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

esoda

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Nov 21, 2012
9
0
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
 

Samuelsan2001

macrumors 604
Oct 24, 2013
7,682
2,103
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
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.
 

snaky69

macrumors 603
Mar 14, 2008
5,903
480
If your apps are multi-threaded, your 15" will still utterly destroy the 13".
 

SHEEPOS

macrumors member
Jun 26, 2015
45
7
the 13" is so small and light though, really appealing
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
 

T5BRICK

macrumors G3
Aug 3, 2006
8,086
2,055
Oregon
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 ?
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.
 

Gav2k

macrumors G3
Jul 24, 2009
9,218
1,584
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.
20+% isn't a little when your workflow depends on it.

Op stick with the quad.
 

esoda

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Nov 21, 2012
9
0
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
 

yjchua95

macrumors 604
Apr 23, 2011
6,725
230
GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
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
I'd suggest Crucial's MX200 drives. They're pretty decent too.
 

thunng8

macrumors 6502a
Feb 8, 2006
816
204
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.
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+%
 

yjchua95

macrumors 604
Apr 23, 2011
6,725
230
GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
was using this as an SSD guide:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-recommendation-benchmark,3269.html

prices have since dropped also
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.
 

snaky69

macrumors 603
Mar 14, 2008
5,903
480
what may be just a 10-15% difference in performance.
... 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.
 

T5BRICK

macrumors G3
Aug 3, 2006
8,086
2,055
Oregon
Mactracker uses the ancient Geekbench 2 scores.

The current variant is Geekbench 3.
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.
 

yjchua95

macrumors 604
Apr 23, 2011
6,725
230
GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
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.
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.