So the 3.1GHz i5 CPU upgrade option costs $100 and gives you an additional 200MHz per core. That's 4MHz/$1. Is it worth the performance gain? And how much would it reduce battery life? And how much additional heat will be generated, and is it noticeable in the experience?
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 3.1 i5 worth the $100?
- Thread starter TazmoStarkana
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They're both i5 chips. For $100 you get .2 GHz of extra computational speed. I don't know if you'd see much of a difference in real world usage. These links may be helpful:
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-3-1-GHz-dual-core-Intel-Core-i7-compare-to-the-2-9-GHz-i5
http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/m...bo-boost-kaby-lake-skylake-broadwell-3489917/
Of course, only you can decide if it's worth it for your use case.
https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-3-1-GHz-dual-core-Intel-Core-i7-compare-to-the-2-9-GHz-i5
http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/m...bo-boost-kaby-lake-skylake-broadwell-3489917/
Of course, only you can decide if it's worth it for your use case.
If we were talking about the 12 MacBook, I'd say every little bit helps. The MacBook Pro is already quick so each additional bump in speed is really just because you have the money AND if you're doing computationally heavy things where every little bit counts.
Day to day usage you would notice no difference
Day to day usage you would notice no difference
You probably won't notice the speed increase in day-to-day operations.
But the extra $100 you spend today will help the resale value in the future if you decide to sell it.
I didn't go for the 3.1. In past years, I'd pay extra for a CPU bump when it was from an i5 to an i7 and the i7 had more cache or a feature like hyper threading. This year, the two i5 variants and the i7 all have the same number of cores, the same amount of cache, and they all have hyper threading. I didn't think the $100 made sense for me.
It's a faster CPU with higher core clock, and higher TB, it also has double L3 cache, meaning I'm getting good use out of my bootcamp install, playing games is a bit nicer IMO. Moreover, I like to process complicated files, compiling code, running emulators, etc, the extra core clock TB clock, and higher L3 cache is worth it.
There is this perception that the 12" MacBook is some sort of lumbering sloth that can't compute anything and that the Pro is clearly faster than it. Having here the 2016 12" MacBook with the 1.3 GHz m7 processor, and the 2016 13" MacBook Pro with 3.3 GHz i7 processor, I'm seeing Geekbench scores in the region of 6500-6900 and 8000-8400 respectively. Surely the difference should be greater than this? What tests can I do to yield more representative results? With these numbers, I am quite underwhelmed at the Pro's performance (and quite impressed by the 12"'s performance).
The 12 inch is just fine for most things, the problem comes with thermal throttling whenever you're doing something processor intensive.
In terms of responsiveness, nothing less than a 50% improvement is going to be noticeable. Usually benchmarks exaggerate any differences. If both machines can sustain that level of performance without throttling, I wouldn't expect to notice any difference. A 15" macbook pro comes in around 12000. Under load it may may perform better. As for the OP, I would only take that upgrade if it came in at the same price.
Not sure which i7 you're referencing, but the Core i5 and the Core i7 in the 13" MBP TB are identical except for the clock speed (no differences as far as cache size or type).
i bought i5/3,1... i didnt see any point to spend for i7.
http://ark.intel.com/compare/91167,91164,91166
only the base model (2,9ghz), but the i5/3,1ghz has the same frequency than the i7.
http://ark.intel.com/compare/91167,91164,91166
only the base model (2,9ghz), but the i5/3,1ghz has the same frequency than the i7.
Is the 3.1GHz i5 likely to reduce battery life or produce significantly more heat, over the standard 2.9GHz chip?