No 8MB L3 Cache upgrade for Top of the line rMBP

[duffer6]

I find this very interesting, so for the $200 upgrade from the 2.3 to 2.6 Haswell rMBP you only get a .3ghz jump. In the past this upgrade included an additional 2mb of L3 cache. I believe this is a first where the fully loaded MBP doesn't have a 8MB cache.

 

[Wuiffi]

I find this very interesting, so for the $200 upgrade from the 2.3 to 2.6 Haswell rMBP you only get a .3ghz jump. In the past this upgrade included an additional 2mb of L3 cache. I believe this is a first where the fully loaded MBP doesn't have a 8MB cache.

Yes. Anandtech says the following about it:

In typical Intel fashion, you get nothing for free. The 128MB of eDRAM comes at the expense of a smaller L3 cache [...]
The 128MB eDRAM likely more than makes up for this reduction, and I do wonder if this isn’t a sign of things to come from Intel. A shift towards smaller, even lower latency L3 caches might make sense if you’ve got a massive eDRAM array backing it all up.

 

[duffer6]

Yes. Anandtech says the following about it:

Thanks, always love Anadtech's insight. But then why the standard $200 upgrade for merely a .3ghz upgrade. Moneygrab? I would think the profit margins are pretty solid on the rmbp. $100 would be more reasonable and Apple still would be making a nice little bonus for simply over clocking the ghz.

 

[Wuiffi]

Thanks, always love Anadtech's insight. But then why the standard $200 upgrade for merely a .3ghz upgrade. Moneygrab? I would think the profit margins are pretty solid on the rmbp. $100 would be more reasonable and Apple still would be making a nice little bonus for simply over clocking the ghz.

The i7 4850HQ (2.3 Ghz) is listed with $468, while the i7 4960HQ (2.6 Ghz) is listed $657. You can think of it this way: Intel is making a lot of chips. Most of them can handle 2.0 Ghz, some 2.3, but only a few can handle 2.6. Those chips are the most expensive. It's the same with graphic chips and a lot of other stuff. When you want the best 10% you have to pay a lot extra. Just ran geekbench on my girlfriends 2.6. It's a beast!

 

[Polymorphic]

I believe the Iris Pro GPU also runs at a slightly faster clock rate on the 2.6 GHz CPU.

Edit: Just checked. Iris Pro on the 4960HQ is 100 MHz faster than on the 4850HQ.

 

[duffer6]

The i7 4850HQ (2.3 Ghz) is listed with $468, while the i7 4960HQ (2.6 Ghz) is listed $657. You can think of it this way: Intel is making a lot of chips. Most of them can handle 2.0 Ghz, some 2.3, but only a few can handle 2.6. Those chips are the most expensive. It's the same with graphic chips and a lot of other stuff. When you want the best 10% you have to pay a lot extra. Just ran geekbench on my girlfriends 2.6. It's a beast!

Great insight. Thanks.

 

[jondunford]

plus you used to only get like 0.1ghz more for upgrading to the very best

now its the same amount as going from bottom -> middle

 

[duffer6]

plus you used to only get like 0.1ghz more for upgrading to the very best

now its the same amount as going from bottom -> middle

Really only .1ghz in the past. Didn't recall that.

 

[Quu]

Really only .1ghz in the past. Didn't recall that.

It wasn't just 100MHz in the past, that's why you don't recall it. In 2009 my MBP came in 2.66GHz stock or 2.93GHz as a BTO. That was a 266MHz increase from the stock high end chip and the BTO high end chip.

 

[Wuiffi]

It wasn't just 100MHz in the past, that's why you don't recall it. In 2009 my MBP came in 2.66GHz stock or 2.93GHz as a BTO. That was a 266MHz increase from the stock high end chip and the BTO high end chip.

late 2010 was 2.66 --> 2.8 (0.14 increase)
early 2011 was 2.2-->2.3
late 2011 was 2.4-->2.5
mid 2012 was 2.6-->2.7
early 2013 was 2.7-->2.8