Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Retina MacBook - 2.3ghz vs 2.6ghz option?

iLikeTurtles! said:
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!
Click to expand...


The speed increase would be usable for 3D rendering, video editing, etc...

But any number of benchmarking sites will say 300MHz is effectively worthless.

And this is a laptop - do you need such rendering "on the go"?

Never mind how much heat normal laptops put out, never mind how much more MacBooks put out... longevity or otherwise, "hot to the touch" is not cool...

If the added cost for the higher-end model comes with more features apart from a sub-nominal CPU power boost, then I'd consider it.
 
bobr1952 said:
Want to put it on next month's billing cycle for my cc. :D
Click to expand...

dumb question but cc stands for? lol

----------
thermodynamic said:
The speed increase would be usable for 3D rendering, video editing, etc...

But any number of benchmarking sites will say 300MHz is effectively worthless.

And this is a laptop - do you need such rendering "on the go"?

Never mind how much heat normal laptops put out, never mind how much more MacBooks put out... longevity or otherwise, "hot to the touch" is not cool...

If the added cost for the higher-end model comes with more features apart from a sub-nominal CPU power boost, then I'd consider it.
Click to expand...

prob the most heavy thing i do and exporting videos and editing on imovie.

the other thing i originally considered when i saw this option was "future proof" but after thinking about it, i dont think 300mhz or any current option really "future proofs" a laptop.

so by ur statement, dont bother with the 2.6ghz and put the 100 towards a speck case (whenever it comes out) or something?

i obivously already ordered it, i was thining of returning to spend the extra 100 on the 2.6 (still cant believe i missed that, was to focused on upgrading the ram)
 
I ordered mine with the 2.6 upgrade because relative to the price I'm paying, a $100 isn't a lot of money. Ordered mine on the 2nd of August and realized right after the order through various tech blog articles that Apple allowed such upgrades from only the day before.
 
thermodynamic said:
The speed increase would be usable for 3D rendering, video editing, etc...

But any number of benchmarking sites will say 300MHz is effectively worthless.

And this is a laptop - do you need such rendering "on the go"?

Never mind how much heat normal laptops put out, never mind how much more MacBooks put out... longevity or otherwise, "hot to the touch" is not cool...

If the added cost for the higher-end model comes with more features apart from a sub-nominal CPU power boost, then I'd consider it.
Click to expand...

I will. I opted for the 2.6 because honestly, I'm spending over $2300 on the computer, I might as well spend $100 more for a better processor.

Also, I'll be taking this laptop to school with my videos needing editing and I could use that extra power while I'm exporting those 1080p videos.

I'd agree though, unless you're doing professional work, there's no need to opt for the 2.6 or the 2.7GHz.
 
Tiger16 said:
I ordered mine with the 2.6 upgrade because relative to the price I'm paying, a $100 isn't a lot of money. Ordered mine on the 2nd of August and realized right after the order through various tech blog articles that Apple allowed such upgrades from only the day before.
Click to expand...
u didnt ram though?
 
Let's not forget that the single-die turbo'd clock is actually faster than all that. Not 300MHz, which is the multi-core (un-turbo'd) figure. And isn't the 2.6 supposed to have a bigger L2 cache? Cache is probably making up more of that real-terms speed difference anyway. Its not terrible important, but you should know exactly what you are buying for $100.

Another point: What happens if you want to sell it after a couple of years? A "2.6 GHz" processor will hold up better against the march of time and will look a lot better than "2.3 GHz" to whoever you are selling it to. Because by that time the new models will all be faster. And much fewer 2.6Ghz models available on the 2nd hand market. Hence making your 2nd-hand machine more desirable and easier to sell.

But if you plan on keeping the machine for just yourself forever more, then no it won't really seem to be any faster than the base model. At least, you won't be able to notice with all of today's apps and games.
 
macuser2134 said:
Let's not forget that the single-die turbo'd clock is actually faster than all that. Not 300MHz, which is the multi-core (un-turbo'd) figure. And isn't the 2.6 supposed to have a bigger L2 cache? Cache is probably making up more of that real-terms speed difference anyway. Its not terrible important, but you should know exactly what you are buying for $100.

Another point: What happens if you want to sell it after a couple of years? A "2.6 GHz" processor will hold up better against the march of time and will look a lot better than "2.3 GHz" to whoever you are selling it to. Because by that time the new models will all be faster. And much fewer 2.6Ghz models available on the 2nd hand market. Hence making your 2nd-hand machine more desirable and easier to sell.

But if you plan on keeping the machine for just yourself forever more, then no it won't really seem to be any faster than the base model. At least, you won't be able to notice with all of today's apps and games.
Click to expand...

ive always read that in terms of resale, the best way to make most money without big loss is always go for the base model. any "bells" or whistles extra wont really help much.
 
macuser2134 said:
Let's not forget that the single-die turbo'd clock is actually faster than all that. Not 300MHz, which is the multi-core (un-turbo'd) figure. And isn't the 2.6 supposed to have a bigger L2 cache? Cache is probably making up more of that real-terms speed difference anyway. Its not terrible important, but you should know exactly what you are buying for $100.
Click to expand...

The 2.6 does not have a bigger cache. Only the 2.7. The only difference between the 2.3 and 2.6 is the 300 MHz and the max iGPU speed of 1.20 GHz vs 1.25 GH .
 
minnus said:
The 2.6 does not have a bigger cache. Only the 2.7. The only difference between the 2.3 and 2.6 is the 300 MHz and the max iGPU speed of 1.20 GHz vs 1.25 GH .
Click to expand...

would u say by ur specs that it is not worth the extra 100 dollarS?
 
For me, most definitely not. You have to ask yourself this. You get a little over 10% more performance than the base processor. All things being equal, 60 seconds on the 2.3ghz is 54 seconds on the 2.6 GHz. Over the course of an hour, you save 6 minutes.

This is on FULL load, and performing very computational intensive tasks. Do YOU perform these intensive tasks enough such that whatever time you save is worth $100?

Keep in mind that people very rarely use 100% of their CPU unless they are encoding/manipulating video.

For me, I'm frankly not efficient enough to use the machine on full blast constantly. Even with tasks that will take hours, it is very simple to queue tasks such that a savings of 6-48 (48 minutes, if going full blast during a normal work day) is completely negligible. It makes no sense for me to pay $100 for something I cannot benefit from.

For gaming, you will hit a GPU ceiling far sooner way before you hit a CPU one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
minnus said:
For me, most definitely not. You have to ask yourself this. You get a little over 10% more performance than the base processor. All things being equal, 60 seconds on the 2.3ghz is 54 seconds on the 2.6 GHz. Over the course of an hour, you save 6 minutes.

This is on FULL load, and performing very computational intensive tasks. Do YOU perform these intensive tasks enough such that whatever time you save is worth $100?

Keep in mind that people very rarely use 100% of their CPU unless they are encoding/manipulating video.

For me, I'm frankly not efficient enough to use the machine on full blast constantly. Even with tasks that will take hours, it is very simple to queue tasks such that a savings of 6-48 (48 minutes, if going full blast during a normal work day) is completely negligible. It makes no sense for me to pay $100 for something I cannot benefit from.

For gaming, you will hit a GPU ceiling far sooner way before you hit a CPU one.
Click to expand...

Remember, you also get 300MHz turbo boost as well, so it is not only during full load that you get the additional speed.
 
Great reading these posts. I am about to pull the trigger this afternoon, in a couple of hours.

For me, the best bang for the buck is 2.6 16GB 256 GB.

I plan to use Aperture, FCP X, and VmWare/Bootcamp for Win 7.
 
calderone said:
Remember, you also get 300MHz turbo boost as well, so it is not only during full load that you get the additional speed.
Click to expand...

I think his point is that the extra speed is irrelevant except at full load, since by definition, if the computer isn't at full load, it's not being limited by the CPU
 
terraphantm said:
I think his point is that the extra speed is irrelevant except at full load, since by definition, if the computer isn't at full load, it's not being limited by the CPU
Click to expand...

It is not irrelevant in situations outside of full load. Any operation benefits from the additional speed, regardless of whether the CPU is at full load.

And my point was that single-threaded applications often drive a single core to full load, which means you would benefit there as well.
 
I wouldn't go crazy over the 2.3 vs 2.6 but rather 256SSD vs 512SSD.
With my MBA I thought using externals was enough for storage. That became a hassle after a few weeks with remembering to pack that portable every time I go out and make sure I don't leave it behind after using it. Everyone is different but I can not use 256 anymore and would definitely spend more on the hard drive rather CPU.
 
iaymnu said:
I wouldn't go crazy over the 2.3 vs 2.6 but rather 256SSD vs 512SSD.
With my MBA I thought using externals was enough for storage. That became a hassle after a few weeks with remembering to pack that portable every time I go out and make sure I don't leave it behind after using it. Everyone is different but I can not use 256 anymore and would definitely spend more on the hard drive rather CPU.
Click to expand...

what do you stoe that takes up alot of space?

i found mainly my videos i make on imovie for youtube take huge chunks of space. its all stored on my 2tb time capsule
 
simsaladimbamba said:
The difference is hardly noticeable.
Can your unstated computational needs profit from 300 more MHz?
Click to expand...

This was the same argument used by people when the Late 2008 MacBooks rolled out. The two options were either 2.0 GHz and 2.4 GHz. The difference besides that was the backlit keyboard on the 2.4GHz option.

Now, people tried these same types of threads and many were convinced of the 2.0GHz was better. Now, those extra 400MHz are weighing.

If you can, and are able too, get the highest CPU option available. However, don't choose the 2.7GHz as the price increase vs MHz ratio is not good. Get the 2.6GHz if you can afford it.
 
Decided to return my 2.3/16/256 due to a great deal of creaking... I couldn't decide whether or not to upgrade my replacement to a 2.6 processor, but ultimately decided that I didn't need to spend another $100 on something that would provide a negligible performance boost. Hopefully I won't regret my decision!
 
CedarPoint182 said:
Decided to return my 2.3/16/256 due to a great deal of creaking... I couldn't decide whether or not to upgrade my replacement to a 2.6 processor, but ultimately decided that I didn't need to spend another $100 on something that would provide a negligible performance boost. Hopefully I won't regret my decision!
Click to expand...

upgrade to 2.7
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back