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.
Non TB 13"- 2.0 or 2.4??
- Thread starter marc55
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The 2.4GHz CPU is a few percent faster than the 2.0GHz CPU. Is that worth $300 to you?
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks
It puts it much closer to the higher end 13" with TB. I have been going over the models for a while and for me I probably would go the nTB 256SSD, and 2.4, not sure if I would opt for the Ram or not at this point.
It puts it much closer to the higher end 13" with TB. I have been going over the models for a while and for me I probably would go the nTB 256SSD, and 2.4, not sure if I would opt for the Ram or not at this point.
Upgrading the processor is the least useful upgrade of them all. For most people 8 GB of RAM and a 256 SSD will be enough but if you are going to upgrade anything, either of those would be better. You'll probably see very little actual difference in performance between the 2.0 and 2.4 CPU.
The i5 and i7 labelling is pretty much useless in this case. Both CPUs are dual core with HyperThreading.
I agree with that completely.
To OP: personally, I went with the base CPU, base RAM and upgraded the SSD to 512. You also never mentioned what you would be using the laptop for, so it's hard to even really know if the processor upgrade would even be useful for you. I know it isn't for me since I don't do anything that intensive on my MBP, nor do I do a ton of multitasking, which is why 8GB of RAM works fine for me too. But I know I need a fair amount of storage to keep all my files and media, hence the storage upgrade. For many folks I think the base CPU is gonna be fine, and I've seen a lot of people who need more power go with the TB model or the 15" version instead.
My basic usage consists of:
surfing the web, where everything is true
Pages, Numbers, and Keynote; nothing overly intensive
A little Garage band
Playing with pictures in Photo's
I do have a habit of keeping multiple things running, so I thought the 2.4 I7 might help there
While I know the 2.0 will do for me know, I feel the 2.4 I7, might allow for a little "future proofing", as I do not consider upgrading until it hits year 4 or 5.
↑
"Upgrading the processor is the least useful upgrade of them all. For most people 8 GB of RAM and a 256 SSD will be enough but if you are going to upgrade anything, either of those would be better. You'll probably see very little actual difference in performance between the 2.0 and 2.4 CPU."
While upgrading to the 2.4 might not be needed now, will it help the MBP keep up in 4-5 years from now?
Is the 2.4 GHz 15 watt? Something cool about having a low(er) wattage CPU, better battery life.
I have found the base 2.0 plenty fast.
I have found the base 2.0 plenty fast.
My basic usage consists of:
surfing the web, where everything is true
Pages, Numbers, and Keynote; nothing overly intensive
A little Garage band
Playing with pictures in Photo's
I do have a habit of keeping multiple things running, so I thought the 2.4 I7 might help there
While I know the 2.0 will do for me know, I feel the 2.4 I7, might allow for a little "future proofing", as I do not consider upgrading until it hits year 4 or 5.
↑
"Upgrading the processor is the least useful upgrade of them all. For most people 8 GB of RAM and a 256 SSD will be enough but if you are going to upgrade anything, either of those would be better. You'll probably see very little actual difference in performance between the 2.0 and 2.4 CPU."
While upgrading to the 2.4 might not be needed now, will it help the MBP keep up in 4-5 years from now?
This is where RAM helps, not CPU.
When I considered the nTB model I decided I would get the i7 for future proofing mainly to bring it up closer to the TB speed/spec....Then I decided to get the TB model anyway. I'd pimp out that machine, 16gb of RAM and max CPU. But thats just me.
The i7 is like 7% faster than the i5 according to the Geekbench scores. It's 7% faster now, and it'll be 7% faster 4-5 years from now. If that's worth $300 to you, go for it. I'll echo what everybody else said and say that it's not worth it. Save the upgrade money. But if you have the extra cash, go for it! In the end, you have to be happy with your machine.
Yeah, I agree with this statement. The difference between the 2.0GHz and 2.4GHz processors in this case isn't worth the price. Spend the $300 on something else.
Having multiple programs open at a time, or multitasking, falls into the realm of RAM rather than CPU. If you're worried about being bogged down by having too many programs open at once, paying for 16GB of RAM will yield far better results than paying for the faster CPU.My basic usage consists of:
surfing the web, where everything is true
Pages, Numbers, and Keynote; nothing overly intensive
A little Garage band
Playing with pictures in Photo's
I do have a habit of keeping multiple things running, so I thought the 2.4 I7 might help there
While I know the 2.0 will do for me know, I feel the 2.4 I7, might allow for a little "future proofing", as I do not consider upgrading until it hits year 4 or 5.
↑
"Upgrading the processor is the least useful upgrade of them all. For most people 8 GB of RAM and a 256 SSD will be enough but if you are going to upgrade anything, either of those would be better. You'll probably see very little actual difference in performance between the 2.0 and 2.4 CPU."
While upgrading to the 2.4 might not be needed now, will it help the MBP keep up in 4-5 years from now?
For your use case as described above, I honestly think that the base model will more than suffice for your needs. If you're afraid that it won't be able to keep up for the 4-5 years you plan to keep it for, get 16GB of RAM and call it a day. Furthermore, the RAM upgrade is only $200 whereas the CPU is $300, so you're saving 100 bones there anyways and would be getting the "future proofing" that you're looking for.
I stayed with the base CPU and upgraded the RAM to 16 GB and SSD to 512GB in my nTB. In my experience, like others have mentioned, RAM and storage have been more important upgrades for me. My usage isn't super heavy but so far it's running perfectly fine with no issues and I'm really happy with it.
I'd recommend upgrading the storage, RAM, or both over the CPU.
I'd recommend upgrading the storage, RAM, or both over the CPU.
Non TB 13" 2.0/16/512 here. If it’s all the same to you: ask for a Non TB 13" with upgraded specs in stores near you and go with whatever they have. Waiting for a BTO machine from Shanghai takes longer.
Last edited:
I have the 2.0, I'm a software engineer and use it for development. Work just fine.
As others have said, it's a marginal increase. But I would also add, that the 7% faster CPU only comes into play if you're doing something maxing out the CPU. In the vast vast vast majority of times, that does not happen. Even in my usage which is much more CPU intensive, I would estimate that I hit or need to hit top clock maybe < 1% of the time. In your described use cases, I can argue maybe < 0.1% of the time. So the question is, is 7% faster in 0.1 to 1% of the time you use the computer (or a return of 0.07% time-saving maximum) worth $270?
As others have said, it's a marginal increase. But I would also add, that the 7% faster CPU only comes into play if you're doing something maxing out the CPU. In the vast vast vast majority of times, that does not happen. Even in my usage which is much more CPU intensive, I would estimate that I hit or need to hit top clock maybe < 1% of the time. In your described use cases, I can argue maybe < 0.1% of the time. So the question is, is 7% faster in 0.1 to 1% of the time you use the computer (or a return of 0.07% time-saving maximum) worth $270?
Hows your battery life on that model? Light surfing and video watching usage how long does it go?
Here are the single and multi-core CPU scores from geekbench, and price w/ 16 GB RAM and 500 GB SSD:
2016 13" Macbook Pro 2.0 Intel Core i5-6360U @ 2.0 GHz (2 cores) 3607 / 7014 ($1899)
2016 13" Macbook Pro 2.9 TB Intel Core i5-6267U @ 2.9 GHz (2 cores) 3761 / 7415 ($2199) (+4.2%/+5.7%)
2016 13" Macbook Pro 2.4 Intel Core i7-6660U @ 2.4 GHz (2 cores) 3850 / 7565 ($2199) (+6.7%/+7.8%)
The percentages are increases over the base, and the percentage change from the base TB 13" to nTB Base is +2.3%/+2.0%, so at 2199, makes more sense to get the base processor for the TB 13", imo.
Either way, the 200$ for 100% more RAM is a far more versatile upgrade than $300+ for less than a <8% bump in processor.
FWIW, I have been testing out the base 2.0 nTB MacBook Pro for about a week, and it's surprisingly beefy. I had a 4 camera video stream running in OBS, proc use never went over 50%. I ran out of cameras before I ran out of CPU.
2016 13" Macbook Pro 2.0 Intel Core i5-6360U @ 2.0 GHz (2 cores) 3607 / 7014 ($1899)
2016 13" Macbook Pro 2.9 TB Intel Core i5-6267U @ 2.9 GHz (2 cores) 3761 / 7415 ($2199) (+4.2%/+5.7%)
2016 13" Macbook Pro 2.4 Intel Core i7-6660U @ 2.4 GHz (2 cores) 3850 / 7565 ($2199) (+6.7%/+7.8%)
The percentages are increases over the base, and the percentage change from the base TB 13" to nTB Base is +2.3%/+2.0%, so at 2199, makes more sense to get the base processor for the TB 13", imo.
Either way, the 200$ for 100% more RAM is a far more versatile upgrade than $300+ for less than a <8% bump in processor.
FWIW, I have been testing out the base 2.0 nTB MacBook Pro for about a week, and it's surprisingly beefy. I had a 4 camera video stream running in OBS, proc use never went over 50%. I ran out of cameras before I ran out of CPU
.Option A: Throw 300$ at a 7% performance increase in benchmarks which results in a ~0% increase in real life usage.
Option B: Use 300$ in 2019 to upgrade 1 to 2 years earlier and get a fresh new machine with better specs, battery life, no wear down and so on.
Option C: Don't use the 300$ at all because Intel is stagnating anyway.
If you can't decide between B and C you now have about 3 years to figure it out.
Option B: Use 300$ in 2019 to upgrade 1 to 2 years earlier and get a fresh new machine with better specs, battery life, no wear down and so on.
Option C: Don't use the 300$ at all because Intel is stagnating anyway.
If you can't decide between B and C you now have about 3 years to figure it out.
My go-to answer to this kind of thread: don't upgrade the CPU.
If you are a power user (you aren't), you wouldn't have asked and would have gone for the 15" instead.
For 90% of users out there, you'll be fine with 2.0 GHz. It's not like the machine is going to explode if you open 10 applications at once. Pages. Numbers. Keynote. Haha, these aren't even CPU intensive.
But no one is stopping you from spending that extra $300 for almost nothing.
If you are a power user (you aren't), you wouldn't have asked and would have gone for the 15" instead.
For 90% of users out there, you'll be fine with 2.0 GHz. It's not like the machine is going to explode if you open 10 applications at once. Pages. Numbers. Keynote. Haha, these aren't even CPU intensive.
But no one is stopping you from spending that extra $300 for almost nothing.
I agree with everything you said...For those of us who do not upgrade often the upgrade of the ram and CPU might offer some future proofing. So in that sense, $300 for another 3-5 years might be cheaper than upgrading again with the way Apple prices product now.