Does the 2.3GHz Quad i7 make ANY sense?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by KasperH, Jun 21, 2011.

  1. KasperH macrumors regular

    KasperH

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    #1
    Hi,

    When configuring a MBP, there is the option of upgrading the 2.2Ghz Quad i7 to a 2.3GHz Quad i7

    How does that make any sense for 372$ ? is it some kind of Extreme version...the description doesn't say much.

    1925 Danish kroner = 372.073625 U.S. dollars

    is it worth it to anyone?


    Processor
    Enjoy incredible performance from the 2.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor, which features four processor cores on a single chip. Choose the speed you want.
    Learn more
    The Intel Core i7 processors are based on new 32-nanometre process technology with an advanced Core micro-architecture that features an integrated memory controller and Level 3 cache, giving the MacBook Pro faster, more direct access to memory. In addition, these processors feature:

    Turbo Boost 2.0 — a dynamic performance technology that automatically boosts the processor clock speed based on workload, giving you extra processing power when you need it.
    HyperThreading — a technology that allows two threads to run simultaneously on each core. So a quad-core MacBook Pro has eight virtual cores, all of which are recognised by Mac OS X. This enables the processor to deliver faster performance by spreading tasks more evenly across a greater number of cores.
    You can upgrade the processor in your MacBook Pro to the 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor, featuring 8MB L3 cache and Turbo Boost speeds up to 3.40GHz.


    2.2GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7 [- DKK1,925.00]
    2.3GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7
     
  2. Hansr macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2007
    #2
    If you need to ask you never do anything on your computer that will see any benefit from this upgrade.
     
  3. Uffish Thought macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    #3
    I've seen about a 3-5% time and FPS increase; when ripping a DVD with Handbreak, compared to a 2.2 GHz MBP with the same configuration.

    Probably not worth it, but it depends on your use.
     
  4. maclaptop macrumors 65816

    maclaptop

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2011
    Location:
    Western Hemisphere
    #4
    The increase is so minor, one isn't going to benefit. It's primarily a profit maker for Apple and Intel.
     
  5. KasperH thread starter macrumors regular

    KasperH

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    #5
    so you think 100mhz is noticeable to anyone?
    I do everything on my mac's, but the price difference is so steep i can't believe 100mhz is the whole story, and therefore ask.


    Uffish Thought: thanks, that's at least something of a difference, do you know the technical difference or reason for those numbers?
     
  6. KasperH thread starter macrumors regular

    KasperH

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    #6
    And quite a lot of profit i assume. I just got a Boxed Intel 3.4ghz i7 desktop version CPU for my server for the price difference between the 2.2 and 2.3.
     
  7. Uffish Thought macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    #7
    2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor, featuring 8MB L3. I believe the 2.2 GHz has 6MB L3 cache. Other than that, I don't know.

    Check out this post for more info.

    Here are my numbers:
    Encode time: 5:28 min
    Average FPS: 43.8
    CPU Temp: 83 C
    Fans: 3850 RPM

    I hope this helps fill in the table for the 17" 2.3 quad core with 4 MB Ram.
     
  8. Dark Void macrumors 68030

    Dark Void

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Location:
    Cimmerian End
    #8
    it's not worth it but people do it. i would say that the main reason is a buyer with the mindset of getting a "maxed out" mbp in whichever form factor they choose.
     
  9. CFoss macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    #9
    The upgrade not only increases the speed of the CPU, but the memory of the cache (6MB L3 cache vs. 8MB L3 cache). Even with that in mind, the upgrade is not worth the cost.
     
  10. eUnique macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2011
    #10
    And what's so sad is that I know for sure that I really notice a difference, but I want the 2.3 so bad.

    Give me incentives to get the 2.2 lol, I'm so weak!
     
  11. CFoss macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    #11
    You will never notice the difference between the two CPUs. That, and there's no point to "Future Proof" your computer with the faster CPU, as the difference will be negligible in a year's time.

    Your $200 is better of spent towards a SSD, or even a RAM upgrade.
     
  12. w00t951 macrumors 68000

    w00t951

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #12
    If you're not a power user, it doesn't matter. However, I have seen a 6-7FPS difference and a 4 second difference in loading and playing games like Black Ops and Bad Company 2.
     
  13. calderone macrumors 68040

    calderone

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle
    #13
    Or just do it all!
     
  14. CFoss macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    #14
    Heck, even if you don't need the extra RAM, or if the SSD is too small right now, save the $200 for an upgrade later on.
     
  15. 2hvy4grvty macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    #15
    That's simply impossible. COD:BO and BC2 are two games that are bottlenecked on the MBP by the GPU. Furthermore, there's the fact that BC2 doesn't run particularly well at >medium settings anyway, so that 6-7 FPS claim would amount to 20%, simply impossible. On the other hand, if you tell me SC2 (a pretty CPU intensive game) on low quality sees a 6-7 (about 5%) FPS improvement, that might be more believable (but still a huge stretch).

    And 4 second loading difference? Nah. Doubtful. That'd be a 20-25% increase. The only other difference besides the 100 mhz jump is the cache difference. And I can offer very specific hardware details on caching to show why it has no effect, but that's irrelevant, just take my word for it.
     
  16. CFoss macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    #16

    Not to mention that a SSD would be a MUCH more significant upgrade to load times.
     
  17. Uffish Thought macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    #17
    That's not true. I had a dying PC to replace, so the day of release I walked in to buy the 17" with anti-glare. It came with the 2.3 GHz i7 and 750 GB HD.

    I wanted the 750 GB HD as I plan to put in a SSD when the price comes down, and there was no data to indicate the performance difference between the two CPU's.

    Most people buy the 2.3 GHz i7 because they pick it up at the Apple store.
     
  18. KasperH thread starter macrumors regular

    KasperH

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    #18
    Thanks for your answers, so cache is the main reason for the hefty price difference then.

    BTW, isn't it a bit unfair that what will cost you 250$ costs me 372$ (in Denmark we have the highest taxes in the world on income too, and cars too...a lovely country though)

    If i configure an MBP 15" with the upgraded 2.3ghz CPU, a 128GB SSD and Hi-res LCD i'm paying 3851$ for it as opposed to you guys only paying 2649$

    Yikes!! :eek:
     
  19. kahkityoong macrumors 6502

    kahkityoong

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #19
    Keep in mind though that you can always upgrade to SSD and add more RAM. However you will be stuck with the CPU.
     
  20. acron1 macrumors regular

    acron1

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2008
    #20
    I 2nd that... same for me. I wanted the anti-glare, hi resolution screen and was looking for immediate gratification. The only option at the Apple store was the 2.3 GHz i7 so thats what I got. As fat as performance difference 2-4% is about all you will get... so not worth it!
     
  21. Dark Void macrumors 68030

    Dark Void

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    Location:
    Cimmerian End
    #21
    perhaps, but at least some people do it for the reason i stated i would still argue.
     
  22. gwerhart0800 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    Location:
    Loveland, CO
    #22
    I just ran into the same issue when ordering a new MBP for my work machine. I had to keep the price (including AppleCare) under $3k (US). Much of what I do is CPU intensive data analysis, so the 8MB L3 cache would probably have been of benefit, but the price was just out of reach. When I reviewed the benchmarks for CPU performance, I did not see enough difference to make a case to my management for breaking the $3k barrier. My 2008 MBP with it's now wimpy 2.5Ghz C2D processor was purchased with the same logic. (At the time, there was a 2.6Ghz processor available for that model and with the same constraint on purchase price.)

    Best of luck with your decision.
     
  23. teerexx52 macrumors 68000

    teerexx52

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Location:
    Florida West Coast
    #23
    I wanted to buy a hi res ag screen right out of the Apple Store so it was the only choice
     
  24. MH01 macrumors G4

    MH01

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    #24
    For most people its bragging rights.

    Unless you do tasks that use up all the CPU, like encoding, and your running a business off it, its a waste of money.

    Due to a really bad experience with the 27" imacs and having to return 3 of them due GPU issues, I have given up on the online store and the returns process so i now just pop into my local Apple store which is about 15min walk and but from there, so I had to get the 2.3 as it was the only one that offered matte screen in the 17". My preference would have been a 2.2 Matte from the apple store.
     
  25. Bear macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Sol III - Terra
    #25
    While it only decreases the price difference a bit, remember US prices are quoted before tax.

    As for your original question:
    As others have said the only apparent differences are the clock speed and the size of the cache. If it's worth it to you depends on what you're doing with the system. For most people, I think the answer would be not worth it.

    As for the price difference between the 2 chips, it is listed as being $190 which pretty much explains the $250 that Apple charges.
     

Share This Page