Non TB 13"- 2.0 or 2.4??

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by marc55, Nov 27, 2016.

  1. marc55, Nov 27, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2016

    marc55 macrumors 6502a

    marc55

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    #1
    I'm looking to get the non touch bar 13", and cannot decide if I should get the 2.0 or 2.4 processor; I'm going to get 16gb ram and the 512 ssd.

    So, what are the advantages of the 2.4 over the 2.0?

    Thank you
    M
     
  2. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #2
    The 2.4GHz CPU is a few percent faster than the 2.0GHz CPU. Is that worth $300 to you?
     
  3. IngerMan macrumors 6502a

    IngerMan

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Location:
    Michigan
    #3
    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.
     
  4. marc55 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    marc55

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    #4
    Additionally, the 2.0 is an I5, whereas the 2.4 is an I7.

    Since I can buy under the EPP, the upgrade is $270

    How many of you guys went with the 2.0, and how many went with the 2.4?

    Thank you
     
  5. EndlessBuffoonery macrumors regular

    EndlessBuffoonery

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    #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.
     
  6. augenleet macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    #6
    The i5 and i7 labelling is pretty much useless in this case. Both CPUs are dual core with HyperThreading.
     
  7. wchigo macrumors 6502

    wchigo

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    #7
    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.
     
  8. marc55 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    marc55

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    #8
    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?
     
  9. Salty Pirate macrumors 6502

    Salty Pirate

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Location:
    kansas city
    #9
    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.
     
  10. marc55 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    marc55

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    #10
    The 2.4 is also 15W
     
  11. skids929 macrumors 6502a

    skids929

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    #11

    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.
     
  12. RichardC300 macrumors 65816

    RichardC300

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2012
    Location:
    Chapel Hill, NC
    #12
    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.
     
  13. xraydoc macrumors 604

    xraydoc

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    192.168.1.1
    #13
    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.
     
  14. Hung_Solo, Nov 30, 2016
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2016

    Hung_Solo macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2016
    #14
    I went i7 and 16 GB ram on my nTB. I figured that I can't upgrade the CPU later on but I can always get more storage if I need it (been eyeing on that Samsung T3).
     
  15. wchigo macrumors 6502

    wchigo

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2015
    #15
    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.

    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.
     
  16. Acronyc macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    #16
    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.
     
  17. tomviolence, Dec 1, 2016
    Last edited: Dec 1, 2016

    tomviolence macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    #17
    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.
     
  18. iizmoo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2014
    #18
    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?
     
  19. skids929 macrumors 6502a

    skids929

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    #19

    Hows your battery life on that model? Light surfing and video watching usage how long does it go?
     
  20. Kipchak macrumors newbie

    Kipchak

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2015
    Location:
    Turkic Khaganate
    #20
    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 :).
     
  21. Hung_Solo macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2016
    #21
    I would say on average about 8 hours.
     
  22. Wowereit macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Location:
    Germany
    #22
    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.
     
  23. skids929 macrumors 6502a

    skids929

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    #23

    Thats what I am getting on the 13 I have with TB.
     
  24. NickPhamUK macrumors 6502

    NickPhamUK

    Joined:
    May 6, 2013
    #24
    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.
     
  25. skids929 macrumors 6502a

    skids929

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2011
    #25

    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.
     

Share This Page