i5 or i7 in 13" rMBP 2013

[gsxrpilot]

I will soon buy the new 13 rMBP. I've already decided on rMBP over MBA and 13 over 15. I will max both RAM at 16gb and storage at 1TB. But I haven't decided on i5 or i7. What are the pros and cons of i7 over i5 or is it simply $200.

Thanks,

 

[winterny]

I will soon buy the new 13 rMBP. I've already decided on rMBP over MBA and 13 over 15. I will max both RAM at 16gb and storage at 1TB. But I haven't decided on i5 or i7. What are the pros and cons of i7 over i5 or is it simply $200.

Thanks,

If the $200 isn't a big deal to you, I'd say go for the i7.

I was going back and forth on the same question, but ended up ordering 2.6/16GB/1TB, and I'm very pleased with the performance, and have the battery life estimated at 11:30.

System is cool enough to sit on my lap.

 

[st0k3d]

It's all about operations per second. I7 baby.

 

[revalationist]

It's all about operations per second. I7 baby.

Let me actually give me some facts rather than those above me who's answers are comparable to state propaganda of North Korea.

Intel's naming scheme works like this:

i3 - 2 physical cores
i5 - 4 physical cores
17 - 4 physical cores + for every 1 core, there are 2 cores to spread load between

Basically, in short, the i7 has 8 cores to balance load unto.

Whether you need this? Are you a multitasker: someone who wants to do multiple CPU intensive tasks at once without a hit on performance (or a minimal one as such) on each of those tasks?

Or do you want loads of power for one thing?

a 4 core processor will handle multitasking fairly well. but not heavy multitasking.

In an i5, you can have tons of chrome tabs open while watching youtube.
In an i7, you can play games at full performance while rendering videos.

If you want to do a single cpu-hogging thing at once, get an i5. If otherwise, get an i7.

 

[imanalien]

I could be wrong and please correct me but the OP was looking at the 13"...isn't the i5 and i7 for the 13" dual core?

 

[AlecMyrddyn]

Intel's naming scheme works like this:

i3 - 2 physical cores
i5 - 4 physical cores
17 - 4 physical cores + for every 1 core, there are 2 cores to spread load between

Basically, in short, the i7 has 8 cores to balance load unto.

For the mobile versions used in the 13" rMBP, this is just not true.

The only difference between the Haswell 2.6 i5 and 2.8 i7 in the 13" is the GHz and that the i7 has 4 MB of L3 cache, while the i5 has 3 MB. Everything else about these processors is the same, they are both dual core processors that support HyperThreading.

The Haswell 13" gets a ~3-5% performance boost in moving from the 2.6 i5 to 2.8 i7.

 

[CSanchez]

I could be wrong and please correct me but the OP was looking at the 13"...isn't the i5 and i7 for the 13" dual core?

Yes the i7 on the 13 is dual core.

How much of a difference will that make to someone who just wants a good computer that's gonna last a while, nothing crazy.

I'm deciding between a 13 inch with I7 or the 15 inch with the i7

 

[revalationist]

For the mobile versions used in the 13" rMBP, this is just not true.

The only difference between the Haswell 2.6 i5 and 2.8 i7 in the 13" is the GHz and that the i7 has 4 MB of L3 cache, while the i5 has 3 MB. Everything else about these processors is the same, they are both dual core processors that support HyperThreading.

The Haswell 13" gets a ~3-5% performance boost in moving from the 2.6 i5 to 2.8 i7.

Ah, I was looking at regular i5 and i7s used in computer building, I didn't know Apple uses different types of processors.

 

[ab2013]

One note: The Iris iGPU on the 2.6 i5 is clocked at the same speed as the one on the 2.6 i7; both max out at 1,200 MHz. The 2.4 i5 has a slightly slower Iris, as it maxes out at 1,100 MHz.

 

[OSMac]

One note: The Iris iGPU on the 2.6 i5 is clocked at the same speed as the one on the 2.6 i7; both max out at 1,200 MHz. The 2.4 i5 has a slightly slower Iris, as it maxes out at 1,100 MHz.

Interesting, where is that info from?

What intel chip model numbers are being used?

 

[ab2013]

2.4 i5 => i5-4258U (http://ark.intel.com/products/75990/)
2.6 i5 => i5-4288U (http://ark.intel.com/products/75991/)
2.6 i7 => i7-4558U (http://ark.intel.com/products/75992/)

Refer to a previous post here on MacRumors:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1658616/

which referenced data from GeekBench.

Using the model numbers, you can look up the CPUs on Intel's website to check the GPU clocks.

IMO if I were to buy a rMBP I would only consider the i5s, because CPUs these days (including the Sandy Bridge i5 in my 2011 MBA) have more than enough power than you actually need. The only reasons for me to replace my MBA are (1) memory, (2) battery wear, and (3) weak graphics ... none of which have anything to do with CPU.

 

[covertash]

2.4 i5 => i5-4258U (http://ark.intel.com/products/75990/)
2.6 i5 => i5-4288U (http://ark.intel.com/products/75991/)
2.6 i7 => i7-4558U (http://ark.intel.com/products/75992/)

Refer to a previous post here on MacRumors:

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1658616/

which referenced data from GeekBench.

Using the model numbers, you can look up the CPUs on Intel's website to check the GPU clocks.

IMO if I were to buy a rMBP I would only consider the i5s, because CPUs these days (including the Sandy Bridge i5 in my 2011 MBA) have more than enough power than you actually need. The only reasons for me to replace my MBA are (1) memory, (2) battery wear, and (3) weak graphics ... none of which have anything to do with CPU.

Whole heatedly agree!

I actually used Sandy Bridge Celeron and Pentium CPU's in my own custom built HTPC and media server, respectively. Provided that both systems ran with enough RAM and SSD drives, you would never be able to tell what was under the hood based on the perceived speed/performance in their respective tasks. Even my Dell D630, running a Core 2 Duo from 2007, is still quite capable at running every day basic applications today and boots to Windows within 30 seconds, thanks to also having an SSD drive.

OP, unless you are a power user that requires every last drop of CPU performance for your applications (and you would know if you were ), an i5 will be more than enough for general usage.