Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Is extra 0.2 GHz worth it?

N

nervousrhino

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Nov 30, 2014
14
0
Hi, I'm looking to buy a MacBook Pro and will mainly use it for schoolwork, slight photo editing, monotonous things like web browsing and maybe minor games if possible.

The CPU choices I have are: 2.6GHz Dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.1GHz.

But for £70 more I could upgrade to 2.8GHz Dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz.

Is it worth the £70 upgrade? For some reason the CPU concerns me as I'm a pessimistic person and I don't want any issues/regrets.

Thanks

(Unless somebody can find me a MacBook with an even better CPU, 8GB RAM and at least 256GB for £1000 max haha)
 
nervousrhino said:
Is it worth the £70 upgrade?
Click to expand...
For the workload you described, and for the vast majority of users, no, it's not worth the upgrade. You won't see any difference in performance between the two in regular use. You're better off spending money on extra storage or other accessories. Most users never come anywhere close to the performance limits of the CPU.
 
GGJstudios said:
For the workload you described, and for the vast majority of users, no, it's not worth the upgrade. You won't see any difference in performance between the two in regular use.
Click to expand...

Thanks. Is the original CPU okay though? On my main PC it's 3.2 GHz rising to 3.6 and I'm just scared that the CPU on the Mac might not be too good. (I'm no expert, this will be my first Mac).
 
nervousrhino said:
Thanks. Is the original CPU okay though? On my main PC it's 3.2 GHz rising to 3.6 and I'm just scared that the CPU on the Mac might not be too good. (I'm no expert, this will be my first Mac).
Click to expand...
Yes, the CPU in any Mac model made in recent years will handle your proposed workload with ease. CPU isn't the most noticeable area to address when looking for performance, with rare exceptions. You'll notice much more from adequate RAM and a lot more by moving from a HDD to a SSD.

This may help:
 
1. No, its not worth it.
2. The Intel CPUs used in Macs are the same as one's used in the PC. So it depends on what CPU you have in your PC. If your PC has Haswell or Ivy Bridge CPU, then it will be faster. Which is not a big surprise, given that we are talking about desktop vs laptop here.
 
Thanks guys. Think I won't get the upgrade. And my PC does have a HDD yeah. I have 8GB RAM so hopefully performance won't be an issue. One final thing, is 256GB SSD enough? I'll mainly be storing documents and downloading the odd minor game, and store most things to Dropbox.
 
nervousrhino said:
Thanks guys. Think I won't get the upgrade. And my PC does have a HDD yeah. I have 8GB RAM so hopefully performance won't be an issue. One final thing, is 256GB SSD enough? I'll mainly be storing documents and downloading the odd minor game, and store most things to Dropbox.
Click to expand...
Remember that if you sync your Dropbox onto your computer, you will need space on your internal drive for that. It's been my experience that no matter how much internal storage I start with, I always end up wishing I had more. I recommend you buy as much internal storage as you can afford. I've never heard any complaints from anyone that they had too much free space on their internal drive; only that they didn't have enough. Also remember that not all of that 256GB will be available for your user files.
 
In the end I opted for this:

2.8GHz Dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
8GB 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage

Is that good? (I didn't take the upgrade, it's a different deal)
 
GGJstudios said:
Yes, the CPU in any Mac model made in recent years will handle your proposed workload with ease. CPU isn't the most noticeable area to address when looking for performance, with rare exceptions. You'll notice much more from adequate RAM and a lot more by moving from a HDD to a SSD.

This may help:
Click to expand...
Didn't know this existed -awesome post! :)

----------
nervousrhino said:
In the end I opted for this:

2.8GHz Dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
8GB 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage

Is that good? (I didn't take the upgrade, it's a different deal)
Click to expand...
Why are you so anxious about performance? The stuff you do with your macbook can be done on any old iPhone.
 
GGJstudios said:
Remember that if you sync your Dropbox onto your computer, you will need space on your internal drive for that. It's been my experience that no matter how much internal storage I start with, I always end up wishing I had more. I recommend you buy as much internal storage as you can afford. I've never heard any complaints from anyone that they had too much free space on their internal drive; only that they didn't have enough. Also remember that not all of that 256GB will be available for your user files.
Click to expand...

I used to complain that I had too much free space :p

----------
nervousrhino said:
In the end I opted for this:

2.8GHz Dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
8GB 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage

Is that good? (I didn't take the upgrade, it's a different deal)
Click to expand...

It's a bit overkill for you IMO...
 
GGJstudios said:
No, it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Larger SSD's tend to be faster. For example, the 1TB PCI-E ssd in new apple machines is much faster than the 256 and 512 variants.

The Samsung 840 EVO's are also slightly faster in the larger variants too.
 
poematik13 said:
Yes it does. Larger SSD's tend to be faster. For example, the 1TB PCI-E ssd in new apple machines is much faster than the 256 and 512 variants.

The Samsung 840 EVO's are also slightly faster in the larger variants too.
Click to expand...
Not according to these benchmarks: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-recommendation-benchmark,3269.html

According to that, there is very little difference at all, with smaller capacity drives being slightly faster in many instances, including with the Samsung 840 EVO. It appears that in some cases, higher capacity = higher performance, and in other cases, the reverse is true. It comes down to comparing specific drive models in specific capacities to know for certain, and even then, the difference will be affected by what size files are being read/written. Most users would never perceive any difference.

The most accurate statement would be that performance can vary between capacities, models and brands of SSDs, but such variances will be minor, compared to the gap in performance between any HDD and any SSD.
 
right, its different between manufacturers, with differences ranging from dramatic to nothing at all.

But there is a difference with the apple SSD's, barefeats has charts on it. Something to do with the double-width (relative to the smaller capacities) bus size on the 1TB modules.
 
Short answer, yes.

The more reserach you do the more you will see that "it makes no difference unless you do graphics intensive work rah rah"

That's balogna. It makes a difference when just opening and closing apps.

----------
nervousrhino said:
In the end I opted for this:

2.8GHz Dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
8GB 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage

Is that good? (I didn't take the upgrade, it's a different deal)
Click to expand...

Dude that's really good! I would've gotten 16GB but that's only b/c I got 8 and now I use my computer for MORE intensive tasks then I thought.
 
Larger SSDs tend to be faster

GGJstudios said:
No, it doesn't.
Click to expand...

This is not completely true in all cases. The 1TB SSDs have significantly faster sustained through put speed (c. 950MB/s versus 700 MB/s for the smaller sizes).

There may be a small difference in sustained read/write speed between 512GB and 256GB.

However, Apple uses both Samsung and SanDisk SSDs in the 256GB model, and the SanDisk write speed is about 100-150 MB/s slower than the SamSung.

The latency and IOPS are probably similar though, so you won't notice the difference unless you regularly transfer large files to another SSD.

HTH,

John
 
nervousrhino said:
But for £70 more I could upgrade to 2.8GHz Dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz.

Is it worth the £70 upgrade?
Click to expand...
I doubt very much you'll notice the speed difference in real world computing. Benchmarks will of course show a small increase, but day to day stuff - not so much.
 
johngwheeler said:
This is not completely true in all cases. The 1TB SSDs have significantly faster sustained through put speed (c. 950MB/s versus 700 MB/s for the smaller sizes).
Click to expand...

Exactly. The 1TB model has four PCIe lanes vs. two lanes on the smaller models. There were quite a few threads on this when the new models came out.

Also, you can pick about any SSD and the larger model will perform better because of the way data is striped across multiple RAM modules on larger drives.

You usually see the biggest jump from 128GB to 256GB and less so from 256GB to 512GB, but it is there.

Probably not noticeable just launching Safari, but with large file transfers it would be noticeable.
 
GGJstudios said:
No, it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes it does, at least in theory: The 1TB SSDs have a double-wide PCI connection (http://9to5mac.com/2013/11/04/lates...ing-ssd-performance-thanks-to-4-channel-pcie/). But you'd probably notice the difference only in very demanding usage like rendering multiple videos simultaneously, running several virtual machines at the same time, etc. For OP's described usage, I agree that there'd be little or no perceptual difference.

Also, the answer can depend on how stuffed the SSD is. If you have 240GB of stuff on your disk, you will notice the difference between a 512GB and a 256GB SSD.

Meanwhile, OP, the advice you're receiving to maximize RAM is excellent. Max it out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back