2.9 GHz upgrade

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by macbook123, Nov 12, 2016.

  1. macbook123 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    #1
    Considering it. Any other advantages or disadvantages over the 2.7 GHz apart from the 7% or so speed increase?
     
  2. shadow82x macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2012
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #2
    There is also 8mb of L3 cache compared to the 6mb on the 2.6ghz (6700HQ) model.
     
  3. PaulWog Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    #3
    edit - misread Apple's website

    Yes the increased cache is definitely more useful than the increased GHz.
     
  4. macbook123 thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    #4
    But the 2.7 GHz one has the same cache, right?
     
  5. PaulWog Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    #5
    Yes the 2.7GHz one has 8MB cache. That cache improvement may be useful for certain things beyond what a GHz increase can provide. The main purpose of going up to the 2.9GHz is to get the 0.2GHz increase. The increase in processing capabilities will be about 7% as you stated between 2.7 & 2.9.
     
  6. PowerUser macrumors newbie

    PowerUser

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2016
    #6
    You likely would never know the difference between the 2.7 and 2.9 even if you're using high end applications like After Effects, FCP, games, etc. The graphics card upgrade and a larger hard drive are far more important. However, if you just want everything, go for it (I did).
     
  7. monkeydax macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2012
    #7
    How significant is this then?
     
  8. terraphantm macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    #8
    Roughly speaking, it tends to be equivalent to having an extra 100-200MHz.
     
  9. brynsmith23 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2007
    Location:
    Australia/NZ
    #9
    So I'm looking at an overall increase of 400-500MHz on a 2.9GHz over a 2.6GHz:)
     
  10. macbook123 thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    #10
    O
    Ok thanks. The 500 MB and 1TB drives are equally fast though, right?
     
  11. PaulWog Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    #11
    Theoretically they are equally as fast.

    When you fill up an SSD, it gets slower. Usually you want to leave at least 10% of the drive empty. I'm not sure how the new Apple SSD's behave, or generally how newer SSD's handle being filled up.
     
  12. Low country macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2016
    Location:
    South Carolina
    #12
    I too went all in (almost) and ordered 2.9, 460GPU, 1TB...I may never need it but at least with this build there is no looking back and wondering "what if?" This should suit me well for 5 years
     
  13. Wildkraut macrumors 6502a

    Wildkraut

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2015
    Location:
    Germany
    #13
    I skipped 1TB, because I still have 390gb freespace of 500gb on my current iMac.
    Most of my files are stored on my custom built FreeBSD server, with 10TB zfs raidz3.
     
  14. Patrick-Photo macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2012
    #14
    I'm going for the 2.7gHz and Radeon Pro 460. The extra vram (and 40% faster gpu) is a better deal than the 0.2gHz I would get for another €203,-.

    Currently I'm working on a 2.2gHz i7 from 2011 coupled with 16gb ram and a 6750M 512MB card. This gets most of my work done with ease, now that I'm getting in to video-editting too I'm going for the extra GPU acceleration. For photo-editing my current CPU would suffice (24mp Fujifilm RAW files).
     
  15. SoyCapitanSoyCapitan macrumors 601

    SoyCapitanSoyCapitan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2015
    Location:
    SELL $BTC
    #15
    Frankly the real world increase you get from base model to specced out model isn't worth the cost on a laptop because when you push the system hard it will throttle with the higher spec parts. Benchmarks only last a minute and don't reflect this. We can't get around this fact because throttling is part of the hardware design in Intel and AMD chips (and SSD controllers too).
     

Share This Page