Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New OSX user - MacBook pro Retina 13" - i5 or i7 upgrade?

B

bedandmirror

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Mar 14, 2015
16
0
Hello. I've been using an old samsung laptop for about four years and it's time for an upgrade. I need a laptop that will last for a while, and it needs to be smallish so I have decided on the 13".

My main uses are: A LOT of excel spreadsheets, the computer has to handle these fine. I use XCODE often as well as Canopy so it must run those well. I do a lot of numerical programming on both xcode and Canopy with python so it has to be able to run scripts pretty fast. I will also dual boot windows, and use VM for linux. I have narrowed it down to this:

Macbook Pro retina 13" - 2015:

2.9GHz Dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
16GB 1866MHz LPDDR3 SDRAM
512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage
Intel Iris Graphics 6100
Force Touch trackpad

Now I'm having second thoughts, should I upgrade the CPU to the 3.1GHz Dual-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.4GHz ? I've done some research and it seems as though both CPU's use hyperthreading and that the main difference is the 0.2 ghz in speed, and the 4mb L3 Cache rather than the 3MB L3 cache. I don't know if there are any other differences, or how these differences will affect me.

I won't be gaming, it will mainly be used for programming but please note that I will have two 1080p monitors hooked up to the machine, and it HAS to be able to run the scripts I throw at it smoothly.

I'm also interested at the resale value of the computer. In 4-5 years I will probably sell it and upgrade, would the i7 be better for that then?

I understand that the 15" seems to be more down my alley, but I really like the portability of the 13".

Any help please! Thank you very much.
 
bedandmirror said:
Hello. I've been using an old samsung laptop for about four years and it's time for an upgrade. I need a laptop that will last for a while, and it needs to be smallish so I have decided on the 13".

My main uses are: A LOT of excel spreadsheets, the computer has to handle these fine. I use XCODE often as well as Canopy so it must run those well. I do a lot of numerical programming on both xcode and Canopy with python so it has to be able to run scripts pretty fast. I will also dual boot windows, and use VM for linux. I have narrowed it down to this:

Macbook Pro retina 13" - 2015:

2.9GHz Dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
16GB 1866MHz LPDDR3 SDRAM
512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage
Intel Iris Graphics 6100
Force Touch trackpad

Now I'm having second thoughts, should I upgrade the CPU to the 3.1GHz Dual-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.4GHz ? I've done some research and it seems as though both CPU's use hyperthreading and that the main difference is the 0.2 ghz in speed, and the 4mb L3 Cache rather than the 3MB L3 cache. I don't know if there are any other differences, or how these differences will affect me.

I won't be gaming, it will mainly be used for programming but please note that I will have two 1080p monitors hooked up to the machine, and it HAS to be able to run the scripts I throw at it smoothly.

I'm also interested at the resale value of the computer. In 4-5 years I will probably sell it and upgrade, would the i7 be better for that then?

I understand that the 15" seems to be more down my alley, but I really like the portability of the 13".

Any help please! Thank you very much.
Click to expand...

As far as I'm aware, there is little real world difference between the i5 and i7 chips in this situation as both are dual core, if the i7 were quad core it would be different story. I'd go for the i5 and keep the spare cash
 
bedandmirror said:
Hello. I've been using an old samsung laptop for about four years and it's time for an upgrade. I need a laptop that will last for a while, and it needs to be smallish so I have decided on the 13".

My main uses are: A LOT of excel spreadsheets, the computer has to handle these fine. I use XCODE often as well as Canopy so it must run those well. I do a lot of numerical programming on both xcode and Canopy with python so it has to be able to run scripts pretty fast. I will also dual boot windows, and use VM for linux. I have narrowed it down to this:

Macbook Pro retina 13" - 2015:

2.9GHz Dual-core Intel Core i5, Turbo Boost up to 3.3GHz
16GB 1866MHz LPDDR3 SDRAM
512GB PCIe-based Flash Storage
Intel Iris Graphics 6100
Force Touch trackpad

Now I'm having second thoughts, should I upgrade the CPU to the 3.1GHz Dual-core Intel Core i7, Turbo Boost up to 3.4GHz ? I've done some research and it seems as though both CPU's use hyperthreading and that the main difference is the 0.2 ghz in speed, and the 4mb L3 Cache rather than the 3MB L3 cache. I don't know if there are any other differences, or how these differences will affect me.

I won't be gaming, it will mainly be used for programming but please note that I will have two 1080p monitors hooked up to the machine, and it HAS to be able to run the scripts I throw at it smoothly.

I'm also interested at the resale value of the computer. In 4-5 years I will probably sell it and upgrade, would the i7 be better for that then?

I understand that the 15" seems to be more down my alley, but I really like the portability of the 13".

Any help please! Thank you very much.
Click to expand...
Unless you are pegging the CPU at 100%, 100% of the time, and your computer is a source of time dependent income, your money is better left in your pockets.

The speed difference is on the order of 5-7% in the aforementioned situation. The rest of the time? If you notice, I suggest you see a shrink, because it's all in your head.
 
snaky69 said:
Unless you are pegging the CPU at 100%, 100% of the time, and your computer is a source of time dependent income, your money is better left in your pockets.

The speed difference is on the order of 5-7% in the aforementioned situation. The rest of the time? If you notice, I suggest you see a shrink, because it's all in your head.
Click to expand...

Fair enough! Thanks for the comical and informative reply :)
 
bedandmirror said:
Fair enough! Thanks for the comical and informative reply :)
Click to expand...

I'm a guy that likes to get his money's worth when he spends it. As in, I don't mind paying twice as much for something twice(or more) as good. The processor upgrade just isn't one of those buys to me.
 
What are the chances that the new 13" will be 'outdated' this time next year? I'm talking outdated in both performance and design. I could live with either or, but to be outdated in both areas would make me sad.
 
Alloy201 said:
What are the chances that the new 13" will be 'outdated' this time next year? I'm talking outdated in both performance and design. I could live with either or, but to be outdated in both areas would make me sad.
Click to expand...

Well, the next one will perform better, and probably have a different design including some of the cues from the new MacBook. If nothing else, it'll almost certainly have a USB Type-C port.

It's hard to say how much better it'll perform. The 4-core versions are getting an incredible boost in graphics with the GT4e chipset and 72 execution units, but the 2-core versions look like they're keeping the GT3e chipset. It could be incremental.

Upshot is who knows? It'll be better, but hard to say how much better. And also hard to say if it'll be out a year from now. I'd guess a new 13 will be out by WWDC latest, probably before that.
 
bedandmirror said:
would upgrading it make it any more future proof?
Click to expand...

If your time horizon is 4 - 5 years like with your Samsung machine, no an i7 would not make it any more future proof especially since the i5 you have is so close in terms of performance at base and Turboboost speeds.
 
yjchua95 said:
Only worth it if the price difference between CPUs are also around 20% or so.
Click to expand...

No. It is worth it if the buyer seeks the best possible performance regardless of expense. There are people who place greater worth on the fastest possible performance than others. Other place greater "worth" on battery life. Or overall cost. Doesn't make them right or wrong. And it doesn't make it any more or less "worth" it to others.
 
ZBoater said:
No. It is worth it if the buyer seeks the best possible performance regardless of expense. There are people who place greater worth on the fastest possible performance than others. Other place greater "worth" on battery life. Or overall cost. Doesn't make them right or wrong. And it doesn't make it any more or less "worth" it to others.
Click to expand...

So it is worth paying an extra USD 200 (from 2.7GHz i5 to 3.1GHz i5) just for that 7% increase in performance?

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/2097413?baseline=2096703

Performance deltas in both single and multicore is just 7% (6.9% and 6.8% respectively if you want to be picky).

You're basically encouraging people to waste money for something they absolutely do not need.

From 2.9GHz i5 to 3.1GHz i7 ($100 upgrade):
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/2094355?baseline=2096703

Single core performance delta: 2.3%
Multi core performance delta: 2.5%
 
Last edited:
yjchua95 said:
So it is worth paying an extra USD 200 just for that 7% increase in performance?...You're basically encouraging people to waste money for something they absolutely do not need.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is worth it TO ME. It is you who are presuming that spending $200 on a 7% performance increase is a waste. It may be a waste for YOU, but it isn't for me. I value the best possible performance. To ME, that is most important. So to ME, it is not a waste. It is an expense I make gladly as I want the fastest possible system I can buy. YMMV.
 
yjchua95 said:
So it is worth paying an extra USD 200 (from 2.7GHz i5 to 3.1GHz i5) just for that 7% increase in performance?

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/2097413?baseline=2096703

Performance deltas in both single and multicore is just 7% (6.9% and 6.8% respectively if you want to be picky).

You're basically encouraging people to waste money for something they absolutely do not need.
Click to expand...

Do you by any chance have the performance of the 2.9ghz with 16gb of ram? Just to see the total difference? I really don't understand most of the terms on that page tbh!
 
Bedandmirror,

I don't know what sort spreadsheets you use, but the OSX version of Excel isn't on par with the Windows version. Of course, you can run the Windows version of Excel on OSX with virtual machine software (until Microsoft improves the OSX version). If you work with highly complex spreadsheets (e.g., complex analyses, models), the quad-core CPU in the 15" would be highly desirable.
 
bedandmirror said:
Do you by any chance have the performance of the 2.9ghz with 16gb of ram? Just to see the total difference? I really don't understand most of the terms on that page tbh!
Click to expand...

http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/2094355?baseline=2096703

Here's the performance of the 2.9/8 vs the 3.1/16.

Performance delta is only 2.4-2.5% at most.

With a 2.9/16 machine, the delta should be even smaller. In real world performance, you won't notice any difference at all. Unless you're transcoding something that takes 10 hours, and a 2.5% increase in performance can shorten transcoding time by 15 minutes.

And also ask yourself, do you really need 16GB? If you don't run several VMs simultaneously, 16GB would be a waste.

----------
ZBoater said:
Yes, it is worth it TO ME. It is you who are presuming that spending $200 on a 7% performance increase is a waste. It may be a waste for YOU, but it isn't for me. I value the best possible performance. To ME, that is most important. So to ME, it is not a waste. It is an expense I make gladly as I want the fastest possible system I can buy. YMMV.
Click to expand...

You Americans just love wasting money like there's no tomorrow, don't you?
 
yjchua95 said:
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/2094355?baseline=2096703

Here's the performance of the 2.9/8 vs the 3.1/16.

Performance delta is only 2.4-2.5% at most.

With a 2.9/16 machine, the delta should be even smaller.

And also ask yourself, do you really need 16GB? If you don't run several VMs simultaneously, 16GB would be a waste.
Click to expand...
I do plan to run 1-2 VM at a time, so the 16gb is there to stay I'd say as I also want to use it for about 4-5years+.

After doing research, the only difference I see between the two are:
0.2ghz speed difference
4mb l3 cache instead of 3mb l3 cache.

Could you tell me when one would benefit from these changes? Would it make compiling code any faster?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back