Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is the $100 2.6GHz CPU upgrade worth it (over the stock 2.3GHz) on the rMBP?
- Thread starter pgharavi
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Most people probably don't need the extra speed... but for only $100, I'd go for it. It'll make a bigger difference than 2.6->2.7
That's what I was thinking...perhaps not the most needed upgrade on the stock Retina MBP (a cheaper 512 SSD would be #1), but as a long term deal (I've had my current MBP (5,5) for three years now), perhaps the extra CPU horsepower would be welcomed.
I'd be weary, Engadget and anandtech both seemed to find the 2.6 performing significantly worse in the battery life test compared to the 2.3. It's not necessarily the case always, or something that can't be fixed if it isn't a hardware issue, but it does add an extra reason not to spend more money (for me anyway).
Not to mention the 3615QM is running 10C cooler at load mine top at 90C and I saw some 3720QM owners reporting 100C
I like sixes.
Hate threes.
2.6Ghz, 16GB ram, 256GB.
Hopefully OWC will offer retina SSDs soon and use the 256 as an external.
Edit: Fun fact - BTO PC companies (xoticpc) can charge up to $350 to upgrade from 2.3-2.6.
I'm unfamiliar with the codes/model numbers you've listed...are those the stock rMBP and the $100 1.6Ghz upgrade?
So the consensus is that not only is it more expensive, but it comes at the additional cost of lower battery time and increased heat?
exactly 2.3ghz is the 3615QM and 2.6ghz is the 3720QM the upgrade price is good only $100 bucks because most notebook retailers are charging $150 but with the limited rMBP cooling you better get the base CPU if you want to get more life out of your system because 10C less is a big difference specially if you are going to run CPU intensive apps
Not really. The 2.7 may not be as inexpensive as the 2.6, but with 2MB extra of L3 cache, many would make an argument for the 2.7 upgrade being the better one.
I'd be wary of those reporting vastly different battery life, though. I'm personally waiting for some form of scientific evidence.
Unless you truly have a need for speed, like gaming or some resource intense apps, I'd go with the 2.3GHz. Cooler, still fast and efficient. It has nothing to do with price, and everything to do with performance. The 2.3GHz is a highly capable processor.
That's my take on it
That's my take on it
Anandtech's review/results for the 2.6GHz rMBP appears to respond favorably to the cpu's temps. I originally ordered the base 2.3GHz / 16GB / 256GB, but decided to upgrade the processor to 2.6GHz. I think the boost in cpu speed is definitely worth the $100 (or $90 if you're ordering through the edu store, which I did). Was a no brainer for me.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/12
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6023/the-nextgen-macbook-pro-with-retina-display-review/12
2MB cache will have minimal impact for most real tasks. It's really only useful for major number crunching and other processes that can run in a limited amount of memory. For the more "typical" CPU intensive tasks, i.e. video rendering, the cache will have next to no impact.
----------
Both are 45W TDP processors. Ambient temperatures probably played a role. You can't draw any conclusions about the heat difference without running both computers in the same setting with the same task.
Odd...even through the .edu store I get this:
2.6GHz Quad-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.6GHz [Add $100.00]
You sure it was only $90? Thanks for the Anandtech link.
Yes, they changed it 2 days ago to resolve the $60+ refund requests from everyone who purchased it on the 2 days they made that option available.
There's a bit more than just the difference in GHz between the chips. The 2.7 has 8MB of L3 cache, while the 2.3 and 2.6 have 6MB. I don't know how much difference that extra cache makes.
Integrated graphics
According to Intel's spec page the HD4000 graphics in the 2.6 have a faster max clock speck 1.25ghz vs 1.1 in the 2.3. Could this lead to a slightly smoother experience on the 2.6 vs 2.3?
I'm a wondering whether to return my 2.3/16/256 for a 2.6/16/256 within the grace period. The machine i have is perfect other than a slightly creaky case. With the shipping times down to about 2 weeks to your door, I could live with the wait, but it kinda of annoys me that apple changed the bto options so close after release.
Has anyone else switched from 2.3 to 2.6 and noticed improved scrolling etc on iGPU - for me that would be more important than a slight bump in cpu speed.
Thanks!: cool:
According to Intel's spec page the HD4000 graphics in the 2.6 have a faster max clock speck 1.25ghz vs 1.1 in the 2.3. Could this lead to a slightly smoother experience on the 2.6 vs 2.3?
I'm a wondering whether to return my 2.3/16/256 for a 2.6/16/256 within the grace period. The machine i have is perfect other than a slightly creaky case. With the shipping times down to about 2 weeks to your door, I could live with the wait, but it kinda of annoys me that apple changed the bto options so close after release.
Has anyone else switched from 2.3 to 2.6 and noticed improved scrolling etc on iGPU - for me that would be more important than a slight bump in cpu speed.
Thanks!: cool:
The new BTO options piss me off considering I just bought a base 2.3 on Monday. Granted, I only paid $2,000 for a brand new base rMBP, a $100 upgrade to 2.6 would have been SWEETTT
I think the upgrade itself from 2.3 --> 2.6 for $100 is a great deal, and negligible considering how much we're spending for a rMBP anyway.
I think the upgrade itself from 2.3 --> 2.6 for $100 is a great deal, and negligible considering how much we're spending for a rMBP anyway.