Retina MacBook - 2.3ghz vs 2.6ghz option?

iLikeTurtles!

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 22, 2012
439
0
so i ordered the base retina model with 16gb of ram.

didnt realized there was a processor options to, and it was only 100 dollars extra for the 2.6ghz over the 2.3

is there any major differences? should i cancell and upgrade to it?
thanks

my retina macbook just got prepared for shipment today since i ordered on aug 6...kinda quick!
 
Last edited:

geoffreak

macrumors 68020
Feb 8, 2008
2,193
2
What do you normally do on your computer? I've seen some people on these forums suggest that the speed difference is around 10-15%, but only in cases where the CPU is really being utilized.

PS: Check your thread title ;)
 

GGJstudios

macrumors Westmere
May 16, 2008
44,419
759
so i ordered the base retina model with 16gb of ram.

didnt realized there was a processor options to, and it was only 100 dollars extra for the 2.6ghz over the 2.3

is there any major differences? should i cancell and upgrade to it?
thanks
Most users won't notice a difference of .3GHz in day-to-day usage.
 

iLikeTurtles!

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 22, 2012
439
0
Most users won't notice a difference of .3GHz in day-to-day usage.
The difference is hardly noticeable.
Can your unstated computational needs profit from 300 more MHz?
well with that kind ofmoney, my as well blow the extra 100 for the difference. though i didnt notice that option for some reason. i was focused on upgrading the ram to 16gb lol.

its already been prepared for shipment so im reluctant to cancell and change lol
 

uhslax24

macrumors 6502
Jul 21, 2012
348
73
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA
well with that kind ofmoney, my as well blow the extra 100 for the difference. though i didnt notice that option for some reason. i was focused on upgrading the ram to 16gb lol.

its already been prepared for shipment so im reluctant to cancell and change lol
You aren't able to cancel or change once it's preparing for shipment anyways. ;)
 

BergerFan

macrumors 68020
Mar 6, 2008
2,167
57
Mos Eisley
My MacBook Pro is a 2.7 Ghz core i7 with 16GB RAM.
I'm not planning to get a new computer for 4-5 years, so I went for as fast as I could get today.
 

noteple

macrumors 65816
Aug 30, 2011
1,407
324
If you are asking the question you are not going to notice the difference.
The memory makes the biggest difference and you saved yourself $100.

If it still bugs you there is a 14 day return window and you can always order another.
 

keviikev

macrumors member
Jul 13, 2010
74
0
My MacBook Pro is a 2.7 Ghz core i7 with 16GB RAM.
I'm not planning to get a new computer for 4-5 years, so I went for as fast as I could get today.
It depends on how you plan to use your rMBP. I got the base Model with 2.3 and 8GB RAM which more than enough for my usage LR4, PS and web browsing. I primary use LR and do not have external monitors. User's with multiple monitors or video editors should get 2.7 16GB but for me $2000 (gov discount) was most I wanted to pay for my laptop I plan to keep for 4 years.
 

omgitscro

macrumors 6502a
Jul 12, 2008
570
87
My 1.4GHz Core 2 Duo holds up fine. I run processor-intensive statistical simulations for research and I figure that waiting half an hour less for a sample to run isn't worth $2000 for a new computer, nor is waiting three minutes less worth $100 for a processor upgrade. I'm sure you'll be fine.
 

Woodcrest64

macrumors 65816
Aug 14, 2006
1,181
333
The only benchmarks I have seen between the 2.3ghz and the 2.6ghz model was done by Engadget.com but from what I can remember they were only synthetic. The difference there was small at best. At times the 13% difference in clock speed between the 2.3ghz and 2.6ghz model was only 4% better.

It be more telling if some one actually did a real world test with applications like photoshop or final cut pro.

Day to day activities like email, surfing the net won't show any noticeable difference at all.
 

beamer8912

macrumors 65816
May 30, 2009
1,137
1
u mean the 2.3 uses 2hours less battery life then the 2.6? that doesnt sound right lol
2.3 got ~9 hours where as the 2.6 got ~7 hours.

When I order mine this weekend I'm going to stick with the 2.3.

Minor performance boost for $100 and 2 hours of battery...not worth it IMO.
 

Simoquasimo

macrumors member
Jun 23, 2010
58
0
Finland
2.3 got ~9 hours where as the 2.6 got ~7 hours.

When I order mine this weekend I'm going to stick with the 2.3.

Minor performance boost for $100 and 2 hours of battery...not worth it IMO.

That was only in engadget's test. I don't think it is right. But there might be slight benefit in battery life in favour of 2.3. Not 2 hours definitely.
 

Centsy

macrumors regular
Feb 9, 2011
108
14
If you happen to be gaming, the 2.6 allows for better overclocking of the GPU.
 

beamer8912

macrumors 65816
May 30, 2009
1,137
1
If you happen to be gaming, the 2.6 allows for better overclocking of the GPU.
I think it really comes down to whether you actually will benefit from the increase or not. Gamers, media editors and other computationally heavy users will probably benefit enough to justify the upgrade. Not to mention they'll most likely be near an outlet.

If you're unsure if you need the upgrade, you probably don't. And you'll benefit more from the battery life increase.
 

iLikeTurtles!

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jun 22, 2012
439
0
I think it really comes down to whether you actually will benefit from the increase or not. Gamers, media editors and other computationally heavy users will probably benefit enough to justify the upgrade. Not to mention they'll most likely be near an outlet.

If you're unsure if you need the upgrade, you probably don't. And you'll benefit more from the battery life increase.
when i firs tposted this thread, i didnt realize having a higher clocked CPU would effect battery life, or atleast that dramatically?