Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MBA - i5 or i7?
- Thread starter abbeybound
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't see how older games and light coding require plenty of CPU power. Do you think the maxed out 2010 11" MBA is powerful enough for you? Because the i5 2013 model has 3.5x the processing (geekbench 64-bit multithreaded) AND graphics power (3Dmark vantage benchmark). A 700$ machine is over 3x as powerful as your machine. Why not upgrade every 3 years?
But I will say something about the OP's choice of a 19" monitor. If it's 4:3 than it's probably 1280x1024. Not that much of an improvement over the 11" MBA's 1366x768. My MBA easily drives my 46" 1080p TV with a DP -> HDMI adaptor. Something to think about. I just bought a 27" BenQ 1080p gaming monitor to replace my 10 year old 19" 4:3. Huge upgrade, and lower end versions of these things can be had for just over $200.
Yeah, a 21-24" 1080p IPS monitor is probably a better buy for him.
Running 1080p on C2D and a gtx 320m is feasible. That still doesn't explain why you would recommend the OP spend $700 extra dollars for a 15-20% performance boost when you could spend less than 700$ (discounting the price of selling your old machine) to get over a 300% performance boost. If you care so much about performance, wouldn't a baseline MBA be a huge upgrade for you?
LOL!
Asking a question, here, will get you so many different answers.
Sometimes I wonder if we are helping or hurting!
Asking a question, here, will get you so many different answers.
Sometimes I wonder if we are helping or hurting!
No offense but spending more on the processor to help future resale value is, well, I said I don't want to be offensive, so let's say not extremely well thought through. You will only be able to recuperate a fraction of the cost you pay today for the upgrade.
I am not even convinced about this doing anything for 'future proofing' (I am still wondering if the sales/marketing department of Apple has invented this word to drive people into buying upgrades they do not really need). Future OS versions might be more memory intensive but the processor is rarely an issue unless you are looking 10 years down the line. Even a Macbook from 2008 with a Core2Duo processor can easily run Mavericks with 2Gb of RAM and a SSD. So when the day comes that you need an i7 to run the OS the rest of the machine will be so terrible outdated that it probably won't matter anymore (provided the machine is still working in so many years which is a different question altogether).
Last edited:
You're over thinking this. When it's time to buy, buy something that's going to kick ass for you and run it till the wheels come off. If you expect people to be constantly buying and selling to maximize performance then I think you have the wrong audience.
Buying a new computer every 3-4 years is not constant buying/selling. If anything I am arguing that you don't need to maximize performance. The whole point of comparing the 2013 to the 2010 model was that you are lauding the performance of your computer, yet you don't think a computer with over 3x the performance is good enough for someone who does light coding. It seems counterintuitive to me. The 2010 model is great, but in comparison to the 2013 model, those components are near worthless.
I don't see how this is overthinking. You are a professional programmer who manages to use a computer with less than 1/3 the power of a modern baseline MBA, yet it still runs great. Why does a college student need over 3x the power you have?
All the arguments you have made are about spending as much money as possible, and driving your machine until it falls apart. Why wouldn't you upgrade to a 2014 MBA for 700$ if it was 3x as powerful as your current machine? The maxed out 2010 MBA was barely any more powerful than the baseline model. You paid an extra $300 at least for such a tiny incremental boost. If you cared about power alone, the $700 upgrade would be a no brainer. It isn't consistent. The only reason to hold on to your machine is that it was a custom model with a capped out 1.6 GHz processor. It may be 12% faster than the baseline model was, but that doesn't mean anything only 3 years later. Upgrades might extend the lifespan of your machine, but when performance is doubling every two years, it seems odd to buy maxed out machines unless you need the performance right then.
It seems pretty basic to me. Maybe I am missing something.
Ohh.. You really think that you have the knowledge to say what is unnecessary.. For me? To spend MY money on? Ummm.... Sure.
Oh the narrow mindness, and self proclaimed master of universe attitude on these forums never fails to amaze.
Last edited:
I think capathy's statement was unnecessary, although I don't think it was necessarily directed at you. You do bring up a good point though, that emotional spurts don't contribute to the thread in any positive way. When it comes down to it, technology has spawned ideologies, and many people, myself included, have strong opinions on the matter. Especially when these topics involve peoples' livelihoods and money, discussions can get heated. I hope to not come across that way, but I definitely have a side and an agenda. The purchases we make are personal decisions, and each person is entitled to their own process. Here is my argument, where the benefits and costs of a CPU upgrade are considered.
I am personally a consumer, and I place low value on RAM and CPU power. I can understand upgrading a computer if you need the power right now as a professional. The idea of future proofing for a consumer is a little less justifiable, at least with the current market for MBAs. For me, assuming I get no immediate benefit from hardware upgrades, the only benefit will be extended lifespan. I think it is fair to say that any percentage increase in price should extend the lifespan of my computer by that percentage. If I can get a baseline 11" MBA for $700, and an i7/8GB/256GB model costs $580 more, I cannot justify that purchase because I receive no immediate benefit, and the lifespan would not increase by that amount (83%). This is the value I set, and others may differ. I think that my linear expectation is actually a little low, considering performance grows at an exponential rate according to Moore's law. If this is true, a computer produced in 2015 will last longer than a computer produced in 2000, assuming the power of the computer correlates to lifespan. If this relationship holds, my dollar will have greater value in relation to processing power, the longer I hold on to that money. To simplify though, I will assume that Moore's law plays no effect on the lifespan of computers, and that there is a 1:1 ratio of the percentage change in cost and lifespan. Based on this, the disparity between the baseline model and custom models is too high at this point in time for me to justify any upgrade beyond what I need.
To justify a purchase of an upgrade, I would need to see an immediate benefit, a proportional increase in lifespan, or some intermediate of the two. Immediate benefit is hard to quantify, so if I saw any appreciable difference in my work because of an upgrade, then I would say it was worth it. That is what makes mathematical sense to me. I am interested in hearing another side of the future proofing argument. I am in 100% agreement that you should get what you need right now, so the immediate benefit argument is fair as long as you can prove there is an immediate benefit from the upgrade.
Matt
No offense taken. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and all we can do on these boards is give the advice we think best.
I don't tend to offer advice about computers for gaming and entertainment but I do often participate where education or work is involved. And my advice is always along the lines of buy the very best computer you can afford and replace it as often as you must to stay highly productive. We live in a competitive world and the computer is there to maximize productivity. Often higher productivity leads to greater rewards and more opportunity and this can compound over time. This has been a very successful formula for me and many others so I share that experience.
So if you and I are equal in most respects but I have a computer that's 20% faster! I'm going to get things done faster on mine. Maybe I can do a better job in the same amount of time or do an equally good job faster leaving more time for something else. How do you think that may impact our grades or salaries or lifestyles over time?
So it's easy to dismiss a benchmark that say differs by 5 seconds. Who cares about 5 seconds right? But how many tasks do you do using your computer say 6 hours a day? And how many seconds could that save you? If it's an average of 20% that's potentially as much as 1.2 hours! Now in real life you aren't likely to max that out but what's say 20 minutes a day going to be worth to you?
And maybe in three years I can get $500 for my computer and you can get $450 for yours. You say it cost me $150 for the original upgrade and I only got $50 for it so you made the better deal. But I got three years of higher productivity for $100 so who got the better deal?
Just food for thought. We all make different decisions for different reasons. A decision that's good for me may not be good for you. A decision that works out for you may not work out for me.
Agreed. And i did not for a second assume it was made towards me specifically. But the way he made the argument made me simply want to point out the madness in his assumptions.
Well said!
I understand and agree with your point about productivity and I can tell from my work laptop (a Lenovo POS) that it is indeed a constraint to my work and I don't even want to start counting the minutes or hours lost because of it.
My point however is that processing power is completely overrated and usually the last thing that results in a constraint or lost time for 99% of people. More often the problem lies with poor software, network issues etc. The i7 will certainly be faster for very processor intensive tasks but again only for very special tasks that most mainstream users will not perform, so I doubt the 20% productivity gain.
I really like your explanation. It makes a lot of sense, especially if you gain some productivity because of it. Your computer costs closer to $1000 more for the upgrade, but if you get some added enjoyment or productivity then I think it is worth it. I don't think I am doing nearly as demanding work as you, so I wouldn't notice any difference between my $700 baseline 2014 model and yours. In 3 years, when I sell my computer, your computer may have dropped in value by $400 more than mine did, but you may gain some $400 in actual money and enjoyment from your computer. As a college student, my time spent on my computer isn't worth that much, so I personally can't justify it
. The argument for future proofing is what bothers me, because 8+ years down the line, your productivity is going to suffer significantly no matter what, and cheap modern computers will be able to outperform your computer by a significant margin. If the arguments being presented were solely for increased productivity then I would understand, but the "future proofing" may actually hurt overall productivity in the long run.
Matt
I think you've missed my point. I only brought up the 15 as an example of what that money could buy. I am not trying to steer the OP away from an 11 inch MBA, I am just telling him that it is a waste of money to max it out especially when he has stated his needs.
He can get a base model now and have it last 3-4 years easy. No beach balls, no slowdown. People don't understand how great the base model Mac's perform for 99 percent of users. Unless someone is into heavy video or photo editing, or runs VM's, they are wasting their money on maxing out a machine.
In 3 or 4 years, the OP can sell that base model and upgrade to the newest model. It will have a significantly better display, better battery life, and overall better performance. At this point, the OP still wouldn't have spend as much on two machines as if he'd maxed out the original machine.
Ohh.. You really think that you have the knowledge to say what is unnecessary.. For me? To spend MY money on? Ummm.... Sure.
Oh the narrow mindness, and self proclaimed master of universe attitude on these forums never fails to amaze.
It has nothing to do with narrow mindedness, or being a "self proclaimed master of universe."
Everyone has the right to spend their money how they see fit. That being said, if you read this thread in it's entirety, you will see my point being validated by several users.
For MANY users, maxing out a machine is a complete waste of money. As it has been stated, a 3 year old maxed out MBA has only a fraction of the power that a new base model has.
I do understand the productivity argument to an extent, but those that would truly benefit from that productivity time are the one's who would actually access that extra processing power and those users are a small minority. As another post stated, they were using less than 5 percent of the CPU power. There is no scenario in which this user would benefit from an i7.
My statement probably could have been worded a little better, but I was pointing out that based on many users on these forums, they order maxed out models when a base model would be more than enough for their needs.
That's largely due to the forum members who tell everyone to MAX IT OUT without shutting up long enough to even listen to the needs of that user.
People come to these forums for sound advice. MacBook's are not cheap and most of the time it is a significant purchase especially for younger, college aged people. If that person's needs can be met perfectly with a machine that costs 800-1000, there is absolutely no reason for people to blindly tell them to "MAX IT OUT" which essentially doubles the cost of the machine.
You are essentially spending their money for them and it's completely unnecessary. Again, if their needs warrant more power, then we should recommend it, but recommending maxing for every users that inquires is ridiculous.
I'm gonna talk about my stuff, but I'm also gonna try and get back to the OP. And let's assume everyone else knows what's best for them. Okay, great.
The OP is getting an 11" and he properly concluded that he should max-out the soldered RAM. Smart. I wish I had 8GB, I use ad-free browsers, XCode, MacPorts, Audacity, iMovie, VMs, Android IDEs, Arduino IDEs, Logic Pro, GuitarPro, LibreOffice, Minecraft, ..., etc. He also decided to go for the 128GB of storage. Fine. That's what I have and I make do, but I wish I had more. When you find yourself needing to clean your disk to make room for your next software install, that generally is a bummer. So, before the processor decision, that puts him at $999. Now, processor spec comparisons: 1.7GHz/1.4GHz = a 22% increase. 3.3GHz/2.7GHz turbo boost = a 22% increase. 4MB/3MB of L3 cache = a 33% increase. 4 threads/2 threads = a 100% increase. $1149/$999 = a 15% increase.
What's really important to most people is user experience. Whatever that means. Weight and size aside, for me, user input response time is near or at the top of my list. I have both a 2010 2.4GHz C2D 8GB Mac Mini and a 2010 1.6GHz C2D 4GB 11" MBA. Even though I'm happy with both machines and the purposes they serve, which one do you think gives me the better user experience for the same task?
Max out the processor, dude. It's a good medium to long term value and you'll enjoy your purchase that much more.
The OP is getting an 11" and he properly concluded that he should max-out the soldered RAM. Smart. I wish I had 8GB, I use ad-free browsers, XCode, MacPorts, Audacity, iMovie, VMs, Android IDEs, Arduino IDEs, Logic Pro, GuitarPro, LibreOffice, Minecraft, ..., etc. He also decided to go for the 128GB of storage. Fine. That's what I have and I make do, but I wish I had more. When you find yourself needing to clean your disk to make room for your next software install, that generally is a bummer. So, before the processor decision, that puts him at $999. Now, processor spec comparisons: 1.7GHz/1.4GHz = a 22% increase. 3.3GHz/2.7GHz turbo boost = a 22% increase. 4MB/3MB of L3 cache = a 33% increase. 4 threads/2 threads = a 100% increase. $1149/$999 = a 15% increase.
What's really important to most people is user experience. Whatever that means. Weight and size aside, for me, user input response time is near or at the top of my list. I have both a 2010 2.4GHz C2D 8GB Mac Mini and a 2010 1.6GHz C2D 4GB 11" MBA. Even though I'm happy with both machines and the purposes they serve, which one do you think gives me the better user experience for the same task?
Max out the processor, dude. It's a good medium to long term value and you'll enjoy your purchase that much more.
Last edited:
Again, Just because one argument is being made several times over another does not make it universally right, or a rule, or right for the OP in this case. Just an opinion. And still you use
when clearly your and "many others" opinion is the "right" way to go according to your statements. (At least this is my understanding reading your comments).
Agreed!
That´s like assuming people can´t afford to purchase anything but base models. If someone can afford the upgrades, why worry about the amount they are spending if it is something they want (Even if not needed), it´s their money, it is their choice.
The OP described the usage scenario, and thereafter asked if the upgrade is worth it, I.e an opinion, which he got from me atleast.
If it's worth the $$ only you can decide.
In everyday computing (as described above)... You wont notice a difference between the 2.
With that said, you asked "What would you do" -
I would choose the upgrade. But thats simply because my philosophy has always been to max out ram and processor whenever possible.
Just to clarify, im not native english so excuse any typos. And im not trying to start or continue somekind of "war" on this. I simply enjoy fruitful discussions
Just to clarify, im not native english so excuse any typos. And im not trying to start or continue somekind of "war" on this. I simply enjoy fruitful discussions
It's always a friendly discussion. After all this is not life or death, it's a computer.
You are still missing the point that any current base model is significantly faster than your maxed out 2010 machines. Maxing out would only be justified if you truly needed that power when you bought the computer. This means future proofing isn't necessary.
You mentioned how the i7 has a 15 percent increase in performance. We already know that. You did nothing to show why the OP would have any use for it. It's only faster in tasks that actually need the additional power.
All basic tasks are the same regardless of processor. It's only when that extra power is needed does it make a difference. The OP's usage will never need that power. You are still telling him to max it out for no reason other than you think he should because you did.
The OP's original question was, i5 or i7? i5 is the answer. OP would see no benefit whatsoever with an i7.
It has nothing to do with assuming people cannot afford it. Potential buyers come here to ask if these upgrades are necessary for them based on their usage habits. They ask those of us who use MacBook's in hopes that they will get an honest answer. If they were interested in throwing their money away on unneeded upgrades, they wouldn't be asking in the first place. They would just order it maxed out. They don't know what they want yet, that's why they ask.
Example-If someone says their usage will be web browsing, Spotify, writing college papers, some casual iphoto/imovie work, and watching movies. That person would be perfectly fine with a base model for 5+years. This user would never see an increase in performance for having an i7 or more than 4GB of ram.
This is pretty easy to understand and should be agreed upon by those who give advice. If anyone actually thinks an i7 is necessary for web browsing or other light to medium tasks, then they have no business giving advice as they don't know what they are talking about.
Time and time again, regulars on these forums will tell people with basic usage habits to max it out. That's giving someone bad information.
Actually your suggestion to get a big, heavy 15" MBP is the terrible advice. Light weight and portability is often more important than the extra power, speed or flexibility.
In terms of my computer being an important piece of equipment during an important period of my life, I definitely agree with you. College is also a period where spending is highest in every other category, so if the choice is between a textbook and a CPU upgrade, the textbook is going to be most important to me. Most college degrees do not require huge compute power either, and if they do, universities often provide super computers for really intense computing. I just got a 2014 MBA, and for my work, I didn't notice any difference at all upgrading from my 2010 MBA. I am biased, considering neuro and econ don't require a large amount of computer power, but in general I feel that college is a place to think, not to do (The UC system at least). My friend is a 4th year CS major, and his upper division CS classes are all about theoretical computing. He isn't assigned to develop a 3D game. Maybe I just haven't met the people that need compute power. If they do need compute power, and there is no large negative impact on their financial situation, then they should get what they need.
I agree with what you are saying about future proofing. That is not my issue. If the upgrade will benefit me in any way right now, I will get it. If I see any difference at all, then we can say that the upgrade was worth it.
This is what I have a problem with. If an upgrade provides no benefit right now, I can guarantee that if you save that money, it will have much greater purchasing power in the future. For example, I have a $700 MBA that does everything I want flawlessly. I could get a $1700 upgraded version of my computer, but if I have no immediate benefit, my $1000 of extra worth comes into effect when I need it 3-4 years down the line. At that point in time, my $1000 would have been better spent on a new computer. This assumes I get no benefit right now. Some people make purchases like that, under the premise that the upgrade has no immediate benefit. It seems like people get confused about future value, because they don't take into account the other choices. Spending the extra $100 for RAM will increase the lifespan of my computer, but that $100 could be spent better in the future if I do not need the RAM. If it does provide some benefit, then go and max it out, but otherwise it is a poor investment. There are obviously less tangible benefits as well. Some people just like having that i7 processor because it makes them feel more productive, and some just like having the shiniest toy, all independent of actual performance gains. I fall into that camp as well, otherwise I probably wouldn't be on this forum haha. From a pure performance/dollar comparison, I can think of no upgrades that are actually justified unless you gain some benefit right now.
Matt
Edit: In terms of higher end products holding their value better, since when did this start? Luxury products depreciate significantly faster than any other goods. On top of that, custom upgrades depreciate at a faster rate than the products themselves. Every car, that isn't some collectible, comes to mind for me.
Last edited: