I would say, its worth when you do alot of rendering and movie creating. Especially an Upgrade to 2.7! Because of the Cache, cause it jumps from 6mb to 8mb!
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
Wow...didn't expect that. Apple clearly didn't think out the pricing beforehand. I upgraded on 8/1 - the first day the new bto's were available. But now I see what you're seeing, 2.3 to 2.6 is $100. Glad I upgraded while it was still $90...not that $10 is too big of a deal.
----------
According to intel's spec sheets, the 2.3GHz has 1.2GHz max graphics clock speed, where the 2.6GHz has 1.25GHz max graphics clock speed.
http://ark.intel.com/compare/64900,64891
I wouldn't expect .05GHz to make much of a perceptible difference.
That being said, the 2.6GHz provides a 10% boost in cpu speed over the 2.3GHz, and so for a $100 upgrade it's a deal.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
----------
Yes, at this point apple stores are only carrying the base, mid-range, and maxed out models. In other words,
1) 2.3GHz / 8GB / 256GB
2) 2.6GHz / 8GB / 512GB
3) 2.7GHz / 16GB / 768GB
BTO's of the rMBP are only available through apple.com. Thankfully, the shipping times have reduced to 5-7 days, so it's not too much of an inconvenience.
Last edited:
hmmm...interesting. I had not thought of it (4GB in my current 2009 (5,5) MBP has always been enough).
16GB seems overkill for my need, even looking a year or two down the line. But almost certainly more useful than a 300Mhz CPU upgrade.
But at $180, that's above the $100 I was thinking of throwing in, and even that was a stretch.
Ah well, I guess that's the price of going w/ Retina.
I think that if you don't know if you'll need 16 GB, you probably won't, especially since you're fine with 4 GB. Most people today are just buying MacBook Airs with 4 GB, so it's clearly plenty fine for day-to-day use. 8 GB will satisfy most rMBP users. As for the 2.6 GHz, you likely won't see any difference in day to day use except for hardcore CPU processes. I use my computer to do video encodes, so the 300 MHz will probably show a bit of difference (though I highly doubt I'll even notice it that much anyway). If you're not going to be doing CPU-intensive processes, you'd be best just going with the base 2.3/8/256, since it's already plenty powerful.
The above makes sense. For me, 16GB was important as was 512 GB SSD. I the term 'future proof', but I think you'll be surprised has RAM requirements change.
Do you guys think there's any substance to the claim that the 2.6 has less battery life than 2.3? This would also be a factor that I would want to consider before returning my 2.3 within the grace period.
If there's no difference I would prefer the 2.6 for sure.
If there's no difference I would prefer the 2.6 for sure.
My experience is the exact opposite when selling to private individuals. People who buy used macs are most interested in getting the best deal possible, more so than getting the better or best specs. The only advantage when selling is that an upgraded rMBP may more quick to sell than a base model assuming their prices are roughly the same.
And in general, if you have to ask if you need it, you probably don't.
I think there has been an argument that the research done is not conclusive. I am not a CPU genius, but my understanding it the 2.6 would come to idle quicker than the 2.6, so claims it is more intensive do not stack up. The chips are identical size etc.
I stand to be corrected by someone who knows what they talking about....
It stands to reason that if you're using the 2.6 to get more work done in a given period of time than the 2.3 then there has to be a battery penalty. However, if you're doing the same amount of work in the same period of time then there will be more idle time on the 2.6.
But how power efficient is the idle and is the power draw under load not linear? If the idle power draw isn't efficient enough to make up for the likely non-linear ratio of clock speed to power usage, then the slower processor will win in terms of total power usage per task. Then the question is, is it different enough to matter?
Well, personally I think Intel is really pushing the envelope on their mobile CPUs so I would expect any differences based on efficiency or idle states to be negligible.
But do I have any numbers to back this up? Nope..
But I look at it this way.. Anyone purchasing the 2.6 is doing so because they want to get more work done faster, therefore they should be valuing the performance above any small battery life difference with the 2.3.
Maybe if you flip it before a new model comes out, but otherwise BTO options almost never pay off in the resale market. Not for cars, not for computers. The reason is pretty simple, and that's because your BTO options that increase the price of the computer at time of purchasing, also takes away from the possible pool of people that need that spec when it comes time to resale. That lower demand then translates to lower relative prices to the original sale price. Plus, in the future it will probably be cheaper to just do the upgrades yourself, even if its difficult now. So, you'll be competing with people able to buy the base model and upgrade other features. At least for the SSD, but probably never for the RAM. So, its possible that the RAM may pay off, similar to how 4WD can pay off in SUV/trucks, but that might be the only exception.
----------
My guess, too. It might be slightly worse, but I wouldn't expect it to be noticeable.
Besides the battery life, do you think the 2.3 has performance differences as opposed to the 2.6. I know it should make much of a difference, but I noticed that many users complaining about lag issues aren't mentioning their build stats. Is it possible the lower CPU and difference in GPU can attribute to some of these issues?
I'm wondering this one too. I'm getting ready to order and I would like to know what is the best option. Right now I'm thinking either 2.3/16/256 or 2.6/16/256.
Totally agree with this statement. From my recent experience selling a maxed out 2011 11" Air, I learned the following: 1) Most people just want it for cheap. 2) Newer model pricing went down(i.e. 2012 Airs went down $100). So I tried on Craigs and people lowballed b/c they thought I was ripping them off. Finally went EBay and the difference between my i7/256GB/4 and an i5/128GB/4 was $150 when that was a $400 difference new.
Conclusion: 1) Maxing specs won't get you a better price in the long run, so spec out what you need right now and not worry about future proofing too much. 2) Selling 1-2 years down the road is almost always a big loss. Use it until it is not worth much or run it to the ground.