" at the various tests.
Knowing what I know now, I would have went with the 2.6, let alone the 2.9.
Knowing what I know now, I would have went with the 2.6, let alone the 2.9.
pfff the l3 cache thing is irrelevant unless you're doing some super obscure stuff
i mean sure it's nice to have why not
but not as nice as a $150 meal out with your girl
i got 2.6 and maxed everything else out. who give gives a **** about CPU. they don't matter anymore. just get any old i7 quad if you're doing studio work, any old i5 dual core if you're doing office work, and call it a day
low TDP and SSD speed is where it's at in 2017
cool quiet super fast
i mean sure it's nice to have why not
but not as nice as a $150 meal out with your girl
i got 2.6 and maxed everything else out. who give gives a **** about CPU. they don't matter anymore. just get any old i7 quad if you're doing studio work, any old i5 dual core if you're doing office work, and call it a day
low TDP and SSD speed is where it's at in 2017
cool quiet super fast
2.7 vs 2.9 probably won't make much difference. I did however notice that a 5K iMac with 4.0 GHz processor is faster than my 2016 MBP. That's just how it goes with a desktop processor though. But it has to be a big difference like that before you notice speed differences.
CPU's are not going to change that much the coming years. Your storage use is far more likely to be changing in the coming your so if you want to do any future proofing then look at storage and GPU (mem is already at the max 16GB with the 15" versions).
Yeah that makes sense. I wasn't sure if the marginal improvements were worth the extra 300 bucks but in real life I tried both machines in the shop and the 2.9ghz model was wayyyyy snappier. I think it was worth the extra.