Resolved resolved

[Drew888]

I am debating between getting a 13" rMBP 3.0 GHz Dual-Core i7 or a 15" rMBP 2.8 GHz Quad-Core i7.

Is there a noticible difference in speed between the two processors? I just want it for day-to-day use. I am a Third Grade Teacher and want to take it back and forth from home to my classroom.

I always buy the fastest possible, but really prefer the 13" size. Unfortunately the 13" does not offer a Quad-Core configuration, so I am questioning if I should get a slightly larger machine to have the speed.

Thanks in advance for any recommendations!..

 

[simsaladimbamba]

What would you need the additional (~ 70%) CPU speed for?

CPU orientated Mac Benchmarks by Geekbench

 

[Orlandoech]

Why the 2.8 15" over the 2.3 or 2.6? You really need less than 10% difference? The cost:value isn't worth it at all unless you will actually profit from the difference.

"I always buy the fastest possible", why?

Nothing the 2.8GHz can do, the 2.3GHz CAN'T do and it will be like that for the life of the machine (arguably).

 

[jesaja]

Keep in mind the real world performance gain will be much lower (than the mentioned 70%), depending on the application. Many can't propery share load over multiple threads, so they will benefit more from raw single core speed.

 

[Drew888]

Why the 2.8 15" over the 2.3 or 2.6? You really need less than 10% difference? The cost:value isn't worth it at all unless you will actually profit from the difference.

"I always buy the fastest possible", why?

Why? Technology changes faster than I can blink my eyes. (I know, not that fast, but you get what I mean.) Apple releases new products every year, or sooner. I don't want to spend this amount of money and in a couple months they sell a 13" quad-core, or something better/faster on the 15". That's just my philosophy.

Anyway, I am not questioning within the 15" lineup. I am wanting to know what the difference is in speed between the dual-core in the 13" vs. the quad-core in the 15".

If the quad-core is worth me not having the 13" size that I like, I will certainly look into the options within the 15" line. I did read some other posts where people have commented on the 15" 2.3 vs. 2.6, and not a big difference. However, they have said there is a difference between the 2.3 and the 2.8. (8MB Cache vs. 6MB Cache)


Thanks for the info.

 

[Orlandoech]

Why? Technology changes faster than I can blink my eyes. (I know, not that fast, but you get what I mean.) Apple releases new products every year, or sooner. I don't want to spend this amount of money and in a couple months they sell a 13" quad-core, or something better/faster on the 15". That's just my philosophy.

Exactly why the cost:value is so upside down and validates that your logic is completely flawed, its more a fake security blanket that doesn't do anything. Nothing the 2.8 can run, the 2.3 can't. And if your "philosophy' had any logic to it, the 13" would never be discussed in this post.

Not trying to be n a$$, but it's true.

The 13" Dual-Core doesn't even compare to the 15" Quad-Core. It's night and day difference, ESPECIALLY in any en/decoding of video, gaming or hardcore photo editing with large TIFFs and PSDs. The Dual-Core doesn't even have a dGPU like the 15".


Here are some benchmark's
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

• MacBook Pro (15-inch Retina Early 2013) - Intel Core i7-3840QM 2800 MHz (4 cores) - 12532
• MacBook Pro (15-inch Retina Early 2013)- Intel Core i7-3635QM 2400 MHz (4 cores) - 11219
• MacBook Pro (13-inch Retina Early 2013) - Intel Core i7-3540M 3000 MHz (2 cores) - 7811

I would suggest a 15" w/ 2.3/2.4, 16GB ram and 512GB SSD or greater.

 

[talmy]

Is there a noticible difference in speed between the two processors? I just want it for day-to-day use. I am a Third Grade Teacher and want to take it back and forth from home to my classroom.

You need to define "day-to-day use". For most programs you might be using (lesson planning? grade book? web browsing?) there won't be any noticeable difference in speed not only between these two processors but basically any processor built in the last 5 years. On the other hand if you are making videos you will get a major performance increase with the 15" + i7.

 

[Drew888]

You need to define "day-to-day use". For most programs you might be using (lesson planning? grade book? web browsing?) there won't be any noticeable difference in speed not only between these two processors but basically any processor built in the last 5 years. On the other hand if you are making videos you will get a major performance increase with the 15" + i7.

I have a SMART Board connected to my school laptop (Dell, YUCK!) So that would be another use, along with video streaming (which is usually slowed by the terrible internet in our district)

The Dell is a i3 at 2.3GHz (2350M, Dual-Core) and is way too slow. Takes a long time to launch programs, etc.

Thank you for responding!

I hesitate posting here sometimes since I have seen some people attacked for asking a question the wrong way. Thank you for being KIND

 

[Orlandoech]

The Dell is a i3 at 2.3GHz (2350M, Dual-Core) and is way too slow. Takes a long time to launch programs, etc.

You realize, this is more than likely due a HDD than CPU.

 

[Drew888]

You realize, this is more than likely due a HDD than CPU.

It's not. Just put in a Crucial SSD, saw some improvement, but not enough to say that the HDD was the issue. Not a memory issue either, bumped that up as well.

 

[Orlandoech]

It's not. Just put in a Crucial SSD, saw some improvement, but not enough to say that the HDD was the issue. Not a memory issue either, bumped that up as well.

The i3 is def not an amazing CPU, but its sufficient for most if they just do web, email, small stuff like that.

 

[Drew888]

The 13" Dual-Core doesn't even compare to the 15" Quad-Core. It's night and day difference, ESPECIALLY in any en/decoding of video, gaming or hardcore photo editing with large TIFFs and PSDs. The Dual-Core doesn't even have a dGPU like the 15".

Definitely agree with you about the GPU. My Mac Mini Server was the first computer that I recall ever getting that did NOT have a dedicated GPU... and I was hesitant... but didn't really need it for that anyway.

Would the dedicated video play a part in using my SMART Board. I don't have the exact specs of the projector since it's made by SMART Technologies, but have heard it is an Epson. I know it is capable of HD quality, but that's about all I know off hand.

I can really see the advantages of getting a 15" now. (Just really like the 13" size)


Here are some benchmark's
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

• MacBook Pro (15-inch Retina Early 2013) - Intel Core i7-3840QM 2800 MHz (4 cores) - 12532
• MacBook Pro (15-inch Retina Early 2013)- Intel Core i7-3635QM 2400 MHz (4 cores) - 11219
• MacBook Pro (13-inch Retina Early 2013) - Intel Core i7-3540M 3000 MHz (2 cores) - 7811

Re: 15" 2.8 vs. 2.4 I read benchmark numbers all the time, and know that the larger the number, the better. (obviously) Other than that I have no clue.

12532 (2.8GHz) and 11219 (2.4GHz.) roughly 10% difference. The other post I read made it seem like it is a larger advantage due to the 8MB Cache over the 6MB. Guess not?

I am the go-to guy on anything computer here at my school, and have re-built computers and helped a lot of colleagues. After reading around here, I am such a novice after all


I would suggest a 15" w/ 2.3/2.4, 16GB ram and 512GB SSD or greater.[/QUOTE]

I was only going to get a 256GB. I wouldn't see any speed difference in getting 512GB, would I? I don't plan on having much on the SSD other than the programs and such. All of my media I plan to keep on my LaCie SSD. I know increasing a HDD storage can slightly help with performance... not sure if that is the same with an SSD.

 

[Orlandoech]

The 13" Dual-Core doesn't even compare to the 15" Quad-Core. It's night and day difference, ESPECIALLY in any en/decoding of video, gaming or hardcore photo editing with large TIFFs and PSDs. The Dual-Core doesn't even have a dGPU like the 15".

Definitely agree with you about the GPU. My Mac Mini Server was the first computer that I recall ever getting that did NOT have a dedicated GPU... and I was hesitant... but didn't really need it for that anyway.

Would the dedicated video play a part in using my SMART Board. I don't have the exact specs of the projector since it's made by SMART Technologies, but have heard it is an Epson. I know it is capable of HD quality, but that's about all I know off hand.

I can really see the advantages of getting a 15" now. (Just really like the 13" size)


Here are some benchmark's
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

• MacBook Pro (15-inch Retina Early 2013) - Intel Core i7-3840QM 2800 MHz (4 cores) - 12532
• MacBook Pro (15-inch Retina Early 2013)- Intel Core i7-3635QM 2400 MHz (4 cores) - 11219
• MacBook Pro (13-inch Retina Early 2013) - Intel Core i7-3540M 3000 MHz (2 cores) - 7811

Re: 15" 2.8 vs. 2.4 I read benchmark numbers all the time, and know that the larger the number, the better. (obviously) Other than that I have no clue.

12532 (2.8GHz) and 11219 (2.4GHz.) roughly 10% difference. The other post I read made it seem like it is a larger advantage due to the 8MB Cache over the 6MB. Guess not?

I am the go-to guy on anything computer here at my school, and have re-built computers and helped a lot of colleagues. After reading around here, I am such a novice after all


I would suggest a 15" w/ 2.3/2.4, 16GB ram and 512GB SSD or greater.

I was only going to get a 256GB. I wouldn't see any speed difference in getting 512GB, would I? I don't plan on having much on the SSD other than the programs and such. All of my media I plan to keep on my LaCie SSD. I know increasing a HDD storage can slightly help with performance... not sure if that is the same with an SSD.[/QUOTE]

Not sure why your quotes aren't working :\

256GB is sufficient for some, but not for most. I think the 2.4/16GB/256 or 2.4/16/516GB is a better value than 2.8/16/256GB.

While you're never really going to notice the small speed bump in CPU speed, I foresee sooner, rather than later the 512GB comes more in handy and readily available for practical use, even if its day to day.

 

[fskywalker]

Remember you can later increased the SSD size, but not the speed. I would rather buy the faster machine with the smaller SSD.

 

[e²Studios]

Exactly why the cost:value is so upside down and validates that your logic is completely flawed, its more a fake security blanket that doesn't do anything. Nothing the 2.8 can run, the 2.3 can't. And if your "philosophy' had any logic to it, the 13" would never be discussed in this post.

Not trying to be n a$$, but it's true.

The 13" Dual-Core doesn't even compare to the 15" Quad-Core. It's night and day difference, ESPECIALLY in any en/decoding of video, gaming or hardcore photo editing with large TIFFs and PSDs. The Dual-Core doesn't even have a dGPU like the 15".


Here are some benchmark's
http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

• MacBook Pro (15-inch Retina Early 2013) - Intel Core i7-3840QM 2800 MHz (4 cores) - 12532
• MacBook Pro (15-inch Retina Early 2013)- Intel Core i7-3635QM 2400 MHz (4 cores) - 11219
• MacBook Pro (13-inch Retina Early 2013) - Intel Core i7-3540M 3000 MHz (2 cores) - 7811

I would suggest a 15" w/ 2.3/2.4, 16GB ram and 512GB SSD or greater.

I have no issues using FCP on my 13" rMBP, I have the i7 3.0 from early 13'. Is it as fast as the 15", no, but I knew that going in to it. I needed portability and power, the 13" provides me with both.

I have a external drive for video since the internal 256 isn't going to cut it, it works really well. I've done a few videos already from our Audi Club drives, combining 6 GoPro cameras is a pain, but thats for another thread lol.

 

[Drew888]

Remember you can later increased the SSD size, but not the speed. I would rather buy the faster machine with the smaller SSD.

I thought the rMBPs can't be upgraded???

 

[B...]

I thought the rMBPs can't be upgraded???

You can upgrade the SSD (with one from OWC only) just not the RAM.

 

[Drew888]

You can upgrade the SSD (with one from OWC only) just not the RAM.

Wow, did not know that. I knew about the memory.

 

[cosmicjoke]

I am debating between getting a 13" rMBP 3.0 GHz Dual-Core i7 or a 15" rMBP 2.8 GHz Quad-Core i7.

Is there a noticible difference in speed between the two processors? I just want it for day-to-day use. I am a Third Grade Teacher and want to take it back and forth from home to my classroom.

I always buy the fastest possible, but really prefer the 13" size. Unfortunately the 13" does not offer a Quad-Core configuration, so I am questioning if I should get a slightly larger machine to have the speed.

Thanks in advance for any recommendations!..

either will be very fast for day to day use... solid state storage & 8gb ram and you're set... really the only upgrade that might be worth it to you is more storage, if you're going to upgrade anything get the 512gb ssd. you'll never notice the difference on upgraded cpu or ram. i'd get the 13", since that's the form factor you like.

 

[fskywalker]

You can upgrade the SSD (with one from OWC only) just not the RAM.

You may also buy the OEM Samsung drives (256, 512 or 768GB) in Ebay too, The 512 can be purchased for around $700, the 768 is $1k