2015 MBP - 2.5Ghz, or 2.8Ghz?

[leman]

Should I get a 2.5Ghz or 2.8? Is there much difference?

The faster CPU is faster (duh). The difference is few percent, but if you actually need the extra performance, it is there.

Main question = under constant load, is the 2.8 more likely to get hotter and throttle down anyway? Making the 2.5 basically just as good performance for lower price?

No. The faster CPU is faster, especially under constant load (you are less likely to notice any difference under light loads).

2nd question = does the 2.8Ghz processor introduce any other problems compared to the 2.5Ghz that I'm not aware of?

Not likely. But its all individual. You could get a higher-tier CPU that throttles quicker etc., but the probability of this is low.
[doublepost=1520232056][/doublepost]

Looks like you're pretty close to 100 deg. C. [...] From what I've read, I would feel much more comfortable if the temps were down around 90 deg.

100C are perfect within spec with these CPUs. The way that cooling on these laptops is designed is that CPU hits max safe temp when running on full performance. Granted, the cooling on the 2016/2017 models is much better, but thats not really relevant to you.

Contrary to the popular opinion, there is no reason to avoid running these laptops hot. Yes, higher temps are bad for electronics and your components will wear and tear later. But its nor relevant, since you will replace your computer way before the expected lifespan of the CPU has been reached. And there are other parts that will break earlier.

 

[Fishrrman]

My opinion only:

Apple seems to have a LOUSY track record for reliability with MacBook Pros with discrete GPU's.

If I was going to get a new MBPro, I'd get one with an integrated GPU, and live with the slower speeds.

Again, my opinion only.

 

[Bravo3013]

My opinion only:

Apple seems to have a LOUSY track record for reliability with MacBook Pros with discrete GPU's.

If I was going to get a new MBPro, I'd get one with an integrated GPU, and live with the slower speeds.

Again, my opinion only.

Yes I agree. Huge problems with the 2011-2013 models. There are probably other models that are affected as well that I do not know of. I will definitely buy my next MBP with iGPU-only it. It costs less which you in return could use to buy an eGPU setup.

What is the point of having medium/low end AMD dGPU that drains the battery and have a higher probability of failing than any other component, when you can have much higher performance with an eGPU?

 

[Hoff]

Very much a "canned" response from the days when the 15" MBP ran extremely hot, equally some points may be of use to you:

Thanks Q6. Great points you raised.

Yes, higher temps are bad for electronics and your components will wear and tear later. But its nor relevant, since you will replace your computer way before the expected lifespan of the CPU has been reached.

I have heard that before. Excellent point. I tend to baby my gear (too much), but damn it these things are meant to be used. If I fry it, that will be a victory in a way. At least I will have gotten a lot done in the process. Hell, I should aim to try to fry the thing. (within the Apple Care period

If I was going to get a new MBPro, I'd get one with an integrated GPU, and live with the slower speeds.

Agree. That's what I'm going to do.


Anyway, after countless hours of research and wasted life, I'm now leaning towards just using a Win10 laptop with GTX 1070 for work, and a MBP for personal use. You know, surfing the web at Starbucks like what they're really meant for, apparently.

By the time I pay for a GTX 1070 eGPU, and mess around getting it to work on an old MBP, I might as well just buy a 1070 Win10 laptop for few hundred more. Win10 laptop's 1070 performance will be 20-30% better than a MBP with eGPU and 1070 anyway.

I wanted so badly to just fully switch from a PC to a Mac. But the performance just isn't there.
Apple has truly failed me.

(Before you criticize that statement, all I would have needed for this all to work was a GTX 1070 in a MBP. Shouldn't be too much to ask I wouldn't have thought...)

Sorry, just... very frustrated.

 

[Queen6]

Thanks Q6. Great points you raised.


Anyway, after countless hours of research and wasted life, I'm now leaning towards just using a Win10 laptop with GTX 1070 for work, and a MBP for personal use. You know, surfing the web at Starbucks like what they're really meant for, apparently.

By the time I pay for a GTX 1070 eGPU, and mess around getting it to work on an old MBP, I might as well just buy a 1070 Win10 laptop for few hundred more. Win10 laptop's 1070 performance will be 20-30% better than a MBP with eGPU and 1070 anyway.

I wanted so badly to just fully switch from a PC to a Mac. But the performance just isn't there.
Apple has truly failed me.

(Before you criticize that statement, all I would have needed for this all to work was a GTX 1070 in a MBP. Shouldn't be too much to ask I wouldn't have thought...)

Sorry, just... very frustrated.

Bottom line is portable Mac's just don't have powerful GPU's period. If you need more performance the only practical option is a Windows based notebook or a Mac desktop, one of several reasons why this notebook is not a Mac...

eGPU practical, yet equally impractical depending on your needs. I need the system to be portable, so lugging an eGPU around is not happening.

Q-6

 

[Bravo3013]

Thanks Q6. Great points you raised.



I have heard that before. Excellent point. I tend to baby my gear (too much), but damn it these things are meant to be used. If I fry it, that will be a victory in a way. At least I will have gotten a lot done in the process. Hell, I should aim to try to fry the thing. (within the Apple Care period



Agree. That's what I'm going to do.


Anyway, after countless hours of research and wasted life, I'm now leaning towards just using a Win10 laptop with GTX 1070 for work, and a MBP for personal use. You know, surfing the web at Starbucks like what they're really meant for, apparently.

By the time I pay for a GTX 1070 eGPU, and mess around getting it to work on an old MBP, I might as well just buy a 1070 Win10 laptop for few hundred more. Win10 laptop's 1070 performance will be 20-30% better than a MBP with eGPU and 1070 anyway.

I wanted so badly to just fully switch from a PC to a Mac. But the performance just isn't there.
Apple has truly failed me.

(Before you criticize that statement, all I would have needed for this all to work was a GTX 1070 in a MBP. Shouldn't be too much to ask I wouldn't have thought...)

Sorry, just... very frustrated.

A MBP with a GTX 1070 dGPU would be awesome! Too bad Apple focuses on OpenCL and will use AMD whenever they can

I hate the fact that you can get a windows laptop with the same specs as the default 15" MBP but with a GTX 1070 dGPU for 30-40% less! Yes that is over double graphics performance for 30% less!! The windows laptop will probably be made out of plastic and have less quality, but performance/spec wise it is hard to justify buying a MBP. (Dont hate me I love Mac, macOS, and would choose it over windows any day, but unless you really need macOS, its hard to justify the price, especially the 2017 lineup).

 

[Hoff]

As for the 2.8GHz CPU answers to that question undoubtedly lie here:

https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...al-throttling-and-overheating-github.1731178/

I'm probably a bit dumb, because I tried reading that thread a couple times and could not discern the answer.
Can you summarize what you meant Queen6?

Slight change in plans. I bought a 2.2Ghz model, since that's all they carry in store locally. Just to try it out, but i can return it and order a higher spec version online. Decided NOT to do photo rendering on it, most likely. Have a laptop with GTX 1070 card that is much faster for that. (Yes, I had to buy TWO laptops to do what I want...) So this MBP is now mainly for personal use, which the 2.2Ghz seems fine for (very snappy actually).

But, as I'm not happy with the direction the MBP's are going, this might be the last MBP I buy. So it may pay to upspec it a bit for longevity. She is a beauty : )

It's probably worth the $100 Jump from 2.2 to 2.5. Is it worth the extra $200 jump from 2.5 to 2.8? Any thoughts or advice?

 

[Queen6]

I'm probably a bit dumb, because I tried reading that thread a couple times and could not discern the answer.
Can you summarize what you meant Queen6?

Slight change in plans. I bought a 2.2Ghz model, since that's all they carry in store locally. Just to try it out, but i can return it and order a higher spec version online. Decided NOT to do photo rendering on it, most likely. Have a laptop with GTX 1070 card that is much faster for that. (Yes, I had to buy TWO laptops to do what I want...) So this MBP is now mainly for personal use, which the 2.2Ghz seems fine for (very snappy actually).

But, as I'm not happy with the direction the MBP's are going, this might be the last MBP I buy. So it may pay to upspec it a bit for longevity. She is a beauty : )

It's probably worth the $100 Jump from 2.2 to 2.5. Is it worth the extra $200 jump from 2.5 to 2.8? Any thoughts or advice?

You need to look at similar models, as the MBP can and does throttle. Pointless to have faster & hotter silicon if the cooling system is not adequate.

Apple's obsession with the thinnest possible device's has it's negatives one being the very limited thermal headroom. Once the CPU/GPU reach T-junction clock frequencies can only rollback. In some instance a CPU with a lower base frequency can out perform one with a higher frequency as it can hold full Turbo Boost, while a hotter chip may throttle back down to it's base frequency or lower.

Same applies to the Windows notebook, more so with the the considerable performance the GTX 1070 offers combined with a i7 quad core CPU. On the Windows side though there are more tools on offer to get the most out of the hardware and reduce the thermals.

Q-6

 

[_Kiki_]

A MBP with a GTX 1070 dGPU would be awesome! Too bad Apple focuses on OpenCL and will use AMD whenever they can

I hate the fact that you can get a windows laptop with the same specs as the default 15" MBP but with a GTX 1070 dGPU for 30-40% less! Yes that is over double graphics performance for 30% less!! The windows laptop will probably be made out of plastic and have less quality, but performance/spec wise it is hard to justify buying a MBP. (Dont hate me I love Mac, macOS, and would choose it over windows any day, but unless you really need macOS, its hard to justify the price, especially the 2017 lineup).

Laptop PC 15.6" with i7 and GTX 1070 you can buy for almost half price comparing to MBP 15 2017

 

[Hoff]

Laptop PC 15.6" with i7 and GTX 1070 you can buy for almost half price comparing to MBP 15 2017

Yep. That's exactly what I did. i7 7700hq and GTX 1070. Half the price, and 3x the rendering speed.

(Still buying a Mac for personal use, since I really can't stand Windows)
[doublepost=1521221620][/doublepost]

Apple's obsession with the thinnest possible device's has it's negatives one being the very limited thermal headroom. Once the CPU/GPU reach T-junction clock frequencies can only rollback. In some instance a CPU with a lower base frequency can out perform one with a higher frequency as it can hold full Turbo Boost, while a hotter chip may throttle back down to it's base frequency or lower.

I see what you mean now. I read that post over again, and found this comment, about someone else's CPU test (many years ago now):

Your results also confirmed my suspicion about the 2.6 GHz rMBP in that for full load it's not worth it. It hits the same max freq (3.2-3.3 GHz) as the 2.3 GHz that I've been testing (see my graphs) .. in fact, the 2.3 GHz that I tested spent more time at 3.3 GHz in the x264 test that the 2.6 GHz rMBP from your tests.

That was a 2013 MBP model, but yeah, I really see your point. The aluminum body, super sleek design seems does not allow the cooling to take full advantage of that high level hardware. The Windows machines generally look fugly, but they accommodate much better cooling and thus performance (for cheaper).

No wonder there's no MBP with GTX 1070.

I see now that high performance simply doesn't fit Mac's ethos of sleek and sexy.
[doublepost=1521221819][/doublepost]----

But Queen6, what about what Darmok N Jalad said at the beginning:

The CPUs in the 2.5 and 2.8 are the i7-4870HQ and the i7-4980HQ, respectively. Both are 4-core/8-thread 47W CPUs, so they would require the same cooling (so one shouldn't run any warmer than the other). According to Intel, the 4870HQ boosts to 3.70GHz, while the 4980HQ boosts to 4.00GHz.

By that account the 2.8 should have greater performance than the 2.5.

Unfortunately that other forum post didn't compare these 2.5 and 2.8 Ghz processors. Only earlier version ones, in earlier version MacBooks.

 

[Queen6]

I see what you mean now. I read that post over again, and found this comment, about someone else's CPU test (many years ago now):

That was a 2013 MBP model, but yeah, I really see your point. The aluminum body, super sleek design seems does not allow the cooling to take full advantage of that high level hardware. The Windows machines generally look fugly, but they accommodate much better cooling and thus performance (for cheaper).

No wonder there's no MBP with GTX 1070.

I see now that high performance simply doesn't fit Mac's ethos of sleek and sexy.

Currently the MBP is both thermally and power limited to run the latest high power hardware nor has it ever really been so. My own Windows heavy lifter (7700HQ, 32Gb, 1070 GTX 3 x drive bays) has a 230W power supply to ensure performance never drops off, coupled with a cooling system that is adequate for the notebooks TDP to avoid any throttling, equally it's also significantly larger.

We all like sleek and sexy designs, however once they negatively impact performance & usability my interest wains. I can do more, be more productive, nor do I care so deeply about the OS only requiring security & stability and right now Windows is delivering while macOS struggles to remain stable for more than 4-6 days when pushed on projects while I'm in the field.

Only Mac's I'd personally consider are the Air (maybe TN panel in 2018 ) and the iMac Pro, although for the same price I could source a PC that's better suited, putting the $$$$ more where I want and guaranteed not to throttle at full bore regardless of load

Q-6

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

By that account the 2.8 should have greater performance than the 2.5.

The higher-spec chip is a better bin. It will perform better by boosting to higher clocks. The way CPU makers sell more of their product is by making the CPUs that test the best their highest tier. The ones that don't test as well become the lower models. It's not that one is defective--it's just that some are better than others.

 

[Queen6]

But Queen6, what about what Darmok N Jalad said at the beginning:

By that account the 2.8 should have greater performance than the 2.5.

It will as long as the chip does not reach T-junction and throttle, realistically another 300Hz is not going to make a significant difference, personally I'd opt for the 2.5GHz, although with the usage your now outlining the 2.2GHz will be plenty fast enough.

Problem is when your at the very limit thermally, throttling is likely to occur sooner rather than later. The dust build up in the heat-syncs alone can tip the balance alone.

Q-6