cMBP vs. rMBP Processor Difference

[bgro]

Hi All,

Debating the purchase between the cMBP and rMBP. Are the dual-core i5 processors the same (outside of the 2.4 vs. 2.5)?

Retina screen doesn't matter much to me, only the performance of the machine. Want to make sure that by buying the cMBP, I'm not buying anitquated processor? I do understand that the Haswell vs. Ivy Bridge will result in better battery life on the rMBP but is that the only performance improvement?

 

[dusk007]

Yes i5 are essentially the same. Performance is also pretty equal as the retina has a 28W chip while the cMBP has 35W chips. The GPU is in theory faster (synthetic benchmarks) but in practice it is the same. HD 5100 is too limited by TDP, memory bandwidth and CPU requirements of games at the low actually playable settings.

The performance is definitely not something the Retina has going for it, assuming you don't use an hdd.

 

[bgro]

Yes i5 are essentially the same. Performance is also pretty equal as the retina has a 28W chip while the cMBP has 35W chips. The GPU is in theory faster (synthetic benchmarks) but in practice it is the same. HD 5100 is too limited by TDP, memory bandwidth and CPU requirements of games at the low actually playable settings.

The performance is definitely not something the Retina has going for it, assuming you don't use an hdd.

Thank you for the explanation. If I go with the CMBP I would definitely stick an SSD in it.

 

[mrweirdo]

I thought about going cMBP myself.

But after doing a comparison in upgrade costs and the fact that its a generation older processor its no longer worth it.

 

[TechZeke]

I thought about going cMBP myself.

But after doing a comparison in upgrade costs and the fact that its a generation older processor its no longer worth it.

4GB of soldered RAM and an un-upgradeble(at least not without getting OWC's expensive blade SSDs) 128 SSD on a $1300 laptop doesn't seem worth it to me either. The older ivy isn't going to be any difference in real world use, and any improvement with the iris graphics over the 4000 is worthless with a retina display.

On the entry side of Mac laptops, I'd take an air with 8gb RAM over both, but I'd take the cMBP with a 3rd part RAM and SSD with the option to upgrade later over base rMBP. If not I would just save up the pennies for $1500 rMBP model.

 

[bojomojo]

Guys this nearly answers a question i was just about to post..
I am thinking about the retina/non retina MBP,and the fact that the non retina is ram upgradable is very appealing to me..
The non retina costs 1050 here, and the retina costs 1200..
My main use will be software development..

What do you guys recommend

 

[jthj]

I don't think the classic MacBook Pro has been updated to Haswell

 

[mrweirdo]

I don't think the classic MacBook Pro has been updated to Haswell

Correct apple is in the process of phasing it out.

If I remember right when I did a comparison between the classic with maxed out ram 16gb and 512gb SSD it came out to be somewhere around $1800 while maxed out retina with 16gb and 512 was $1999. At that point might as well go retina plus you get the benefit of a faster drive and newer CPU architecture.

----------

BTW I don't think I would go with less then 16gb in any mac even though you might not always need it right away. Unupgradable ram in the retina and you'd have to replace both sticks if you went 8 in the classic and decided to add more later.

 

[mrweirdo]

4GB of soldered RAM and an un-upgradeble(at least not without getting OWC's expensive blade SSDs) 128 SSD on a $1300 laptop doesn't seem worth it to me either. The older ivy isn't going to be any difference in real world use, and any improvement with the iris graphics over the 4000 is worthless with a retina display.

Yeah the low end retina doesn't seem worthwhile.

I'd be interested in how the iris vs the 4000 would compare without the retina in the mix or the screen off hooked up to an external 1080p display since I'll be mostly using it at home. I plan on doing a little gaming like l4d

 

[jondunford]

Yeah the low end retina doesn't seem worthwhile.

I'd be interested in how the iris vs the 4000 would compare without the retina in the mix or the screen off hooked up to an external 1080p display since I'll be mostly using it at home. I plan on doing a little gaming like l4d

isn't the old macbook pro still using sandy bridge?

or was the old macbook pro updated with the 1st retina macbook pros?

 

[TechZeke]

isn't the old macbook pro still using sandy bridge?

or was the old macbook pro updated with the 1st retina macbook pros?

The last cMBPs were all Ivy. In fact, the 2012 cMBPs have literally the same internals as the first 2012 rMBPs. Retina display and chassis was their only real difference.

----------

Yeah the low end retina doesn't seem worthwhile.

I'd be interested in how the iris vs the 4000 would compare without the retina in the mix or the screen off hooked up to an external 1080p display since I'll be mostly using it at home. I plan on doing a little gaming like l4d

No doubt there is definitely a big performance boost, even the 5000 in the air is quite powerful. However, the 4000 will running a source game like L4D without issues.

 

[dusk007]

http://www.notebookcheck.com/Intel-HD-Graphics-4000.69166.0.html
http://www.notebookcheck.com/Intel-Iris-Graphics-5100.91974.0.html

The 5100 is in theory much better just like the HD 5000 and that shows in synthetic benchmarks but those are unreaslistic. They only put load on the GPU but the TDP between CPU and GPU is shared and if the GPU needs 22W at 1000Mhz there is little CPU speed left with 28W total.

This shows in many game benchmarks. The 5100 is still only really good for low settings in modern games and shows almost equal benchmarks to the HD 4000. In multiplayer environments the CPU requirements are also again significantly higher than in those single player benchmarks.
In theory the 5100 is good in practice it is too bottlenecked to really deliver.

Same problem with the Air. It can chrunch a lot of numbers if only the GPU is active but that isn't realisitic and 15W there is very very little CPU power left. Essentially those GPUs are too big for the TDP.

 

[MCAsan]

If performance matters, no HD or SSD replacement connected via SATA will have faster I/O that an SSD via PCIe.


Apple is phasing out non retina machines. I would not spend money on one.

 

[AppleGoat]

Correct apple is in the process of phasing it out.

If I remember right when I did a comparison between the classic with maxed out ram 16gb and 512gb SSD it came out to be somewhere around $1800 while maxed out retina with 16gb and 512 was $1999. At that point might as well go retina plus you get the benefit of a faster drive and newer CPU architecture.

Well, if the OP were to go with the cMBP, he'd have the luxury of waiting for the prices to drop on those components. Two years ago, I bought a well-reviewed 128GB SSD for around $200. Now I can get a top-of-the-line 256GB SSD for not much more. That said, as a happy Early-2011 cMBP owner, I couldn't encourage the OP enough to go Retina. Even if you really could care less about the screen (say you have the 27" Thunderbolt display at your disposal), like others have said, Apple is phasing out the cMBP. My sister recently asked me this question and I suggested a 13" Retina refurb as an option, now she has one. You may consider a refurb too.

 

[dusk007]

If performance matters, no HD or SSD replacement connected via SATA will have faster I/O that an SSD via PCIe.

The speed bonus of pcie SSDs is really insignificant for actual performance. There is a big difference between an hdd and an ssd but from there the differences are small. Because an HDD was a bottleneck in many situations but with any modern ssd today the bottleneck will be the CPU, memory or almost everything else. The bit of extra bandwidth that looks good in benchmarks means next to nothing in real world use. You wouldn't notice the difference.