How Big Is The Difference?

DM1986

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 12, 2012
5
0
I'm either choosing

MacBook Air 2012

2.0GHz Intel Dual-Core Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.2GHz
8gb Of ram

OR

MacBook Pro 2012 13"

2.9GHz dual-core Intel Core i7
Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz
8GB 1600MHz memory

Is there a HUGE difference between the two processors?
 

FrankHahn

macrumors 6502a
May 17, 2011
735
2
Big difference on CPU intensive jobs, such as number crunching! Basic math: (2.9-2.0)/2.9 = 0.31 = 31%.
 

Oracle1729

macrumors 6502a
Feb 4, 2009
638
0
Big difference on CPU intensive jobs, such as number crunching! Basic math: (2.9-2.0)/2.9 = 0.31 = 31%.
Too bad basic math is beyond most people. Including you.
(2.9-2.0)/2.0 = 0.45 = 45% increase from the 2.0 to the 2.9.

Or if you prefer, 2.0/2.9 = 0.69 = 69%, so the 2.0 is 69% the speed of the 2.9.

And to check my work. 0.69 * (1 + 0.45) = 1.0005 (which is within my rounding error of 1).
 

monokakata

macrumors 68000
May 8, 2008
1,886
396
Hilo, Hawai'i
Too bad basic math is beyond most people. Including you.
(2.9-2.0)/2.0 = 0.45 = 45% increase from the 2.0 to the 2.9.

Or if you prefer, 2.0/2.9 = 0.69 = 69%, so the 2.0 is 69% the speed of the 2.9.

And to check my work. 0.69 * (1 + 0.45) = 1.0005 (which is within my rounding error of 1).
I won't say "false precision," but considering all the variables involved I'd go with the quick-and-dirty estimation, easily done in the head:

2.9 is nearly 3, so the difference must be about 2 vs 3, or about half again.

I've read that estimation is a lost art. If so, that's a pity.
 

rays09

macrumors member
Jun 12, 2012
64
0
Are you planning on doing anything CPU intensive?
yeah aprture,adb ps,finalcutprox. what do u think? is the 13" macbook pro can handle heavy mac software?its only using dual core i5..


I won't say "false precision," but considering all the variables involved I'd go with the quick-and-dirty estimation, easily done in the head:

2.9 is nearly 3, so the difference must be about 2 vs 3, or about half again.

I've read that estimation is a lost art. If so, that's a pity.
still don't get it bro:confused:
 

Oracle1729

macrumors 6502a
Feb 4, 2009
638
0
yeah aprture,adb ps,finalcutprox. what do u think? is the 13" macbook pro can handle heavy mac software?its only using dual core i5..
MBP is much more powerful than the MBA, the people who say otherwise just don't get it. They're the ones who say an SDXC card is as fast as an SSD...My SSD is over 500MB/s while the fastest SD cards are rated for 10MB/s or 1/50th as fast. Even the theoretical limit of your USB port is only about 50MB/s.

In some apps, an MBA with its SSD is almost as fast as an MBP with an HDD. Put an SSD in the MBP and it blows the air out of the water across the board. On top of that you can up the pro to 16 gig for under $100 and you can replace the optical drive with an extra terabyte of internal storage (a lot nicer and more portable than a thinner air + external drive).

As far as 2 vs 4 cores it depends on the applications you're running. Turbo boost is a feature where it will turn off 2 cores and overclock the other 2 to try and give you the best of both worlds, so 4 is better than 2 now.

----------

I won't say "false precision," but considering all the variables involved I'd go with the quick-and-dirty estimation, easily done in the head:

2.9 is nearly 3, so the difference must be about 2 vs 3, or about half again.

I've read that estimation is a lost art. If so, that's a pity.
I agree with you and I generally do that in my head faster than I even realize I am, but I can't really tell someone his math is totally messed up and use a rough approximation to demonstrate it.
 

FrankHahn

macrumors 6502a
May 17, 2011
735
2
I am sorry that I started an argument on the percentage in the change of performance of the CPUs. Giving it a little thought, I would like to say that both of the following two methods of the estimation are correct.

1. (2.9-2.0)/2.9 = 31%.
2. (2.9-2.0)/2.0 = 45%.

For the first method, the result says that the performance goes DOWN about 31% if the CPU goes from 2.9 GHz to 2.0 GHz.

For the second method, the result says that the performance goes UP about 45% if the CPU goes from 2.0 GHz to 2.9 GHz.

What do you gales and guys say? I am open for criticism and comments.

From this instance, we could see how important it is to make a statement clear; otherwise, misunderstanding could arise.
 

Destroysall

macrumors 65816
Feb 28, 2012
1,290
77
United States
yeah aprture,adb ps,finalcutprox. what do u think? is the 13" macbook pro can handle heavy mac software?its only using dual core i5..
Go with Macbook Pro, especially if you can shoot for the 2.9GHz Dual Core i7 version. The thing about Intel's Core i7 is that it has four threads. Meaning, it will work like a quad core theoretically. Plus with the Macbook Pro, you will have Nvidia's GT 650m. That is a much larger bonus as the Macbook Air uses only integrated graphics and while that's okay, you'll have a smoother work experience with a dedicated graphics chip when using an Adobe software or Final Cut. You will also be able to take advantage of technologies such as Nvidia's CUDA.

Hope that helps! :)
 

rays09

macrumors member
Jun 12, 2012
64
0
Go with Macbook Pro, especially if you can shoot for the 2.9GHz Dual Core i7 version. The thing about Intel's Core i7 is that it has four threads. Meaning, it will work like a quad core theoretically. Plus with the Macbook Pro, you will have Nvidia's GT 650m. That is a much larger bonus as the Macbook Air uses only integrated graphics and while that's okay, you'll have a smoother work experience with a dedicated graphics chip when using an Adobe software or Final Cut. You will also be able to take advantage of technologies such as Nvidia's CUDA.

Hope that helps! :)
thanks bro. i make up my mind to macbook pro now... go to retina display or just take the non retina? i thinking about non retina cause it's upgradeable hardware, and much room for hard disk, the retina it's absolutly cool stuff! but i cannot upgrade anything later and my budget limited to the basic model retina mbp with 8gb rams. what do you think?
 

Destroysall

macrumors 65816
Feb 28, 2012
1,290
77
United States
thanks bro. i make up my mind to macbook pro now... go to retina display or just take the non retina? i thinking about non retina cause it's upgradeable hardware, and much room for hard disk, the retina it's absolutly cool stuff! but i cannot upgrade anything later and my budget limited to the basic model retina mbp with 8gb rams. what do you think?
Go with what you can afford. You can wait to see what the future holds if you like. Rumor is that Apple might be working to release a 13-inch retina display, but who knows when that will happen? If you feel the retina display is something you want and it fits your budget, go for it. Yet don't go for it because its "hip and new". You want something that you can work with (both in productivity and budget). If you are on the road a lot, one thing to consider is that the regular Macbook Pro does have an internal disc drive, whereas the retina does not.

Like I said before, go with what you can afford. If you feel the retina display is in your budget, go for it. Sure, you will not have any upgradeable possibilities as far as internal storage goes but memory can be upgraded up to 16GB, which is a nice thing to have. Yet if it is not in your budget, just remember that the retina display Macbook Pro will always be there and if you can't get one now, you can sometime later in the future. Once again, hope that helps! :)
 
Last edited:

rays09

macrumors member
Jun 12, 2012
64
0
Go with what you can afford. You can wait to see what the future holds if you like. Rumor is that Apple might be working to release a 13-inch retina display, but who knows when that will happen? If you feel the retina display is something you want and it fits your budget, go for it. Yet don't go for it because its "hip and new". You want something that you can work with (both in productivity and budget). If you are on the road a lot, one thing to consider is that the regular Macbook Pro does have an internal disc drive, whereas the retina does not.

Like I said before, go with what you can afford. If you feel the retina display is in your budget, go for it. Sure, you will not have any upgradeable possibilities as far as internal storage goes but memory can be upgraded up to 16GB, which is a nice thing to have. Yet if it is not in your budget, just remember that the retina display Macbook Pro will always be there and if you can't get one now, you can sometime later in the future. Once again, hope that helps! :)
hmm... what about it's screen? does it looks terrible on non retina? i saw the 13" screen was terrible... idk the 15" one. what do you think bout the screen?? it's retina display and slim design really worth for sacrificing the disk drive, firewire, and 1 usb3 slot, non upgradeable HW,and all things retina don't have.. i think the highend 15" non retina it's beast!! except the screen.. :(
 

Destroysall

macrumors 65816
Feb 28, 2012
1,290
77
United States
hmm... what about it's screen? does it looks terrible on non retina? i saw the 13" screen was terrible... idk the 15" one. what do you think bout the screen?? it's retina display and slim design really worth for sacrificing the disk drive, firewire, and 1 usb3 slot, non upgradeable HW,and all things retina don't have.. i think the highend 15" non retina it's beast!! except the screen.. :(
The Retina display and non-Retina display both use IPS technology. The only difference between the two is resolution.

As far as features are concerned, there are (or will be) cable adapters that utilize the thunderbolt port for firewire. Apple's latest keynote does discuss this, briefly. Also, there are actually two USB3 ports. If you need more ports, you can always purchase a USB hub.

The only issue with the retina display is that if you plan on utilizing most of these features, and are planning to use it other than at home, you will have to carry a larger load. So it almost draws down to if you will use it a lot more on the go or not. If you will, then I would say go non-retina as it will work to your best advantage (everything will be there). Yet if you don't mind the tad extra load or will do most of the work requiring the extra features, go retina. Hard disk can be a bit of a problem for larger load files, but you can always keep an external drive with you.
 

Dindorio

macrumors newbie
Jun 9, 2012
25
0
The difference is very small between these two. I have noticed the only one difference among them. Its the storage capacity.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.