Which is the better processor? one is slightly faster, however, the 2.3 has the 8mb of cache.
What do you think?
What do you think?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
early 2011 2.3 vs new 2.4
- Thread starter Imaroxstar
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I didn't realise that actually. So I've got 8 MB of L3 cache on here compared to 6 MB on the newest base end one? But to be fair, I don't look at the new Macbook Pro and regret not having the 2.4 GHz processor massively. I do feel a bit envious of the 500 GB hard drive though-I could have done with the extra 180 GB of space. But 320 GB's enough-it just means I can't install all of X Plane and keep quite as many films on here.
Using that line of thought...if I am editing video, and rendering for you tube, you don't think processor speed makes any difference?
Wait a moment... Are you sure about those cache statements? Because I'm not seeing a difference here.
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processor-comparison/comparison-chart.html
http://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processor-comparison/comparison-chart.html
Yes he is definitely right 2.3 has 8 and 2.4 has 6. Also Apple have neglected to mention that the 2.4 and 2.5 don't support Intel HD Graphics. This could possibly mean, that with no graphics switching the battery life of the refreshed Pro's could suffer seen as it will constantly be using the discrete graphics card.
Does any one else thing this is a weird move? Cutting the L3 Cache and the HD Graphics on a Supposedly newer/better CPU.
Also the older 2.2 Model (according to Wikipedia), had the 2720QM which does have the HD Graphics, but now has the 2675QM that I can't even find on Intel's website.
What is going on?
Edit: hang on is Intel HD Graphics 3000 a separate chip to the CPU.
Does any one else thing this is a weird move? Cutting the L3 Cache and the HD Graphics on a Supposedly newer/better CPU.
Also the older 2.2 Model (according to Wikipedia), had the 2720QM which does have the HD Graphics, but now has the 2675QM that I can't even find on Intel's website.
What is going on?
Edit: hang on is Intel HD Graphics 3000 a separate chip to the CPU.
Last edited:
That's NOT what (s)he said.
You will never notice a difference between a 2.3 and a 2.4 i5 if all you do with the MBP is use facebook and watch youtube. Even if you are doing extensive rendering, the difference will be all but invisible unless you're doing such big renders that you should really be doing them on a quad-core or a Mac Pro.
You will only really notice it if you put sit next to the computer with a stopwatch. GeekBench will not even really some a difference as it fluctuates by ~300 points. So no rendering and 360p/480p/720p for 10mins max will not be any better.
They do in the MBP. It's quite possible Apple has access to a different version of the CPU than is listed- they have in the past.
I am sorry - it is for the 15" - i7.
----------
I get that. I was trying to play along with him, as I know he was jabbing me.
So rendering videos for YouTube won't benefit from the processor upgrade. In which use cases will I notice the difference?
When I render at 1080p? If I render 30 minute long videos? I have on occasion rendered 30 minute to 1 hour videos for YouTube, and I thought these operations were CPU limited.
Put it this way: The newer 2.4 might shave a couple of seconds off your render time. In real world terms, at least to me, that's meaningless when set over the time required for such a render in the first place.
Hold up a sec. They definitely do; otherwise Apple wouldn't still be shipping with switching graphics. It's possible Intel is making a separate version for Apple if the normal one doesn't support it, but they definitely do support switching.