New 2.4GHz 15'' MBPr Processor

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by shahin90, Feb 13, 2013.

  1. shahin90, Feb 13, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 13, 2013

    shahin90 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    #1
  2. mrapplegate macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH
    #2
    I ordered a 2.3 rMBP on Feb 6 and today Apple upgraded me to the 2.4 and now my delivery date is Feb 20. That .1 better be worth it :)
    On the plus side I saved about $200 :D
     
  3. shahin90 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2012
    #3
    I just got mine 3 days ago, how much will they refund me if I want the refund? is it 200?!
     
  4. mrapplegate macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH
    #4
    I don't know. I just know the difference in my two orders was about $200.
     
  5. bill-p macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    #5
    You're slightly off.

    The old one is Core i7 3615QM:
    http://ark.intel.com/products/64900/Intel-Core-i7-3615QM-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_30-GHz

    And the new one is Core i7 3635QM:
    http://ark.intel.com/products/71460/Intel-Core-i7-3635QM-Processor-6M-Cache-up-to-3_40-GHz

    Main differences between the 3610QM and 3615QM are VT-d support (in the 3615QM) and higher GPU clock speeds.

    That's the same difference on the 3630QM and 3635QM you quoted.

    The 3610QE is a different processor from that line altogether. It's running the integrated GPU slower than the other two chips, while it supports features that the 3610QM doesn't.

    And then there's also a 3615QE that is about the same in every way... just to make things even more confusing.

    But those aren't the ones in the current rMBP. They are for embedded platforms (hence the "QE" designation). So let's disregard them.

    But if you're wondering, embedded platforms are more simplified than mainstream platforms, so they sometimes benchmark higher.
     
  6. watchthisspace macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2010
    #6
    If I had known, I would of waited 2 weeks and purchased the new one.
     
  7. adjeff8 macrumors 6502

    adjeff8

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2012
    #7
    Nothing to get excited about. If you're in the market for the 13" then this is good news. For us looking at the 15" this is a nothing release. No price change, no nothing except ramping it up .1. They did max out the high ends ram, and since I'm going to max out a base models ram anyway it makes sense to spend the extra $400 and get the 2.7 and double the SSD to 512. But it's still the same machine with its 1st generation quirks. They are basically trying to push these machines out the door to make room for the 2nd generation 2013 models with Haswell. This spec bump is good news as it signals, at least in my mind, that the new ones are coming. Just hold out guys, we've waited this long, a few months won't kill you. Plus the next one will come with OS 10.9
     
  8. Ryan1524 macrumors 65816

    Ryan1524

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Location:
    Canada GTA
    #8
    ^ Exactly.

    The new top end 2.7GHz standard is basically due to most people completely ignoring the 0.1GHz difference and buying 2.6 instead. Now they have to get rid of it. If they're smart, I'm betting they only have a handful of 2.8GHz chips on standby for custom.

    Still, 2.7GHz and 16GB RAM standard the same price is not a bad deal. Think of it as free upgrade, or $450 discount.
     
  9. Asuriyan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2013
    Location:
    Indiana
    #9
    Not exactly- the new 2.7 is the i7-3740QM (with 6M L3 cache) and the old was the i7-3820QM (with 8M L3).

    Really it's just a 100MHz bump across the board, not substantial enough to be noticeable at all for most people. The bump to 16GB (or the $200 reduction from the cost to upgrade from 256GB SSD to 512GB- either way a $200 difference) is the most substantial improvement for the 15".
     
  10. Ryan1524 macrumors 65816

    Ryan1524

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2003
    Location:
    Canada GTA
    #10
    I see that now.

    Why would they reduce the L3 Cache?
     
  11. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #11
    To keep costs down. And probably provide slightly more incentive for customers to shell out for the 2.8GHz upgrade.

    Why else?
     
  12. demosthenes80 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2013
    #12
    Clearing inventory before the Haswell update in June. Intel had some old chips lying around they needed to get rid of, and people who buy these things love specs and having the latest and greatest. So they're an easy target to unload old gear on.
     
  13. M5RahuL macrumors 68020

    M5RahuL

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Location:
    Colorado
    #13
    Thank you for posting this tid-bit!!!

    I knew the earlier 2.7 Ghz i7s (3820QM- the one in my rMBP) had 8MB L3 cache, and looking at Apple's website today got me wondering why it's 6MB L3 for the 2.7s now !!! :eek:
     
  14. maratus macrumors 6502a

    maratus

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Location:
    Canada
    #14
    Go to ark.intel.com and check their prices for different mobile i7 quads
     
  15. Ploki macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
    #15
  16. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #16
    They didn't reduce the L3 cache. The new 2.7GHz processor is an upgrade of the older 2.6GHz processor, not a downgrade of the old 2.7GHz processor.

    The replacement of the 2.7GHz processor is now the 2.8GHz upgrade.

    Intel does this every year. Halfway through a cycle they bump each of the processors slightly usually having ironed out the bugs in the hardware, second to give they industry partners an option to "update" their computers with a refresh. It's just a multiplier increase, nothing more.
     

Share This Page