Well one can expect that along with Ivy Bridge the dedicated graphics will be upgraded to new 28nm GPUs and thus also offer more speed. Die shrinks on GPUs usually gave quite significant speed boosts.
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 there a difference between 2.4ghz and 2.5ghz?
- Thread starter Heather56
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I haven't really seen much of a discussion around this on the forums. What possible mobile GPUs could Apple use in the 2012 MBP range? I don't pay much attention to this area.
Most of the AMD 28nm GPUs should have hit the market in Q4 2011.
There are delays but still even Nvidia should have some mobile GPUs launched when Ivy Bridge hits the market. They all say sometime in Q1 2012.
The AMD GPUs codenamed Chelsea are the ones we'd probably see in a MBP. Heathrow is the next and not entirely impossible but doubtful. In any case they should be a good deal faster than the current ones if history is any indication.
7970 Desktop is the only 28nm GPU sold yet but the mobile ones will probably be VLIW4 architecture and only the 79XX will have the newest GCN architecture. For gaming VLIW4 is more power efficient anyway.
VLIW4 vs the 6750's VLIW5 will already give a bit more speed. 28nm should be good for higher clocks or more shaders at the same power consumption.
There are delays but still even Nvidia should have some mobile GPUs launched when Ivy Bridge hits the market. They all say sometime in Q1 2012.
The AMD GPUs codenamed Chelsea are the ones we'd probably see in a MBP. Heathrow is the next and not entirely impossible but doubtful. In any case they should be a good deal faster than the current ones if history is any indication.
7970 Desktop is the only 28nm GPU sold yet but the mobile ones will probably be VLIW4 architecture and only the 79XX will have the newest GCN architecture. For gaming VLIW4 is more power efficient anyway.
VLIW4 vs the 6750's VLIW5 will already give a bit more speed. 28nm should be good for higher clocks or more shaders at the same power consumption.
I echo that, and say the same for hard drives too. As well as that 0.1 GHz difference, you're also paying a large sum of money to swap a 500Gb drive for a 750Gb one - far cheaper to do the swap after purchase.
1 GHz is worth more than 250 USD nowadays, especially for a 3.4 i7 CPU.
perhaps but most folks won't see an appreciable difference. I usually recommend buying the fastest processor and GPU on a laptop because you cannot change those down the road but in this case it doesn't seem worth it.
I was referring to the 1 GHz mistype, as you probably wanted to write 0.1 GHz. Or am I too thick right now?
I am pretty sure you meant 0.1 GHz or 100 Mhz, as pointed out by simbalablahblahblah.
1 GHz difference in the same CPU family is quite a large one, if the number of cores is the same.
I asked myself the same question when I purchased a 13" this past Christmas, at the end of the day I decided to go with the 2.4 Ghz instead since it was for the wife (I would have been more than happy to get the 2.3 Ghz if it was for myself).
I also got the 8GB memory upgrade from Newegg for $35 while it was on sale during the holidays, it was a win-win for her.
I also got the 8GB memory upgrade from Newegg for $35 while it was on sale during the holidays, it was a win-win for her.
Just to add a little perspective, I owned an early 2011 2.2 15" and later got a late 2011 2.5 15". I am a heavy user and I definitely noticed a difference in speeds - noticed it in a way that saved me on average a half hour to an hour each day. When you bill by the hour, or at least estimate by the hour, it makes a large difference in my bottom line/time spent not working and doing other things. Your mileage will almost certainly vary.
Only the high end GPUs are getting a real upgrade. As mentioned above, the 28nm GPUs are running late. What will be sold as mid-range 7000 series Radeon GPUs are rebadged 6000 series GPUs running at slightly higher clock speeds etc. In particular, they are still 40nm chips and will not offer any benefits in terms of power consumption and heat emission.
Do the math. It's a 4% difference. Does that sound significant?
0.1GHz. Be careful with that decimal point. 1GHz is significant.
It's not accurate to say that the 2.5 "has 100MHz more" or "400MHz more" than the 2.4. It is 100MHz faster. You could assume that CPU operations take 1 cycle (though it is much more complicated than that for modern Intel CPUs) and say that the 2.5 does an extra 400 million operations per second compared to the 2.4 because it has 4 cores. But that is still somewhat meaningless. It is much better to look at it as a percent improvement. The 2.4 does 9.6 billion operations per second, whereas the 2.5 does 10 billion operations per second. No matter how you look at it, the most meaningful way to compare them is to say that the 2.5 is about 4% faster than the 2.4.
To me, and most average users, 4% is not worth the premium. If your work depends on fully utilizing the CPU, like rendering video, then you can probably justify the 4% because it could save you up to 20 minutes a day (assuming 8 hours of rendering per day), but then again you would probably be better off with something like a Mac Pro.
4% will save 2.4 minutes on a one hour video render, or 2.4 seconds on an audio file or image that takes a minute to process.
Surely you'll be earning less money with a faster computer?
You want a nice little G3 ...
Surely you'll be earning less money with a faster computer?
You want a nice little G3 ...
Best advice yet
Surely you'll be earning less money with a faster computer?
You want a nice little G3 ...
Actually, a 4 percent increase in speed gives me 4% more time off or two new Macbook Pros or one Mac Pro a year for free.
Actually, a 4 percent increase in speed gives me 4% more time off or two new Macbook Pros or one Mac Pro a year for free.
Uhm, then why don't you buy a second MBP? Or a Mac Pro? I'm serious, if CPU speed is such a bottleneck for you, then a second MBP would at least give you some 50% more productivity.
If mobility is an issue, then there are other options - e.g. a Mac Pro farm at home
Allow me to answer that this
When I brought my Macbook Pro in late 2007, I made sure I stretched my budget and got a machine that'll last me as long as possible. Over 4 years later and my Pro is still going strong. I upgraded the RAM and added a 500gb 7200rpm later on as the components became available, and honestly it still runs great.
I'll be upgrading this year, but only because I want a newer machine for HD video editing, but it's not as if I actually need to retire my current one
edit: as for the speed difference, if your budget allows for the spec bump then go for it. But like others have said, it's not really going to make that much of a difference tbh, even long term.
What about the difference between the 6 MB L3 cache on the 2.4 GHz model and the 8 MB L3 cache on the 2.5 GHz model? What does that 2 MB increase do for a user?
None of the tests on any of the various tech sites revealed much of a difference in the performance of these cpus. My thoughts are that if one provides you with a computer that hiccups on whatever software, the other will not alleviate such a problem. My point being that they're interchangeable in terms of end user needs and if one is unsuitable, you're looking at the need for a different class of machine at that point (or the problem isn't cpu bound).
I have a question about physical life of the 2.4 vs 2.5ghz cpus. I read some article pertaining to the bin numbering and it said something around the lines of: a healthier/less flawed piece of silicone is used for higher ghz processors of the same model cpu, how accurate is this and does it have any affect on longevity of a higher clocked processor compared to its lower bin processor counterpart running at a lower speed? Im guessing its equal in lifespan since Intel wouldn't release boards that are inferior to the point of not lasting as long as they quote them to last.
TIA
TIA
Ok, it took me a while to find some useful information. This website has a quite detailed explanation of the Chip manufacturing process: http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=130978&seqNum=12
The part relevant to your question says:
Based on this, I don't think higher clocked CPUs will be more reliable... they are all running at their respective limits.