Remind me again why I don't need the 2.7 vs the 2.3 i7 Ivy. 1k difference

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Bobby Corwen, Feb 3, 2013.

  1. Bobby Corwen, Feb 3, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2013

    Bobby Corwen macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    #1
    The 2012 2.3 uMBP is 1700$ and 2.7 uMBP is 2600$ at 15 inches.

    The other difference is the 1GB of Graphic ram vs 512MB.

    Now the card I understand and will live with since if I ever play a game it's gonna be on console.

    But I do use Logic and now I'm starting to think about spending that extra thousand for a .4 CPU bump.

    I did this before in 2011 when I returned my 17 inch and order a BTO ultimate due to stress.

    Can someone please talk me out of it. I can't remember where CPU clock cycles help and Im thinking its less relevant than ever before in the Ivy Bridge era of processors.

    Would it be more snappy when I make music? Or is that only gonna make a real world difference in even more complex work like CAD or whatever?

    Also maybe some relevant benchmark scores to give me an idea of the relative difference between the two.

    I searched Ivy Bridge vs Sandy but couldn't find any articles relevant to my question.
     
  2. yusukeaoki macrumors 68030

    yusukeaoki

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #2
    Tbh, very unnoticeable unless you are doing CPU intensive things like rendering videos.

    I would buy the 2.6GHz model because it has the 1GB 650M.
    The reason why the 2.6GHz model is at 2200USD is because of the 1GB GPU, CPU bump, 750GB HDD and 8GB RAM.

    Now CPU and GPU, we know its not upgradable by consumer hands.
    However RAM and HDD is and the lower end has 4GB with 500GB stock.
    Apple charges the stock 8GB RAM and 750GB HDD preinstalled onto the MBP.
    If these two were not in there, it would probably be around 2000USD.

    Back to the topic, I would not get the 0.4GHz upgrade on this model.
    If you're going to pay 2600 for THAT, get the retina 2.6GHz for extra 100USD.
    Plus you would get a retina, 512GB SSD instead of the uMBP specs for just 100USD.
     
  3. Agenesis macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    #3
    It would help if you actually linked which two models you were comparing.

    For starters ivy bridge is a 22nm fabrication versus the 32nm on sandy bridge. This means ivy bridge consumes less power than sandy due to a more mature manufacturing process and offers more performance. But realistically CPU performance difference you're looking at here is negligible and it should be narrowed down to other features such as GPU performance. In this case HD 3000 vs HD 4000 and the Radeon offering vs the 650M.

    And then there are things such as the upgraded Retina panel.
     
  4. yusukeaoki macrumors 68030

    yusukeaoki

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #4
    Isnt he comparing the 2.3GHz and 2.7GHz uMBP 2012?
    They both should have HD4000 and Ivy Bridge instead of the previous 2011 model.
     
  5. Bobby Corwen thread starter macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    #5
    Retina is a no go due to not having space for 2 internal drives which as a music producer is mando.

    My setup is a 512GB Samsung 840 Pro along with a 750GB Scorpio Black. Memory is 16GB.

    Lets say I have like 30 tracks all with 4 effects each loaded in Logic. Would that CPU bump help or not really with that type of workload?

    Is rendering a Final Cut movie a different type of processing compared to running a bunch of tracks in real time "rendering?"

    I guess if youre running a bunch of tracks its not a matter of speedy processing but rather just processing because you cant really go faster than regular speed of playback as opposed to rendering a long HD movie where that extra .4 makes the processing bar go faster. <<--- is this correct?
     
  6. Agenesis macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2012
    #6
    Don't know. Then why is he comparing sb to ivy?
     
  7. yusukeaoki macrumors 68030

    yusukeaoki

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    #7
    Oh well tell me that in the beginning and I wouldnt of explained that option ;)

    I would say no.
    And Im not a music producer so I dont know how much the CPU gets eaten.
    For me running FCPX and rendering uses 500~600% of CPU (Activity Monitor).
    Unless your music production takes that much power, go for the bump.
    But if it only uses 2 cores and doesnt even trigger Turboboost just buy the 2.3GHz.
    Dont know if music production in graphic intensive as well.
    If your current Mac is running fine, 512MB of vRAM should be enough as well.

    ----------

    :confused:

    He's not right? He's wondering if the CPU bump on 2012 uMBPs make a difference in MP.
    Right??
     
  8. boto macrumors 6502

    boto

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2012
    #8
    You won't notice any performance improvements besides benchmarks and rendering, however, in terms of GPU performance, it will get bottlenecked when applications or games require more than 512MB gRAM (Battlefield 3).
     
  9. snaky69 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #9
    CPU will help only if you're using quite a bit of effects on each track. Playback itself uses barely any processing power. I would think RAM could be a bottleneck when running a large number of tracks, but that's just an educated guess.
     

Share This Page