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

2011 i7 vs MBP Quad Core i7 vs 2.5GHz quad-core Intel Core i7

A

arealtvguy

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 29, 2010
4
0
I am considering purchasing the new MBP with the 2.5 quad core i7. Are there REAL significant differences?

At present I have a late 2011 MBP 17" with a 1/2 gig ssd and 16 gig of ram.
Does it make sense to buy the new 15" mbp?
 
The newer CPUs are quite a bit faster, even at the same clock speeds. You'll also get better battery life and the retina screen. I'd go for it unless you really need the 17" display.
 
I have an early 2011 MBP 15" (2.2 i7/8GB RAM/250GB SSD), and it is still extremely quick, especially after the SSD upgrade.

I'd say it only makes sense to upgrade if you absolutely need the processing power or if you just want a thinner and lighter laptop with a retina display.

Plus, even though you have the potential GPU failure on your model, the repair program goes until Feb. 2016, and we'll be close to a Skylake model by then.
 
The 15" rMBP is undoubtedly a better computer in many regards, but its not that much better that I would consider it a no-brainer upgrade; unless of course you need the retina screen or the increased mobility.

If you are content with your current machine, I'd rather wait until it stops fulfilling your needs (or breaks down).
 
arealtvguy said:
I am considering purchasing the new MBP with the 2.5 quad core i7. Are there REAL significant differences?

At present I have a late 2011 MBP 17" with a 1/2 gig ssd and 16 gig of ram.
Does it make sense to buy the new 15" mbp?
Click to expand...

If weight is an issue for you, yes. There aren't significant performance differences comparing to your current Mac. Maybe a 30% improvement on Geekbench, at best, which is nothing when making a decision to upgrade. Only looking on bechmarks, I'd only upgrade to get twice the performance.

Oh, I forgot the Discretegate, which is a time bomb. Maybe you should try selling your 2011 MBP, then buy a rMBP.
 
The performance difference is noticeable, and will be realized in heavy load applications, but for run of the mill tasks they will likely be even(i.e. Web browsing, word processing etc..). I like my retina display but that wouldn't be a dealmaker/breaker. The 15" rMBP will get better battery life, and is lighter as others have mentioned. Also the cooling has been upgraded by Apple substantially, and is less likely to experience GPU related issues.
 
I'm almost in the same boat. I have an early 2011 17" MBP also with 500GB SSD and 16GB ram.

I, though, won't upgrade any time soon.

Unless you render videos the performance difference will not really be noticeable. The display... well... I'm used to and kinda need the Full HD display of the 17" MBP. The rMBPs default resolution just doesn't cut it space-wise.
If you scale it the quality takes a hit and things border on being too small.

In addition to that these two machines are just too similar.
Both got DDR3 memory. The GPUs are not sooo different performance-wise. Both can drive 4k displays.

Which is why I personally am waiting for a MBP with:
  • DDR4 (as it is a lot faster than DDR3)
  • a native 4k display so that it can render 1080/1200p at 2x natively (there alrdy are 4k panels of that size... so it's only a matter of time until Apple incl. one
  • Thunderbolt 3 with 5k support. Once that comes out, I think it is a pretty safe bet Apple will release a standalone 5k Thunderbolt display!


Which I hope will be realized with Skylake... or with Cannon lake...
 
TheralSadurns said:
I'm almost in the same boat. I have an early 2011 17" MBP also with 500GB SSD and 16GB ram.

I, though, won't upgrade any time soon.

Unless you render videos the performance difference will not really be noticeable. The display... well... I'm used to and kinda need the Full HD display of the 17" MBP. The rMBPs default resolution just doesn't cut it space-wise.
If you scale it the quality takes a hit and things border on being too small.

In addition to that these two machines are just too similar.
Both got DDR3 memory. The GPUs are not sooo different performance-wise. Both can drive 4k displays.

Which is why I personally am waiting for a MBP with:
  • DDR4 (as it is a lot faster than DDR3)
  • a native 4k display so that it can render 1080/1200p at 2x natively (there alrdy are 4k panels of that size... so it's only a matter of time until Apple incl. one
  • Thunderbolt 3 with 5k support. Once that comes out, I think it is a pretty safe bet Apple will release a standalone 5k Thunderbolt display!


Which I hope will be realized with Skylake... or with Cannon lake...
Click to expand...

Actually, the 750M is way faster and more powerful than the pathetic 6750M/6770M in the 2011 MBPs. Even the 650M outperformed it significantly.
 
As above it's about 25% in pure CPU performance. The biggest performance increase is in the PCIe SSD. Against an upgraded 2011 with 16GB and a decent SSD there's not a lot in it. In my case the late-2013 2.3GHz feels little quicker in normal usage for me than the late-2011 2.2GHz that got replaced under AppleCare.

Outside of CPU intensive tasks like video transcoding I don't notice the faster hardware. On balance given the cost it's not worth it IMO just for a minor performance bump. I'd be happily still using my 2011 had it not kept breaking!

If you've got a requirement that's only met by a new machines like 4K@60Hz then crack on.

----------
yjchua95 said:
Actually, the 750M is way faster and more powerful than the pathetic 6750M/6770M in the 2011 MBPs. Even the 650M outperformed it significantly.
Click to expand...

Even the Iris Pro gives the AMD a kicking. The reliability of the chip is pathetic, the performance was fine in 2011. The 6490 was a bit weedy in the low end early 15" machines, but that got resolved with the late-2011.
 
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