2017 MBP processor options

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Ollifi, Jun 21, 2017.

  1. Ollifi macrumors regular

    Jun 30, 2013
    Is there yet any tests which would compare the processor options (3.1 vs 3.3 vs 3.5) of the 2017 MBP with Touch Bar? I don't mean those processors generally, but tested on these particular machines. Just considering if a processor update is worth the money or if the 3.1 is enough.
  2. keysofanxiety macrumors G3


    Nov 23, 2011
    3.1GHz i5 is the i5-7267U.
    3.3GHz i5 is the i5-7287U.
    3.5GHz i7 is the i7-7567U.

    Can't find many performance benchmarks as they're all fairly new, though those are the model identifiers for your future reference.

    The i7 is an absolute beast though, I was surprised to see this score so high. The single core performance slays: https://cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-7567U+@+3.50GHz&id=2990

    What will you be using your Mac for? To be honest the base config has a pretty perfect balance of hardware performance and battery life. They're still hugely capable machines. If I was to upgrade anything it'd probably be to double the storage to 512GB.
  3. New_Mac_Smell macrumors 68000


    Oct 17, 2016
    Generally speaking. the i7 in the dual core is the same as the i5, just labeled as i7.

    3.1ghz is more than enough for 95% of users. If you can easily afford it, it's always worth while getting the best you can. But the value/performance is tiny. On raw clock speed the 3.5ghz i7 is around 6% faster than the 3.3ghz i5, yet costs $200 more. Everything else on the processor is the same, only the 200mhz difference (And subsequent higher boost). It's a little better going from the 3.1ghz to the 3.5ghz, representing a 12% increase for $300. But again the 3.1ghz is enough for 95% of your needs, the speed increase in CPU is only going to affect things like rendering times or data analysis. In an ideal world that 10% increase for $300 would net 6 minutes faster rendering over an hour, but it doesn't work like that, you'd probably get around 2 minutes. So if $300 for 2 minutes is worth it to you, then yes it's of value. Otherwise you could double the SSD storage size or double the memory, for less which is far more important if you could only choose one.

    Benchmarks don't really mean anything other than peak operating capacity, and are not representative of sustained operations. There's also the credible argument that a higher clock speed runs hotter, so is unable to sustain boosted scores for as long.

    So in short, unless your job requires a faster CPU, and if it did then you'd already know, it's not considered a worthwhile upgrade if you're considering value.
  4. Ollifi thread starter macrumors regular

    Jun 30, 2013
    Thanks for the replies! After reading them I'm thinking the 3.1 ghz will be totally fine for my purposes. Currently I've a MBA mid-2013 and it has difficulties with some tasks, like: converting video from format to another, running a virtual machine, editing photos/video, having a large number of Chrome tabs open (like 20). 4k videos won't play at all. Would that kind of tasks be easier with the 2017 MBP? I'd especially like to have a fluent experience editing photos without any lag. I'm thinking upgrading the RAM to 16 GB... what do you say? Perhaps SSD upgrade isn't worth the money - I think it's not good to keep large amount of media files on your SSD, they should be stored in a RAID1 protected NAS station.

    So again, my usage purposes:
    - having a large number of Chrome tabs open (up to 20) and other apps like Word, Excel etc. simultaneously open
    - converting videos
    - running a virtual machine (could be a Windows 10)
    - editing photos and videos
    - 4k video playing
    - large Excel spreadsheets should open without issues
  5. New_Mac_Smell macrumors 68000


    Oct 17, 2016
    8GB of RAM is enough for all that, 20 Chrome tabs is not a lot, unless it's 20 instances of some Flash game in which case no RAM in the world is going to help with that.

    Office apps again don't require a lot of power to run. 4K isn't going to stress the system too much and is more dependant on the CPU/GPU, again 3.1ghz is ample.

    Editing photos really depends on what photos you're editing. Large 200mb .tiff files are fine on a system with 4GB of RAM, but if you have a few dozen open it can require more. Converting videos is something that will only gain benefit in speed, anything like that will use 100% of the CPU, so a faster CPU will net a few minutes in real terms.

    Virtual machines are your biggest factor there, as it'll automatically use up whatever RAM you allocate to it. So if you plan on using a VM constantly then 16GB would be a good idea to ensure your system isn't struggling.

    As for SSD the best thing to do is work out how much you're using today, then double it to give you some headroom. This'll give you a fair value for an upgrade. So if your system has 200GB on it now, then you'll want 512GB to allow you to carry on in 4 years time. Always make sure you have enough room for working files, so if you're working on a video that is 40GB in size, you'll want space on your internal SSD and back things up to external. You don't have to but it makes life easier and speeds up a workflow.
  6. Ollifi thread starter macrumors regular

    Jun 30, 2013
    Thanks a lot! I've got only 128GB now, and most of the time it's been totally enough and rarely too small. So 512 GB would be huge, but let's see...

Share This Page