as the title says, just wondering if the high end 2.6ghz or 2.7ghz model is signifncatly faster then the base model, under both normal usage and heavy usage such as exporting videos
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 Retina MacBook High End Model any FASTER then the base model?
- Thread starter iLikeTurtles!
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
under normal non professional use the 2.3 i7 quad is plenty. I suppose if you had the cores loaded constantly you'd see a small difference and I think the 2.6 would be good enough there. There's some benchmarking out there to show the actual difference but its not as significant as the old days.
The 2.7's main advantage is the increase L3 cache. It really depends on your use - I use Photoshop and the SSD and RAM were the major components for me. However, the price of the upgrade is so cheap, I thought I may as well just get the 2.6.
The CPU upgrade from 2.3 to 2.6 is only $100. He's not talking about the upgraded memory and SSD.
The CPU is only $100. If you need the SSD and RAM, that is a separate matter.
Yes the higher end model is faster if you look at raw numbers. But it is pretty clear that You don't need the 2.6.
Simply search, you will see that the performance between the three CPU`s is negligible;
The difference you will see is time save at full performance, the 2.7 is useful to those that rely on their Mac`s for businesses, if you can reduce your render times by say an arbitrary figure of 8%, you can therefore moniterize the time saving, increase your productivity etc. 2.7 with the 8Mb L3 will really only be of significant benefit to certain applications that can address the additional L3 cache, essentially you will see no tangible benefit unless applications can utilise the additional cache.
For the average user the 2.6 and even the 2.7 will offer little if any real world increase in performance, a few fps in a game etc, even the base 2.3 is an extremely powerful machine by portable standards. The 2.6 or 2.7 are simply not going to kick in and "smoke" the 2.3, dont get me wrong the 2.6 & 2.7 are faster the only question is will you ever notice that difference being so small? Hardly anything, certainly nothing worth shouting about
Geek Test Mid 2012 Retina Benchmark`s
MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3820QM 2700 MHz (4 cores)
12229
MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3720QM 2600 MHz (4 cores)
11774
MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3615QM 2300 MHz (4 cores)
10770
My own 2.3 consistently bench marks over 11K (32bit) further narrowing the margin further. I know it`s very cliched, however if you need to ask, you likely don't need the performance increase...
The difference you will see is time save at full performance, the 2.7 is useful to those that rely on their Mac`s for businesses, if you can reduce your render times by say an arbitrary figure of 8%, you can therefore moniterize the time saving, increase your productivity etc. 2.7 with the 8Mb L3 will really only be of significant benefit to certain applications that can address the additional L3 cache, essentially you will see no tangible benefit unless applications can utilise the additional cache.
For the average user the 2.6 and even the 2.7 will offer little if any real world increase in performance, a few fps in a game etc, even the base 2.3 is an extremely powerful machine by portable standards. The 2.6 or 2.7 are simply not going to kick in and "smoke" the 2.3, dont get me wrong the 2.6 & 2.7 are faster the only question is will you ever notice that difference being so small? Hardly anything, certainly nothing worth shouting about
Geek Test Mid 2012 Retina Benchmark`s
MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3820QM 2700 MHz (4 cores)
12229
MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3720QM 2600 MHz (4 cores)
11774
MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3615QM 2300 MHz (4 cores)
10770
My own 2.3 consistently bench marks over 11K (32bit) further narrowing the margin further. I know it`s very cliched, however if you need to ask, you likely don't need the performance increase...
Last edited:
by ur recomendation, save the 100 and put it towards somehing else? (looking at the 2.6ghz option)
If you make a good income its cheap. Some folks here can easily make that much money in less then a day's work.
iLikeTurtles,
I think that you're trying very hard to decide whether or not you want to pay the extra $100 for an upgrade. It is my understanding what you've already made your order for the 2.3 GHz processor.
Instead of getting varying opinions of whether or not it is worth it, why not just wait for it to arrive, do what you plan on doing on the MBP, and decide from there if it is worth the extra $100 to upgrade?
I am very confident that you will be happy with the 2.3 GHz processor. If you had a need for 2.6 GHz, you wouldn't be making so many topics regarding this.
It`s really down to you, however for regular use you are unlikely to see any significant improvement in performance. If you are looking at buying one of the "off the shelf" systems the 2.6 comes with the 512 SSD, which just sweetens the deal some. In general I avoid BTO`s as if you have issue it must be returned to source, which can be problematic for me.
Personally i would focus on the storage you require and go for the 2.3, 256/512 SDD or 2.6 with 512 SSD. The base models tend to hold the greatest percentage of purchase cost and vice versa the maxed out BTO`s will loose the most in the same given timeframe, which may also be a consideration.
----------
In some industries yes, and this figure can be multiplied five fold or more...
Well said. I mean how many different threads do you need to post in order to see what's already been discussed over and over and over again? What are you expecting to see that's different?
I was also doubtful when I ordered my 2.3 over the 2.6. After it arrived I had no doubts. It's surely a keeper. 2.7 is a different story, I couldnt justify it but that's just me. 16gb memory upgrade was a must btw.
Last edited:
haha I'm not the only one then seeing the same guy post about the same question. Just get 2.3 and spend the extra $100 on a super drive or something.
$600 a day only equates to a $150,000 job. So yes, while well paid, we're not exactly talking millionaires here.
Exactly - I know some who are breaking 2K a day, it`s out there if you want it...
Last edited: