If the processor upgrade is a waste of money, why is everyone buying it?

[maflynn]

I've seen a lot of people post that the benefits of upgrading the processor on the new 15" MBP's are marginal at best

My $.02 is that people don't buy computers purely because of the processor.

Apple added the TouchBar, newer ports (USB-C), a thinner, lighter laptop with a new GPU, a crazy fast SSD. My point is don't look at one thing, but look at the entire computer as a solution.

I personally, don't think its a good value for my usage needs, but one size doesn't fit all, others do find it a good value.

The bottom line, is if you think its a good computer, then buy and enjoy it

 

[jk76]

I would really like to know. I've seen a lot of people post that the benefits of upgrading the processor on the new 15" MBP's are marginal at best, but then everyone who's bought one seems to have gone for the upgrade. Am I missing something? Do you all process heavy data or are you preparing for the future??

Maybe you've missed the fact that people buying laptops at price point of 4000+ euros (like mine this time) are not really mainstream consumers. They tend not to be short of money. At least I seriously wish they are not, because if they are, buying any Apple product is likely to be a counterintuitive financial decision.

 

[therealseebs]

I generally get CPU upgrades because that marginal difference is worth more to me than the money is. But if someone's strapped for cash and trying to prioritize, I would recommend against them.

 

[jerryk]

People just arent smart.

that's why

It's like people who buy 16gb of ram on their MBP, but dont do any kind of rendering/editing.

Plenty of other tasks use memory, Programming, running VMs, etc.

 

[Scott G.]

People just arent smart.

that's why

It's like people who buy 16gb of ram on their MBP, but dont do any kind of rendering/editing.

For me, is peace of mind.
[doublepost=1482873683][/doublepost]I bought the 13 inch and went with the 16gb ram and 512gb ssd, but kept it at the 2.9 i5. I didn't think it was worth $300 to go for the i7, but I've seen 2 posts now that says the i7 should give better battery life. It's that really true? Would I be seeing a big difference?

 

[dyn]

It's like people who buy 16gb of ram on their MBP, but dont do any kind of rendering/editing

There are far more use cases for having lots of memory. Virtual machines and anything that uses memcache (or something similar; you'll find this with some apps as well as compiling software) are some examples. In my case I have 16GB due to running several virtual machines at the same time. I'm currently around 9GB but you have to keep in mind that the host OS (=macOS) needs memory too so you can't use all of it for the vm's.

The difference in CPU speeds is just way too small, yet you pay a premium for it. If one part of a Mac is overpriced then that would be the CPU "upgrades". There are very little use cases that would take any benefit (even tiny) from it. The problem is, as can be seen with the criticism of the current MBPs, hardly anyone understands the current CPU models. They are not aware of the small differences and the fact that we've hit a ceiling. Many manufacturers have big issues with scaling down to 10nm which is a necessity for faster and more energy efficient CPUs. You can't blame them, it can be quite complex.

 

[v0lume4]

Yep some people are just not smart with money. It's like people who buy a loaded up KIA at the price of entry level BMW.

I know this one girl that just purchased a maxed out Ford Escape. Me and my coworker were talking about how it costed MORE than his 2016 Camaro SS. Yikes.

 

[Scott G.]

There are far more use cases for having lots of memory. Virtual machines and anything that uses memcache (or something similar; you'll find this with some apps as well as compiling software) are some examples. In my case I have 16GB due to running several virtual machines at the same time. I'm currently around 9GB but you have to keep in mind that the host OS (=macOS) needs memory too so you can't use all of it for the vm's.

The difference in CPU speeds is just way too small, yet you pay a premium for it. If one part of a Mac is overpriced then that would be the CPU "upgrades". There are very little use cases that would take any benefit (even tiny) from it. The problem is, as can be seen with the criticism of the current MBPs, hardly anyone understands the current CPU models. They are not aware of the small differences and the fact that we've hit a ceiling. Many manufacturers have big issues with scaling down to 10nm which is a necessity for faster and more energy efficient CPUs. You can't blame them, it can be quite complex.

It may not be great performance wise to upgrade the cpu, but from what I've read so far, the upgrade to the i7 in the 13TB is yielding better battery life than the i5. Not sure it's legit, but it's making me rethink my decision to go with the i5..

 

[dyn]

As we've seen from previous generations the i5 has always been the one that had better battery life and in a lot of cases even better performance (due to it not throttling down because of the heat). However, with todays CPUs I think this has changed a bit. Modern day CPUs are very geared at bursts and any workload that is "bursty" would benefit from that. I don't think that many with the MBP would have such workloads though (most likely some kind of mix).

 

[RobinInOR]

I always buy the max configuration of the size/model I want. I dont upgrade computer hardware often. Thats why my MBP replaced a 2009 iMac and a 2005 PowerBook lol. I buy for the software that hasnt been written yet - new software is always memory/processor hungry. Does the i7 on my new machine give me a processor bump? Dont know, but i do get reasonable battery life. Im at a time in my life when I dont care about the miniscule tech comparisons. I've been in IT for 38 years, I've become a user instead of a detail oriented techie. Who knows what my needs will be in 4 years?

 

[hyunez]

I've seen 2 posts now that says the i7 should give better battery life. It's that really true?

Mind sharing the source?

 

[acorntoy]

There are 2 options:

1. Buy the base version every two years at $2399 and always have fresh battery every 2 years, always have the newest technology, newest processor and shiny new macbook pro
2. Buy the maxed out version for $4399 and keep it for 4 years, in 2 years you will have a battery which holds 50% capacity, you will have crappy processor, you will have crappy video card. Your laptop will look like it's been through a war zone.

I don't know about you, but option 1 always sounds more appealing to me.

Besides whatever extra upgrades you paid for to max out your MacBook pro, will most likely be included for free in 2 years. So it's a win win.

I'd be completely shocked if my Maxed (e for 512GB SSD) 15' mid 2015 doesn't last over 6 years.

I always buy the max configuration of the size/model I want. I dont upgrade computer hardware often. Thats why my MBP replaced a 2009 iMac and a 2005 PowerBook lol. I buy for the software that hasnt been written yet - new software is always memory/processor hungry. Does the i7 on my new machine give me a processor bump? Dont know, but i do get reasonable battery life. Im at a time in my life when I dont care about the miniscule tech comparisons. I've been in IT for 38 years, I've become a user instead of a detail oriented techie. Who knows what my needs will be in 4 years?

I agree on upgrading to keep the computer longer. My dad's 2009 iMac i7 still going strong for him, should last a few more years, and I just got him a 13' 2015 3.1 i7 ( His one request was "it has to have USB ports") that I have no doubt will last him 10+ years (it's replacing a windows laptop from 2002-2004). At the same time I had to sell my 2009 base iMac (core 2 duo) years ago because it ground to a halt.

 

[dapork]

Maybe you've missed the fact that people buying laptops at price point of 4000+ euros (like mine this time) are not really mainstream consumers. They tend not to be short of money. At least I seriously wish they are not, because if they are, buying any Apple product is likely to be a counterintuitive financial decision.

I can afford it, that doesn't mean I want to blow an extra $100 for no reason. I know the other upgrades will benefit me, I just hadn't decided on the processor because I simply don't know. The only only benefit I've heard is "dealing with large numbers".

 

[fs454]

Mind sharing the source?

I don't have the source, but wanted to chime in and say this makes sense. More instructions per (faster) clock = less time spent at high frequency and wattage since the task is completed faster. These chips are in a higher bin class because they're able to eek out better performance at the same wattage than the lower bins. I don't think anyone's proven whether or not the math totally adds up, but the theory makes sense.

 

[jk76]

I can afford it, that doesn't mean I want to blow an extra $100 for no reason. I know the other upgrades will benefit me, I just hadn't decided on the processor because I simply don't know. The only only benefit I've heard is "dealing with large numbers".

You are not going to spot the difference on clock frequencies in interactive use, or even otherwise without a stopwatch. If your conscience says you that spending $100 on something that brings you no practically measurable or clearly useful benefit is a problem, it's better to skip spending it.

There might be workloads where L3 cache size does make a difference, but my assumption is that differences wouldn't be particularly large in practice. In any case, amount of RAM and SSD matter much more, also on resale value.
[doublepost=1482905090][/doublepost]

Buy the maxed out version for $4399 and keep it for 4 years, in 2 years you will have a battery which holds 50% capacity, you will have crappy processor, you will have crappy video card. Your laptop will look like it's been through a war zone.

My maxed-out 2012 rMBP was definitely just fine until I got my 2016 replacement. Two-year upgrade cycle made sense 15 years ago, but now one would be hard pressed to argue necessity of it. Surely GPU power on the most recent models has more than doubled in over four years, but increase on CPU power is probably less than 50% for even the most flattering benchmarks. I expect this trend to continue.

Biggest differences will be on the side of RAM and SSD. It may well be that for 90% of usage scenarios, those don't matter either.

 

[Kevin.Richards]

I would really like to know. I've seen a lot of people post that the benefits of upgrading the processor on the new 15" MBP's are marginal at best, but then everyone who's bought one seems to have gone for the upgrade. Am I missing something? Do you all process heavy data or are you preparing for the future??

In my opinion, a 4 core processor is enough. I have some friends who still have i5-2400 and still happy with their processor neither do they have any problems in any game. If you are a regular user then a third gen. processor would be enough. If your work is more focused toward heavy designs or simulation then moving to higher cores would be a better choice. Or some people are just enthusiast who just want to try the latest technology.

 

[richinaus]

Hey, nothing wrong with maxing out if you really want it - also, 16 over 8Gb is perfectly reasonable for certain cases!

Though, since you mention it, I must admit, multi-tasking and opening a lot of browser tabs, IMO, would probably work as well on 8Gb. macOS is really good at memory management, as long as the Memory Pressure is in the green in the Activity Monitor, you're fine (and system is designed to "spread out" and use available RAM so if you have 16, of course it will use more than 8 - even if there aren't noticeable performance gains because of it) - so, are you sure you have more than 8Gb usage? How are you measuring it?

But please, just asking out of curiosity, as I said - perfectly fine to max out the hardware if you can afford it and want to.

My usage on my current 16gb ram machine is around 10gb. I think if you can afford it always go bigger.

I agree though Macs are really good at memory management and have had 8gb machines before and haven't had that much trouble, but prefer to have things as fluid as possible if the option is there.
[doublepost=1482970425][/doublepost]

In my opinion, a 4 core processor is enough. I have some friends who still have i5-2400 and still happy with their processor neither do they have any problems in any game. If you are a regular user then a third gen. processor would be enough. If your work is more focused toward heavy designs or simulation then moving to higher cores would be a better choice. Or some people are just enthusiast who just want to try the latest technology.

For personal use I am quite happy on an i5 and my girlfriends 2013 13" MBP [8gb ram]is actually still fine for our use. The only reason I want a 2016 model for my personal use is the screen and weight reduction. A macbook would actually suffice but the screen is too small for me.

I think people to over specify for personal use machines on the CPU side of things. My personal view is that consoles are for gaming and never have games on my computers. Right tool for the task is my mantra.

For professional use, as I mentioned before it is a different game altogether maxed out all the way every time, and upgrade every 2 years maximum [used to be every year].

 

[Kevin.Richards]

I think people to over specify for personal use machines on the CPU side of things. My personal view is that consoles are for gaming and never have games on my computers. Right tool for the task is my mantra.

For professional use, as I mentioned before it is a different game altogether maxed out all the way every time, and upgrade every 2 years maximum [used to be every year].

Well, they make standard models for general public. For your kind of work I guess desktop PC will do because you can change things separately without the need for completely replacing laptop.

 

[symphara]

I would really like to know. I've seen a lot of people post that the benefits of upgrading the processor on the new 15" MBP's are marginal at best, but then everyone who's bought one seems to have gone for the upgrade. Am I missing something? Do you all process heavy data or are you preparing for the future??

I've seen plenty of people on the forum who've bought the 2.6, so I think your impression is just that? And of course there are plenty of reasons for maxing out. It's a value proposition: if the $300 can save you only a minute a day, it adds up and it might be worth it fairly quickly.

 

[duervo]

I don't have the source, but wanted to chime in and say this makes sense. More instructions per (faster) clock = less time spent at high frequency and wattage since the task is completed faster. These chips are in a higher bin class because they're able to eek out better performance at the same wattage than the lower bins. I don't think anyone's proven whether or not the math totally adds up, but the theory makes sense.

Another more plausible theory is that after running the i7 at max load for a few minutes, the CPU drops down to 35W from 45W, thereby consuming less power (but also running slower.) If an i5 consistently is running at 45W, it stands to reason that it will drain the battery faster than an i7 that has had its configurable TDP value triggered due to it running at 100c for a while.

This also begs the question, is the i7 that drops down to 35W truly worth it from a performance standpoint, if it's going to be running at lower clock speeds? Conversely, is the i7 that drops down to 35W worth it from a battery consumption standpoint? In either case, it's up to the buyer to decide.

 

[symphara]

People just arent smart.

that's why

It's like people who buy 16gb of ram on their MBP, but dont do any kind of rendering/editing.

That's an amazingly self-centered, short-sighted way of looking at things.

Eclipse alone can use over 16Gb of memory, for certain projects. Using VMs will also melt 16Gb of memory in no time.

 

[aevan]

That's an amazingly self-centered, short-sighted way of looking at things.

Eclipse alone can use over 16Gb of memory, for certain projects. Using VMs will also melt 16Gb of memory in no time.

Every 64-bit program can USE 16Gb and more, the question is how much more faster do things get with more RAM. For a lot of workloads - not much.

VMs and rendering are rare examples where you need more.

 

[symphara]

Every 64-bit program can USE 16Gb and more, the question is how much more faster do things get with more RAM. For a lot of workloads - not much.

VMs and rendering are rare examples where you need more.

It's not necessarily a question of doing things faster, it can be a question of working or not. Some things simply take more memory than 8Gb or 16Gb.

It's clear that most things don't need or use that much memory. What I argued was against the asinine assumption that everyone who's bought 16Gb and doesn't do rendering on it is stupid.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I can afford it, that doesn't mean I want to blow an extra $100 for no reason. I know the other upgrades will benefit me, I just hadn't decided on the processor because I simply don't know. The only only benefit I've heard is "dealing with large numbers".

You might only see a little gain in performance... but it could also help the reselling price later.

I would assume most MBPs sold today are the base-model... so the upgraded version will be "rare" in a few years and could command a higher price when you go to sell it.

That $100 you spend today could get you an extra $100 later... making it a wash. And you get to enjoy the little performance boost while you own it.

Having said this... I've never tested this theory. But it makes sense to me. Spend a little more now... and you'll get a little more when you go to sell it.

If you're a person who sells their current laptop to help fund the new laptop... every little bit helps!

 

[Ma2k5]

I don't know, I couldn't get a BTO (would have to wait a lot longer to get those where I live) and I needed 512Gb and also wanted at least the 455 GPU, so I went for it. I'm guessing I would be just as happy with the 2.6 version.

Also, some people just buy maxed out versions of everything. And I wouldn't call it a waste of money - for the small price difference, why not get something a bit faster? But I'm sure the 2.6 one is perfectly fine.

I believe a lot of people have bought the higher spec models just because, it is what was available, similar to your situation.

In the UK, if you wanted the 16GB version of the touch-bar 13", the only one in stock was the one with the i7.

I would say it is likely to be a waste of money if you aren't actually going to make use of the extra oomph, especially at the cost of heat and battery life.

Some people do think it might be worth it for re-sale, but I believe people who are in the market for used products, especially a couple of years down the line, are likely to be quite price sensitive and not go for the top end processor at a cost of extra £100's, when they know the difference in performance is very limited. RAM and SSD size is much more likely to be of concern for them. As your used machine goes higher in price, it becomes closer to the retail price of a brand new - so you are trying to convince them away from buying the shiny new mac's in a couple of years time. So you may end up being forced to sell very cheaply anyway, almost the same as a base CPU model, despite shelling up to $300 on processor upgrades.