Early 2011 Quad core i7 2.2GHz v new Dual core i7 3.1Ghz

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by esoda, Jun 29, 2015.

  1. esoda macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    #1
    I have an early 2011 15" macbook pro 2.2 ghz quad core i7 , 16gb ram and SSD and really want to upgrade to something less bulky

    So tempted to go for customised retina 13" with 16 gbram and i7 3.1 ghz dual core, but wondering if its a step down a bit


    I am a java developer so usually have database running, IDE (intellij/IDEA ) web server and a few browers and shells open. Rarely need virtualization like VMWare etc.

    Wondering if a new i7 3.1 dual core (with turbo and hyperthreading etc) might even beat my current 2.2ghz quad core from 2011 ?

    oh the dilemma

    any advice
     
  2. Samuelsan2001 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    #2
    Nope it won't come close to beating it on multithreaded applications.

    However for your use case you probably won't notice much difference.

    I wouldn't bother with the i7 myself the 3-4% performance increase over the i5 is just not worth the money in my opinion.

    Why not give one a try?? You get 2 weeks to return it no questions asked, I'd go for the 2.9GHz 512GB version.
     
  3. SHEEPOS macrumors member

    SHEEPOS

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2015
    #3
    Go for a refurbished 15"macbook pro

    13" macbook pro is weaker than your macbook

     
  4. snaky69 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #4
    If your apps are multi-threaded, your 15" will still utterly destroy the 13".
     
  5. esoda thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    #5
    the 13" is so small and light though, really appealing


     
  6. SHEEPOS macrumors member

    SHEEPOS

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2015
    #6
    Up to you.......anyways

    the retina 15"macbook pro weight a bit less than the macbook pro non retina 13"

    so it is not heavy by any mean
     
  7. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #7
    The 2.2GHz i7 2675QM scores about 10000 in geekbench, while the 3.1GHz i7 5557u scores about 8700. You'll be losing a little performance overall.

    I'll also echo what others have said. The i7 in the 13" rMBP is not worth the extra cost. Go with the 2.9GHz i5. It has hyperthreading too, and you'll save $200.
     
  8. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #8
    20+% isn't a little when your workflow depends on it.

    Op stick with the quad.
     
  9. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #9
    My point being it isn't going to be faster, as the OP was wondering.
     
  10. esoda thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    #10
    thanks guys, think Im gonna stick with my current quadcore 2011 model for now. Think im gonna just upgrade my HDD(7200rpm) + Samsung 840 EVO 256 SSD combo to a single SanDisk extreme pro 512gb, and then remove the HDD to maybe give me some more battery life
     
  11. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #11
    I'd suggest Crucial's MX200 drives. They're pretty decent too.
     
  12. thunng8 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    #12
    Not sure how you are getting 8700 for the 13" i7. According to geekbench browser it getting about 7400 in 64bit multicore

    https://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

    So difference is around 40+%
     
  13. esoda thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2012
    #13
  14. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #14
    Well, they seem to have left out the 850 Pro, which is one of the best SSDs on the market. I'd wager that it's even better than the SanDisk.

    To be honest, in real world usage, it's hard to tell the difference between a decent budget SSD (Crucial BX100 for instance), prosumer grade SSD (like the Crucial MX200 or 840/850 Evo) and a pro grade SSD (849/850 Pro). You're paying a massive price premium for what may be just a 10-15% difference in performance.
     
  15. snaky69 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #15
    ... in artificial benchmarks, with nowhere near as much "perceived" by the user.

    Honestly OP, stick with your current setup, you'd be throwing money out the window.
     
  16. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #16
    Just using Mac Tracker. I'm not sure which geekbench score they list.
     
  17. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #17
    Mactracker uses the ancient Geekbench 2 scores.

    The current variant is Geekbench 3.
     
  18. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #18
    At this point does it really matter? As I already stated, my whole intent was to show that the newer dual core i7 is NOT faster than the older quad core i7. Regardless of which benchmark I used, that point still stands.
     
  19. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #19
    I did not contest your argument. It's largely common sense that a new dual core i7 is still a fair bit behind an older quad core i7. I only answered your question regarding the variant of Geekbench used in Mactracker.
     
  20. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #20
    This is true, but the OP didn't know which is why I posted what I did.

     

Share This Page