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?

bedandmirror said:
I do plan to run 1-2 VM at a time, so the 16gb is there to stay I'd say.

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?
Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

Oh, and if you assign RAM properly to your VMs, even 8GB should do you fine. But I guess you'll be more comfortable with 16GB, so this one's your call.

I normally assign only 2-4GB to each VM, and I only run 3 VMs at most on my 13" rMBP, because it only has 4 virtual cores.

On my 15" rMBP with 8 virtual cores, I normally run 6 VMs simultaneously, leaving 2 virtual cores for OS X itself.
 
ZBoater said:
You can call it waste if you want. I call it getting the best possible performance I can. And your assumption comes across as rude and condescending. Not to mention flat out wrong. Cheers! :p

----------



Ummmmm, yes it will. About 7% faster, wouldn't it? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

So you're saying saving a few milliseconds (or even microseconds) is worth that upgrade? Jesus Christ.
 
bedandmirror said:
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?
Click to expand...
The 3.1 with extra cache on the 13" rMPB will get you perhaps 3% additional performance. I agree with getting 16GB RAM if using VMs.

The 2.8ghz quad core in the 15" rMBP will get you nearly TWICE the performance in complex spreadsheets (Excel uses all available cores). Spreadsheets that take 2 min to recalculate on my 13" rMBP take 55-65 seconds to recalculate on my 15".
 
KenAFSPC said:
The 3.1 with extra cache on the 13" rMPB will get you perhaps 3% additional performance. I agree with getting 16GB RAM if using VMs.

The 2.8ghz quad core in the 15" rMBP will get you nearly TWICE the performance in complex spreadsheets (Excel uses all available cores). Spreadsheets that take 2 min to recalculate on my 13" rMBP take 55-65 seconds to recalculate on my 15".
Click to expand...

The Geekbench tests that I posted also involves the cache during tests.
 
yjchua95 said:
So you're saying saving a few milliseconds (or even microseconds) is worth that upgrade? Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

I'm saying that having the fastest possible system is worth it. To me. Yes. Why am I going to settle for a slower system, whether a second or a millisecond, when I don't have to??? They must do things differently on the other side of the pond I guess... :p
 
ZBoater said:
I'm saying that having the fastest possible system is worth it. To me. Yes. Why am I going to settle for a slower system, whether a second or a millisecond, when I don't have to??? They must do things differently on the other side of the pond I guess... :p
Click to expand...

It's called 'efficiency' and 'value for money'. And not wasting it on things that only serve to boost your ego so that you can brag that you completely maxed out your computer.
 
I'm looking for this laptop to last me 4+ years, but the upgrade is extra money I don't have
Will the i5 (top spec) seem slow in 2-3 years?
My deciding factor is longevity now
Thanks
 
No

Glope said:
I'm looking for this laptop to last me 4+ years, but the upgrade is extra money I don't have
Will the i5 (top spec) seem slow in 2-3 years?
My deciding factor is longevity now
Thanks
Click to expand...

Well no slower than the i7 anyway.

My old 2010 still runs pretty slick with a core 2 duo and a ssd 5 years later.
 
yjchua95 said:
It's called 'efficiency' and 'value for money'. And not wasting it on things that only serve to boost your ego so that you can brag that you completely maxed out your computer.
Click to expand...

Why are you bringing ego into this discussion? What does wanting to have the fastest computer possible have to do with ego? I think you are very confused. Let me try to explain, although I know it's a waste of time.

Macs are not upgradeable for the most part. They are not over clockable. You get what you get when you buy them, and that's what you have to live with..

Apple offers several choices at several price points. Some people, like you obviously, place a great deal of importance on saving a few dollars. Congratulations. Enjoy your choice. You don't see me pointing out your financial inadequacies, do you? That would be wrong. So I won't.

Others place greater worth on maximum performance. Apple builds the maxed out models for us. That doesn't make me better than you. No need to attack me personally or talk about egos. That's just childish and immature.

Enjoy your choice of Mac. I'll enjoy mine. I promise I won't brag about my maxed out Mac if you don't brag about.... Oh, wait. Never mind.
 
Missing the point

ZBoater said:
Why are you bringing ego into this discussion? What does wanting to have the fastest computer possible have to do with ego? I think you are very confused. Let me try to explain, although I know it's a waste of time.

Macs are not upgradeable for the most part. They are not over clockable. You get what you get when you buy them, and that's what you have to live with..

Apple offers several choices at several price points. Some people, like you obviously, place a great deal of importance on saving a few dollars. Congratulations. Enjoy your choice. You don't see me pointing out your financial inadequacies, do you? That would be wrong. So I won't.

Others place greater worth on maximum performance. Apple builds the maxed out models for us. That doesn't make me better than you. No need to attack me personally or talk about egos. That's just childish and immature.

Enjoy your choice of Mac. I'll enjoy mine. I promise I won't brag about my maxed out Mac if you don't brag about.... Oh, wait. Never mind.
Click to expand...

The OP wanted to know if it was worth it?? If he was of your mindset he wouldn't care he'd just get the fastest version money be damnned.

However in the opinion of most of the posters here it would make very little to no difference in his use case and hence it isn't "worth it".

What you think is worth it and are willing to pay for is irrelevant to the question, purely from an objective view point taking everything into account the i7 upgrade is not worth the money for 99.5% of users. The OP being one of that vast majority.
 
ZBoater said:
Why are you bringing ego into this discussion? What does wanting to have the fastest computer possible have to do with ego? I think you are very confused. Let me try to explain, although I know it's a waste of time.

Macs are not upgradeable for the most part. They are not over clockable. You get what you get when you buy them, and that's what you have to live with..

Apple offers several choices at several price points. Some people, like you obviously, place a great deal of importance on saving a few dollars. Congratulations. Enjoy your choice. You don't see me pointing out your financial inadequacies, do you? That would be wrong. So I won't.

Others place greater worth on maximum performance. Apple builds the maxed out models for us. That doesn't make me better than you. No need to attack me personally or talk about egos. That's just childish and immature.

Enjoy your choice of Mac. I'll enjoy mine. I promise I won't brag about my maxed out Mac if you don't brag about.... Oh, wait. Never mind.
Click to expand...

Pointing out my financial inadequacy eh? Look at my signature.

The fastest computer has nothing to do with your ego if it really helps you (i.e. a 12-core nMP with 64GB RAM plus D700s for 4K rendering. I've two of them). But paying $100 for a 2-3% performance delta (which means only milliseconds in improvements) has something to do with ego.

I'm a software engineer at VMware Inc and I've been there for 15 years already. I also work as a professional cinematographer. I'm very certain on what can really bring improvements and what doesn't.
 
Samuelsan2001 said:
The OP wanted to know if it was worth it?? If he was of your mindset he wouldn't care he'd just get the fastest version money be damnned.

However in the opinion of most of the posters here it would make very little to no difference in his use case and hence it isn't "worth it".

What you think is worth it and are willing to pay for is irrelevant to the question, purely from an objective view point taking everything into account the i7 upgrade is not worth the money for 99.5% of users. The OP being one of that vast majority.
Click to expand...

Since worth is a relative thing, and I seriously doubt you have a poll to back up your 99.5% claim, I think this is irrelevant. The op asked if it was worth it. I replied with my OPINION. My opinion is not tied to what 99% of anybody else thinks. It's just that. And if you want the fastest Mac around, then yes, it's "worth" it. If you want to settle for less that the fastest to save some cash, then for you, it might not be worth it.

I am not going to presume I know what 99.5% of users want or need. Although if Apple offers it as an option, I seriously doubt your ASS-UMPTION is correct.
 
New OSX user - MacBook pro Retina 13" - i5 or i7 upgrade?

Damn, guys. You're both right; the i7 has almost the same performance--not exact, but really close. AND it's a luxury computer, and if getting that last bump gives you warm fuzzies and you can afford it, awesome. It's by no means necessary but it's not worthless either.

One spot I do think yichua is wrong though: the proportional price bump for the i7 is about the same as the performance bump, at least at the higher base specs. In that sense it's arguably objectively "worth the money." That was pretty much the point of that benchmarks story from a couple of days ago: "no particular recommendations for CPU."

Edit: I say that, I forgot that the highest spec charges $200 from 2.9 to 3.1--not so proportionate. But it's not like you'll get that few percent to your baseline any other way.
 
Last edited:
yjchua95 said:
... But paying $100 for a 2-3% performance delta (which means only milliseconds in improvements) has something to do with ego.
Click to expand...

You are certainly entitled t your opinion. But I'd suggest to keep your psychoanalysis to yourself. They have no place here.

yjchua95 said:
I'm a software engineer at VMware Inc and I've been there for 15 years already. I also work as a professional cinematographer. I'm very certain on what can really bring improvements and what doesn't.
Click to expand...

That is wonderful. So I am sure you understand the differences between the processors and clock speeds. What I think we are disagreeing with is on the concept of "worth". And I'm glad you think your concept of "worth" can be superimposed on everyone else. Unfortunately, my concept of "worth" is different than yours. I place "worth" on different things. So for ME, paying $200 extra to get the most performance out of my laptop is "worth" it. If it isn't worth it to you, calling them "almost identical" sounds like a veiled attempt at rationalization. They are not almost identical. There IS a difference. However small you want to make it out to be, Apple and Intel disagree with you. They manufacture and market two different models at two different price points FOR A REASON.

Now my ego and I will go get some warmth from our steaming hot i7....
 
geoelectric said:
Damn, guys. You're both right; the i7 has almost the same performance--not exact, but really close. AND it's a luxury computer, and if getting that last bump gives you warm fuzzies and you can afford it, awesome. It's by no means necessary but it's not worthless either.

One spot I do think yichua is wrong though: the proportional price bump for the i7 is about the same as the performance bump, at least at the higher base specs. In that sense it's arguably objectively "worth the money." That was pretty much the point of that benchmarks story from a couple of days ago: "no particular recommendations for CPU."

Edit: I say that, I forgot that the highest spec charges $200 from 2.9 to 3.1--not so proportionate. But it's not like you'll get that few percent to your baseline any other way.
Click to expand...
My point is that, is it worth blowing money on something that's only 2-3% better (2.9 to 3.1GHz, for $100), or 6-7% better (2.7 to 3.1GHz for $200)?

The money could be used on other way more useful and worthy things. Like donating it to the Salvation Army for instance, or taking your wife out for a good dinner.
 
yjchua95 said:
The money could be used on other way more useful and worthy things. Like donating it to the Salvation Army for instance, or taking your wife out for a good dinner.
Click to expand...

Useful and worthy by whose standards? Geez. We don't really need a lecture on how to spend our hard earned money. That is presumptuous. :confused:
 
yjchua95 said:
It's called 'efficiency' and 'value for money'. And not wasting it on things that only serve to boost your ego so that you can brag that you completely maxed out your computer.
Click to expand...

Maxing a meagre 13" MBP out is hardly worth bragging about :)
 
ZBoater is a troll and everyone is taking the bait.

The i7 is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. The whole 28W line (i3, i5, i7) should either be called i3 (Intel's desktop dual core chips are ALL i3) or it should have a completely different name altogether, like Core M+ or something.

At least in the 15W lineup you're getting a significant performance boost going from i5 to i7.
 
Cloudsurfer said:
ZBoater is a troll and everyone is taking the bait.

The i7 is nothing more than a marketing gimmick. The whole 28W line (i3, i5, i7) should either be called i3 (Intel's desktop dual core chips are ALL i3) or it should have a completely different name altogether, like Core M+ or something.

At least in the 15W lineup you're getting a significant performance boost going from i5 to i7.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the vote of confidence. :p I'm glad Intel and Apple disagree with you as well, and that they offer options for those who want them.
 
I wish there was a way to do a blind test

I'm pretty sure there will be no way to tell difference in real life. For example, given 2 identical macbooks with different cpus and letting same user do their thing on each - I bet there will be no way to tell a difference :) (without running CPU tests or looking at specs of course..)

I just ordered one with 16Gb of RAM - using VMWare to run my Win8 dev environment. I know my Win8 dev needs about 8Gb to be happy. Well, I need to give at least 2Gb to OSX - therefore 16Gb would be minimum for me

For extra couple $100 I can get 2 docks, one for home and one for work. It will save me more time than i5 vs i7 :)
 
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