Performance difference between the CPU options

[fyun89]

So, do you guys think there would be huge difference between the 2.6 CPU on 15 inch rMBP and 2.9?

I currently have 2012 I7 2.7 rMBP, which was the highest option at the time. I bought this specifically because it had more L3 Cache (8 mb). But I've notice that the recent rMBPs CPU options have no difference in cache and the only difference is the frequency...

If the price didn't go beyond 3000 mark, I'd probably maxed it.. but it kinda went out of my reach ... What do you guys think? Worth the $300? or Nah?

 

[Zwhaler]

For comparison, the previous-gen 15" MacBook pro with 2.5GHz i5 scored a 64-bit multicore Geekbench score of 13,306. The 2.8GHz scored 13,806. I anticipate the percentage difference this generation to be roughly equivalent (4% rounding up). Ask yourself it the extra heat and slightly reduced battery life is worth it. Rule of thumb is these upgrades typically provide somewhere around a 5% speed increase. In this example it was closer to 3.75%. It also depends how you use it. As someone who has edited professional video it would be worth it for me. But if you don't use the raw processing capability of a multi-threaded machine on a regular basis then it probably isn't.

https://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

 

[viljamip]

So, do you guys think there would be huge difference between the 2.6 CPU on 15 inch rMBP and 2.9?

I currently have 2012 I7 2.7 rMBP, which was the highest option at the time. I bought this specifically because it had more L3 Cache (8 mb). But I've notice that the recent rMBPs CPU options have no difference in cache and the only difference is the frequency...

If the price didn't go beyond 3000 mark, I'd probably maxed it.. but it kinda went out of my reach ... What do you guys think? Worth the $300? or Nah?

Actually the 2.6GHz has 6MB of L3 cache. 2.7 and 2.9 have 8MB. I haven't decided yet but I'll probably choose the 2.7GHz one. Single core performance (Geekbench) goes up by 8% on every step and multicore by about 10-11%.

 

[leman]

The difference will be around 5%, so probably not worth it.

 

[laser71]

I originally was planning on maxing out everything - but with the price new price increase I couldn't justify $300USD + tax for the minor CPU bump. So I went with the 2.6, and maxed out the GPU instead.

I keep hearing that "you won't notice it" unless you do rendering.

 

[viljamip]

I originally was planning on maxing out everything - but with the price new price increase I couldn't justify $300USD + tax for the minor CPU bump. So I went with the 2.6, and maxed out the GPU instead.

I keep hearing that "you won't notice it" unless you do rendering.

Yeah, I think that it is true. Maxing out your GPU is a lot more important if you are on a budget. 20% increse while rendering is significant if you do it all the time but I think it should be done on a desktop anyway.

 

[andreyush]

Ok. My question is

What is the difference IN performace between the
MacBook Pro (15-inch Retina Late 2013) Intel Core i7-4960HQ @ 2.6 GHz and i7 6920Q 2.9GHz ? In percentage ?

Because if it's just 10-13% then it's useless.

 

[leman]

What is the difference IN performace between the
MacBook Pro (15-inch Retina Late 2013) Intel Core i7-4960HQ @ 2.6 GHz and i7 6920Q 2.9GHz ? In percentage ?

Because if it's just 10-13% then it's useless.

Probably less than that, actually. There is no much difference between Haswell and Skylake raw performance.

 

[andreyush]

Probably less than that, actually. There is no much difference between Haswell and Skylake raw performance.

Ok now i really love my macbook .. Maybe i will upgrade to a 2014 model next year. Cheap and practical.

 

[fyun89]

I was hoping that I could opt for lower spec GPU and use Razer Core for GPU work.. But we dont have any confirmation that the Core will work with Macbook Pro.. Will wait for new info on this..

 

[lympero]

So the base 15" model for 2015 is more powerful than the base 2016 in terms of CPU?
I don't understand why they didn't use i7-6770 instead if the crap 6700?

 

[viljamip]

So the base 15" model for 2015 is more powerful than the base 2016 in terms of CPU?
I don't understand why they didn't use i7-6770 instead if the crap 6700?

Intel's NUCs are the only computers that use the 6770. My guess is that manufacturing those turned out to be too difficult to make any profit so they scrapped the whole line of their high end graphics. At least Kabylake will not have any CPUs with Iris Pro. Not that we have new generation, more efficient dGPUs, competing with iGPUs got a lot more difficult. If Apple's A-series ARM chips continue to develop at the current pace, it won't bee too long until they catch up.