$225 Price Difference From 2.6ghz vs 2.7ghz Macbook Pro. Worth it?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by VideoNewbie, Jun 11, 2012.

  1. VideoNewbie macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    #1
    Is the $225 price difference from a 2.6ghz to a 2.7ghz macbook pro worth it??

    for me i can justify the $400 difference for the 2.3ghz/256gb memory to 2.6ghz/512gb memory

    but this extra 225 for 0.1 more ghz eh....

    i will be using the computer A LOT i run multiple applications at a time and I always find that I run out of space (yes i can always purchase an external harddrive) but its a hassle to have to lug that thing around and plug it in everytime i need to get something.
     
  2. baypharm macrumors 65816

    baypharm

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2007
    #2
    If you have money to burn, it is worth it. As far as seeing real world difference in everyday computing, I seriously doubt it.
     
  3. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #4
    Never mind 2.6 to 2.7. It's hardly even worth it to upgrade from 2.3 to 2.6 unless you're after the other bits and bobs that are added

    Benchmarks Core i7-3610QM (2.3) Core i7-3720QM (2.6)

    Super Pi 2M (Lower in better) 26.1 seconds 23.8 seconds

    3D Mark 06 CPU 6097 6606

    Windows 7 Experience Score 7.6 7.6

    Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64Bit: 6.2 6.5
     
  4. Martialis macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    #5
    The processor upgrade also includes a L3 cache, if that makes a difference to anyone.

    I still think it's rather ridiculous.
     
  5. Eallan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    #6
    They have the same L3 cache.
     
  6. sk8r1230 macrumors 6502

    sk8r1230

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2010
    Location:
    Indiana
  7. Martialis macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    #9
    Well, it says

    So I have no idea what kind of L3 cache the 2.6GHz processor has just from that.
     
  8. VideoNewbie, Jun 11, 2012
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2012

    VideoNewbie thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    #10
    so would you all say that even the $400 difference for 2.3ghz/256gb memory to 2.6ghz/512gb memory is NOT worth it??

    what if i were to buy the regular 15inch retina 2.3ghz/256gb ? in this case would upgrading from 8 gb ram to 16gb ram be worth the extra $180?
     
  9. Rmafive macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    #11
    Yeah it's not worth the $200+ for the small upgrade. I just ordered mine at 2.6ghz. You always pay a premium for the fastest available (from Apple).
     
  10. Eallan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    #12
    My mistake, the 2.3 and 2.6 have the same size.
     
  11. Martialis macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2012
    #13
    1. That upgrade is worth it.

    2. *sigh* What are you going to be using the computer for?
     
  12. arbitrage macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    #14
    In Canada the difference from 2.6 to 2.7 is $270 so I really don't think this is worth it but I'd like to know if anyone thinks it could be worth it?

    I would mainly need the raw CPU power for generating 1:1 previews in LR4 while working on Canon 5D3 Raw files at around 28MB per file. This process is fairly slow even on my late 2009 maxed out CPU iMac with 2.8 GHz i7. Is the newer processor any better than what is in my imac right now?? Anyone with more knowledge on recent CPUs? I'm sure this one must be better being 3 years newer??

    So I really would like anyones opinion on if the 2.6 in the Retina MacBook Pro would be faster than my current imac and if anyone sees any reason that 2.7 would be any better than the 2.6.

    Thanks for any advice/opinions/facts!!
     
  13. calaverasgrande macrumors 65816

    calaverasgrande

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Location:
    Brooklyn, New York.
    #15
    apple always ticks me off with their absurd processor upgrade options.
    from 2.3 to 2.4 is pretty much nothing.
    They have a similar ploy on almost every computer they sell.
    The ram tax is understandable, the hard drive likewise.
    But CPU is not an easy thing to upgrade on Macbooks. That their options are so slight in terms of performance increase is very annoying.
     
  14. Xcelerate macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #16
    Do we know the base configuring has the 3610QM as opposed to the (worse) 3615QM? Both are 2.3 GHz.
     
  15. arbitrage macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    #17
    I agree, I couldn't believe it when I saw the 2.6 to 2.7 for over $200. There is no way that could make a difference to anyone in the real world. However, I wonder if the 6GB to 8GB Cache difference may be more meaningful? Anyone know what sort of tasks this L3 cache helps with??
     
  16. 2LMedia macrumors member

    #18
    1. Agreed, that's the one I ordered, so hopefully my AE rendering times will take a hit

    2. Judging from the username, I'm guessing some kind of video editing? So yes, an upgrade of that magnitude is worth it.
     
  17. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #19
    Not sure why you think the 3615QM is worse? It's the same CPU, but has a slightly faster Intel 4000 IGP.

    Were you not thinking of the 3612 QM? It has a 2.1 GHz base clock.
     
  18. Xcelerate macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #20
    I was just looking at this ranking list. I could be wrong.

    http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html
     
  19. theSeb macrumors 604

    theSeb

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2010
    Location:
    Poole, England
    #21
    I am not too familiar with that benchmark, but it does not make any sense. They even have the 3612 out performing the 3615, which suggests that something went wrong when they benched the 3615
     
  20. boto macrumors 6502

    boto

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    #22
    Absolutely not worth it. The Ivy bridge chipsets itself are very minimal in performance compared to Sandy Bridge, in fact it is only up to 15% higher. Also, rendering speeds will be very few seconds faster. If you have that kind of extra money to spend, I would waste more and get more SSD storage.
     
  21. VideoNewbie thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2009
    #23
    on the website,
    i dont see the option on the 15"mbpro retina 2.3ghz to get "ssd storage"?
    it says that it only has a set storage of 256gbflash
     
  22. echo44 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #24
    i had the same ? should i max out with 2.7 is the difference the L3
    cache? I bought a laptop mac pro one year ago and I have a
    OWC top of the line ssd drive so I am not sure the MBP will be much faster
    I have 2.3GHZ i7 with mercury pro 6G extreme ssd any opinions?
     
  23. css136 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    #25
    LOL of course it's not worth it you dolt, I can't believe you're asking this
     

Share This Page