Retina 13" i5 or i7?

[switon]

RE: ah, okay, but in my hands...

Hi zxspectrum,

Well, if you aren't simultaneously doing video/audio recording, then my tests are not necessarily directly applicable to your uses, as I always do both simultaneously.

But, as I mentioned, GarageBand itself triggers the rMBP to switch from iGPU to the dGPU, so how do you know that Logic Pro does not also do this on the 15" rMBP? Perhaps Logic Pro uses the dGPU to perform some OpenGL audio computations (too?)! I don't use Logic Pro, but I do use the Abelton Live and GarageBand, and as I stated, GarageBand does trigger the dGPU, so potentially it is using it to speed up some audio computations (or maybe it is just to speed up the display interface, but even this might allow the CPU to run at faster speeds doing the audio computations).

...just be careful...

Switon

P.S. My responses are based upon your stated main uses, multi-track recording and Handbrake transcoding. As I stated earlier, the CPU speeds are superfluous for the Handbrake, in my opinion. But the CPU speeds are important for realtime multi-track recording. Neither of these uses requires the Retina screen, on the other hand I can understand why anyone would be interested in the Retina screens, as they are awesome. I just didn't want you to make a mistake and get the 13" rMBP and not be able to use if for your stated "main uses".

 

[zxspectrum]

Hi zxspectrum,

Well, if you aren't simultaneously doing video/audio recording, then my tests are not necessarily directly applicable to your uses, as I always do both simultaneously.

But, as I mentioned, GarageBand itself triggers the rMBP to switch from iGPU to the dGPU, so how do you know that Logic Pro does not also do this on the 15" rMBP? Perhaps Logic Pro uses the dGPU to perform some OpenGL audio computations (too?)! I don't use Logic Pro, but I do use the Abelton Live and GarageBand, and as I stated, GarageBand does trigger the dGPU, so potentially it is using it to speed up some audio computations (or maybe it is just to speed up the display interface, but even this might allow the CPU to run at faster speeds doing the audio computations).

...just be careful...

Switon

P.S. My responses are based upon your stated main uses, multi-track recording and Handbrake transcoding. As I stated earlier, the CPU speeds are superfluous for the Handbrake, in my opinion. But the CPU speeds are important for realtime multi-track recording. Neither of these uses requires the Retina screen, on the other hand I can understand why anyone would be interested in the Retina screens, as they are awesome. I just didn't want you to make a mistake and get the 13" rMBP and not be able to use if for your stated "main uses".

Thanks for your reply.

I have only ever had a macbook with a 2.4ghz core 2 duo cpu, 4gb and integrated gpu. I performed both garageband/logic pro multi-track recordings and handbrake encodes on this without any problems so I would assume an i5 cpu with solid state hard drive should be fine?

Im not sure how much of a step up it will be because as I have said I have never had more than a core 2 duo...

 

[switon]

RE: great! ...

Hi zxspectrum,

Okay, it sounds like the 2.5GHz dual core ivy bridge i5 will be plenty fast for your uses, as you have already tested your uses on a much slower core duo processor.

Have fun with the retina display! I assume you have seen them already, but if you haven't worked on one for many hours at a sitting, then you haven't yet appreciated this amazing display, in my humble opinion.

Switon

 

[zxspectrum]

Hi zxspectrum,

Okay, it sounds like the 2.5GHz dual core ivy bridge i5 will be plenty fast for your uses, as you have already tested your uses on a much slower core duo processor.

Have fun with the retina display! I assume you have seen them already, but if you haven't worked on one for many hours at a sitting, then you haven't yet appreciated this amazing display, in my humble opinion.

Switon

Yeah, the core 2 duo has served me well, admittedly it took FOREVER to encode HD video files but always got there in the end. As for audio recording, never had a problem.

I haven't seen a retina display on a laptop yet, only ios devices...

Hopefully we get some reviews soon and that will clear up if it ok performs with the HD4000.

 

[magbarn]

Thanks for your reply.

I have only ever had a macbook with a 2.4ghz core 2 duo cpu, 4gb and integrated gpu. I performed both garageband/logic pro multi-track recordings and handbrake encodes on this without any problems so I would assume an i5 cpu with solid state hard drive should be fine?

Im not sure how much of a step up it will be because as I have said I have never had more than a core 2 duo...

Put handbrake on a quad core MBP 15 and a dual core MBP 13 and the difference in encoding speed will depress you. My rMBP 15 does all my encodes as my dual core machines are just too slow at almost a 50% penalty. I really don't understand Apple's decision to save a measly $32 on choosing the i7 3520M dual core over the i7 3612QM QUAD CORE that has the same 35 watt power consumption.

 

[Queen6]

although I just noticed -

£1,599.60 - Retina 13" 256gb i7

£1,528.80 - Retina 15" 256gb i7

Makes it a hard choice!

Yeah, looking at those prices I can't justify a 13" i7.

the 13" with 256gb is £1,461.60 so may have to go with that...

It makes little sense to go with the 13" i7 and for that matter the 256 i5 13" for less than a 140 Stirling you are going to have a far superior machine. The CPU`s performance level of the 15' over the 13" in isolation is significant to say the least, anything CPU intensive is simply going to be completed far faster, any app that can take advantage of multicore architecture more so.

GeekBench Results

• MacBook Pro (13-inch Mid 2012) Intel Core i7-3520M 2900 MHz (2 cores) 7797
• MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012) Intel Core i7-3615QM 2300 MHz (4 cores) 10799

My own base 15" Retina benchmarks at over 11K systematically (Link: just hit 11040 and 11043 and 11096) and on top of the far higher CPU rating you will have both the HD 4000 and GT 650M GPU`s and superior audio. If i was forced to buy the 13" Retina i would be unhappy to say the very least giving up so much, and saving so little...

The bottom line is the 13" Retina is priced far too high, if the 13" footprint is a must go for it, personally i would buy a bigger bag

 

[zxspectrum]

It makes little sense to go with the 13" i7 and for that matter the 256 i5 13" for less than a 140 Stirling you are going to have a far superior machine. The CPU`s performance level of the 15' over the 13" is significant to say the least, anything CPU intensive is simply going to be completed far faster, any app that can take advantage of multicore architecture more so.

GeekBench Results

• MacBook Pro (13-inch Mid 2012) Intel Core i7-3520M 2900 MHz (2 cores) 7797
• MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012) Intel Core i7-3615QM 2300 MHz (4 cores) 10799

My own base 15" Retina benchmarks at over 11K systematically (Link: just hit 11040 and 11043 and 11096) and on top of the much higher CPU rating you will have both the HD 4000 and GT 650M GPU`s. If i was forced to buy the 13" Retina i would be very unhappy to say the least giving up so much, and saving so little. The bottom line is the 13" Retina is priced far too high, if the 13" footprint is a must go for it, personally i would buy a bigger bag

I know, I know

The 15" is more powerful, but unfortunately it's 15" which I have always found to big...

I will check them both out in store to see if I could put up with the bigger size but I doubt it.

 

[Queen6]

I know, I know

The 15" is more powerful, but unfortunately it's 15" which I have always found to big...

I will check them both out in store to see if I could put up with the bigger size but I doubt it.

The 15" is highly portable unless you have a specific issue with the footprint. I used to use a 13" Air on the road and a Late 2011 15" MBP (2.4 i7) for the heavy lifting. The 2012 15" Retina can do both and I will sell or gift the Air as i now have little use of it.

It`s not that the 13" Retina is not a capable system, it`s just too highly priced making it unattractive in comparison to the 15". When we were all dealing with duel cores and mediocre graphics the difference between the 13" & 15" was not so significant as it is today. It`s been a long time since hardware has excited me as much as the 15" Retina, to put it into perspective they are out performing Mac Pro`s from a couple of years back, this is no mean feat, by any means...

 

[MMcCraryNJ]

With audio production, a good rule of thumb is that the better the processor, the better off you are in the long run.

Simply recording multi-track audio, you can probably get away with a higher end dual core machine (of course that depends on your track count as well, a dual-core machine probably would struggle once you get past 10 or 12 simult. tracks). But with mixing/mastering, the more plug-ins you use (the more you are affecting audio in real-time upon playback), the more DSP you need, which unless you are running a Pro Tools HD rig which uses its own DSP cards, is going to come from the CPU and the CPU only. A quad-core machine will suit you best for this task.

If your primary use of the machine is pro audio, my feeling is that you are best served with the 15 inch cMBP or even the Retina model. Even the baseline quad-core will give you a much more powerful machine to work with audio and real-time audio processing rather than the high-end dual-core on the 13" machines.

I just purchased a mid-2012 15" cMBP a couple of weeks ago, outfitted it with the 2.7 Quad, the hi-res display option (only 90 bucks extra, a very worthwhile upgrade), and I replaced the HD with a 128GB SSD (again only a 90 dollar upgrade). Since I'm running my sessions off of an external Firewire 800 drive, the 128 was suitable enough for me right now (and since I didn't get the Retina model, I can always update the SSD down the line if I desire, as well as bump the RAM up to 16 GB when the time comes). Going up to the 2.7 from the 2.6 was fairly costly (a 250-something dollar upgrade), but with my educational discount and AppleCare, I hit just shy of 2500. I built the exact same system without any educational discount, and it came to roughly 3200 I believe.

Now I have to say, I know you are concerned with portability which is why you are looking at the 13 inch to begin with. But if you're like me, a student that is usually carrying a few textbooks, notebooks, and other supplies/media/external hard drives in a backpack, you really aren't going to notice the extra weight. When you have a 20-25 pound backpack, a 1 or 2 pound difference won't be noticeable.

I am in school for audio production, btw. This machine absolutely flies with my Pro Tools sessions. I've loaded up a 16 track session with about 40 plug-ins and the system didn't even hiccup.

I would keep my options open and price things out to see if you can move up to a quad-core machine. In my honest opinion, I think in your case, the Retina screen should be considered a secondary or luxury item, and the CPU should be your most important goal. The hi-res option on the 15 cMBP is actually pretty nice and for 90 bucks it's great, and of course with the cMBP you can always upgrade the RAM and Hard Drive down the line. I think you might even be able to go for a baseline 15" Retina for a couple hundred less than I paid, and you move up to a quad-core and get your Retina screen as well, but at the cost of not having the fastest quad-core and no upgrade path with your RAM or Hard Drive.

 

[mankar4]

Here is an interesting comparison of the i5 and i7 in an otherwise identically spec'd MBA.

http://michael.olivero.com/post/201...i5-vs-i7-Heat-Fan-Battery-Speed-analysis.aspx

What do you guys think about this? I'm trying to answer the same question. I have an i7/128 shipping on its way now, but I am considering returning it when it gets here and just going for the base model.

I don't do a lot of encoding or anything, but I do have to deal with large datasets, and scrolling/seeking through them often is slow on a 2012 MBA i5. I assumed it was a RAM problem (only 4gb of which not much is ever free), but I'm not sure.

 

[Queen6]

Here is an interesting comparison of the i5 and i7 in an otherwise identically spec'd MBA.

http://michael.olivero.com/post/201...i5-vs-i7-Heat-Fan-Battery-Speed-analysis.aspx

What do you guys think about this? I'm trying to answer the same question. I have an i7/128 shipping on its way now, but I am considering returning it when it gets here and just going for the base model.

I don't do a lot of encoding or anything, but I do have to deal with large datasets, and scrolling/seeking through them often is slow on a 2012 MBA i5. I assumed it was a RAM problem (only 4gb of which not much is ever free), but I'm not sure.

Once again unless the 13" footprint is a must go with a base 15" for this money. As for i5 vs i7, if you are "maxxing" CPU yes, if not no, save your money as you will see little to no real world benefit. As it`s on the way i would give it a shot, although personally i would ditch it in favour of the 15" which is truly a mobile "Workstation"

 

[mankar4]

Once again unless the 13" footprint is a must go with a base 15" for this money. As for i5 vs i7, if you are "maxxing" CPU yes, if not no, save your money as you will see little to no real world benefit. As it`s on the way i would give it a shot, although personally i would ditch it in favour of the 15" which is truly a mobile "Workstation"

The 15" footprint is too big for my taste. I honestly wish it wasn't, because the 15" is clearly a superior value.

 

[mankar4]

Early benchmarks for the 13" i5 retina show it performs about 20-25% worse than the 13" cMBP i7 at graphics tests. (See the last table in the article below)

http://www.macworld.com/article/201...-macbook-pro-benefits-from-flash-storage.html

 

[Queen6]

The 15" footprint is too big for my taste. I honestly wish it wasn't, because the 15" is clearly a superior value.

Exactly and this is what Apple is banking on, to me the 13" Retina should have an entry price of around $1200 - $1300. Apple set the hype with Retina, they set the bar for performance with the 15" and they plan to cash in with the 13" I absolutely applaud Apples`s success, all the same i am appalled by the greed....

 

[Maczor]

Early benchmarks for the 13" i5 retina show it performs about 20-25% worse than the 13" cMBP i7 at graphics tests. (See the last table in the article below)

http://www.macworld.com/article/201...-macbook-pro-benefits-from-flash-storage.html

Your 20-25% worse than the "non-retina" at graphics tests affirmation is simply silly...
The 13" Retina clearly wins over the 13" cMBP... it doesn't win by a large margin, but it clearly wins.
Next time, please try to also understand the articles you link us to.

PS: Observe that the "HUUUUGE" difference you've noticed is between the 2.5 Ghz and 2.9 Ghz CPUs. There are no tests involving the 2.9 Ghz CPU 13" Retina Macbook Pro. Don't panic... Chillax please...

 

[mankar4]

Your 20-25% worse than the "non-retina" at graphics tests affirmation is simply silly...
The 13" Retina clearly wins over the 13" cMBP... it doesn't win by a large margin, but it clearly wins.
Next time, please try to also understand the articles you link us to.

PS: Observe that the "HUUUUGE" difference you've noticed is between the 2.5 Ghz and 2.9 Ghz CPUs. There are no tests involving the 2.9 Ghz CPU 13" Retina Macbook Pro. Don't panic... Chillax please...

Thats exactly the point. I didn't actually say anything about a "huge" difference, I didn't mention any adjectives at all actually. The 13" retina is the clear winner. The only place that the i7 cmb seems to have won is graphics. By extension, that suggests at that the i7 is a bit better for graphics than the i5.

 

[Maczor]

Thats exactly the point. I didn't actually say anything about a "huge" difference, I didn't mention any adjectives at all actually. The 13" retina is the clear winner. The only place that the i7 cmb seems to have won is graphics. By extension, that suggests at that the i7 is a bit better for graphics than the i5.

Sorry man, but the difference is puny... TBH, not really worth mentioning.
Also, it's quite unfair to compare the i7 to the i5 model...

 

[oxfordguy]

Here is an interesting comparison of the i5 and i7 in an otherwise identically spec'd MBA.

http://michael.olivero.com/post/201...i5-vs-i7-Heat-Fan-Battery-Speed-analysis.aspx

What do you guys think about this? I'm trying to answer the same question. I have an i7/128 shipping on its way now, but I am considering returning it when it gets here and just going for the base model.

I don't do a lot of encoding or anything, but I do have to deal with large datasets, and scrolling/seeking through them often is slow on a 2012 MBA i5. I assumed it was a RAM problem (only 4gb of which not much is ever free), but I'm not sure.

BTW those tests were carried out with the 11" model MBA - things are a bit different with the 13" model, which a) has a larger battery (so differences in battery life between the i5 and i7 are smaller) and b) it dissipates heat better, having a larger surface area. Just something to bear in mind.