Performance of dual-cores in MBP vs MBA

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by pento, Apr 22, 2015.

  1. pento macrumors member

    Mar 4, 2008
    Hey All,

    I've currently got a mid-2013 11" MBA(1.7GHz i7, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD) for a portable machine, and I've been thinking of purchasing a 13" MBP to mostly replace it - I love the 11", but I really want a retina display, and after seeing the MB that Apple released, my hopes of the MBA getting a retina display anytime soon(if ever) have been greatly reduced. I was originally going to go all out, and get the "Ultimate" configuration, but after looking at benchmarks and what not, I might end up going with the stock 256GB SSD version with the 2.7GHz i5. It doesn't seem like the jumps to either the 2.9GHz i5 or the 3.1GHz processors really add that much oomph to the bottom line?

    Anyway, my real question is, has anyone else made an upgrade like this? What are the real-world differences in performance between the 1.7GHz i7 in my MBA and the 2.7GHz i5 in the MBP? I've looked up the Geekbench scores for each and here are the highs and lows:

    MacBook Air (11-inch Mid 2013) Intel Core i7-4650U 1700 2 Mac OS X 64-bit
    Single-Core Score: 3313
    Multi-Core Score: 6451

    MacBook Pro (13-inch Retina Early 2015) Intel Core i5-5257U 2700 2 Mac OS X 64-bit
    Single-Core Score: 3348
    Multi-Core Score: 7111

    It would seem like they're pretty close to each other in performance. But are the benchmarks for the air more forgiving since they're run so quickly? For example, would the MBP outperform the MBA significantly if it were performing longer running tasks, like compressing large files, applying photoshop filters, or compiling large amounts of code? What do you all think?

    Thanks for any advice or info!
  2. Samuelsan2001 macrumors 604

    Oct 24, 2013
    As you can see.....

    The performance is much the same and the graphics are very similar as well. To be honest the only reason to upgrade is for the screen and more ports other than that it'll be a few Seconds saved here and there performance wise.....
  3. Trhodezy macrumors regular

    Dec 29, 2010
    I second this.
  4. abta1 macrumors 6502

    Jul 5, 2010
    Paris, France
    This is the exact upgrade I am contemplating as I will be visiting the USA very soon. The only difference is that my 11" MBA is the stock 256GB model with 4Gb RAM.

    As was mentioned previously, the main difference is of course the screen and the ports, with only a slight performance boost. (Force touch too). Does anyone know what the difference is in terms of battery usage? Not Apples numbers but from real usage.

    On the other hand, you will lose a little in terms of portability as the difference in weight is noticeable IMO.
  5. Samuelsan2001 macrumors 604

    Oct 24, 2013
    Battery is impossible to say

    It all depends on how you use your computer and what for. I can tell you that for light usage apples numbers are pretty much spot on. Anything other than that can be so varied depending on apps used number left running etc that it is impossible to give you any real idea what you'll get. For example if you run chrome with flash you'll as much as halve your battery life!!!
  6. leman macrumors G3

    Oct 14, 2008
    The MBP will slightly outperform the MBA in sustained tasks, especially when you need both CPU and GPU performance. However, if you need that, you should probably invest into the 15" in the first place :)
  7. pento thread starter macrumors member

    Mar 4, 2008
    So, if the processor in the MBP only has a slight edge to the ULV variant in the MBA, why do you all think Apple goes with it over the ULV version? It seems like if there is only a slight edge in performance, that the increased battery life would be a much larger payoff. Is it because you can't get the faster Iris in the ULV chip packages?
  8. Samuelsan2001 macrumors 604

    Oct 24, 2013
    It's a better part

    Because it is a better more expesive part with better graphics and this is a pro machine, it also has to power that retina screen.

Share This Page