rMBP 13" 2.6 or 2.8 ?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by maxou17, Nov 5, 2013.

  1. maxou17 macrumors newbie

    Mar 11, 2011
    Hi all,

    last week, I purchased a new rMBP 13" 2.6, 1 TB Hard drive, 16 gb ram through the Apple Business Financing program... which allowed me to pay in several installments, at 0% financing... + I get 20% tax back as my business is buying it :)

    on top of that, Apple gave me 6% discount!

    The status is now "preparing for dispatch" and I should receive my computer between the 15th and 19th of November...

    At the moment, I am still working from my lmacbook late 2008 2.4 intel core 2 duo with 4gb ram and 256 gb ssd.

    because of many posts on this forum that said that the 2.6 was enough and not much different from the 2.8 I went for the 2.6.

    the more I spend time on this forum, the more I am wondering if I should have gone for the 2.8...

    of course £180 upgrade for 2.8 processor is not nothing but for a computer I use everyday it could have made sense to buy it.

    I mainly use my computer for excel, web, itunes... so nothing major, no gaming etc. but I started to work on photos (as a hobby that I take very serioulsy) and shoot in raw with a Nikon d800... photos are always large between 30-40 mo and at the moment, import, editing, exporting takes a very long time. I use LR and aperture... No photoshop.

    I know I could have gone for the 15" but I needed something lighter as I travel a lot.

    I really don't like the process and idea of returning a computer and wait for a new one... but if there's a noticeable difference in both processors... I might go for it

    any thoughts?

    thanks in advance!
  2. Merode macrumors 6502


    Nov 5, 2013
    Warszawa, Poland
    Here are some benchmarks: http://www.macrumors.com/2013/10/23/new-retina-macbook-pro-models-showing-up-in-benchmarks/

    From 2,6 to 2,8 the performance gain is of about 4% (the major 13,5% gain is between 2,4 and 2,6). The question is - are you willing to pay 180 pounds for 4% performance gain?

    For the most part 2,6 one is going to be enough for anything, unless you're into serious movie editing and hard gaming. But even than 2,8 is not enough and you should go for quad-core cpu aka 15" rMBP.

    In my opinion - go for 2,6 and buy something else for the money. Have you bough Apple Care already?
  3. maxou17 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Mar 11, 2011
    thanks for your help! I read the benchmarks before purchasing and saw that there was only 4% performance gain... but then, I have read some other posts where people were advising to get the 2.8 as the difference was huge so was a bit confused... as I don't do any movie editing (actually I sometimes do maybe once or twice a year and on imovie so nothing serious) and any gaming it should be ok. and I got apple care as well!
  4. AlecMyrddyn macrumors 6502

    Dec 5, 2008
    Southern Maine
    Geekbench only shows a 4-6% increase in performance going from the 2.6 i5 to 2.8 i7 on the 13" Haswell.

    A Geekbench comparison of your 2.4 GHz C2D 2008 model to the 2.6 GHz i5 you ordered shows a 213% increase in single-core performance and a 250% increase in multi-core performance.

    Meanwhile, a comparison of your 2.4 GHz C2D to the 2.8 GHz i7 shows that the i7 is 223% faster for single core, and 264% faster for multi-core.

    Using those numbers, let's say you have a purely CPU bound single-threaded task that currently takes 120 seconds on your C2D. On the 2.6 i5 it would take just over 56.3 seconds. On the 2.8 i7 it would take 53.8 seconds. Is your money worth it for another 2.5 seconds of time per action like this?

    Keep in mind this is theoretical, based on benchmark numbers, but could be representative of the type of improvement you'll see.

    Entirely up to you if the 2.8 is worth the extra money.

    In my case, I decided to go for the i7 since I was already ordering a 16 GB. Logic says the difference isn't worth the money. But in this case, I'm buying something I don't expect to replace any time soon, so hopefully the i7 option will help it last that much longer comfortably.
  5. maxou17 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Mar 11, 2011
    thanks for your post, I think I made the right choice and should not bother too much... as you, I wanted my laptop to last long but it should not make a big difference...
  6. T-Bob macrumors 6502


    Oct 23, 2013
    I also have a 2.6. But need to return machine as case has a scratch. I am now wondering if a 2.8 would be worth it though.

    I doubt anyone has had both machines, but if they had what are the noticeable differences if any?

    One thing about the 2.6 is that it is totally silent, in normal use I can't hear anything at all. Does the 2.8 stay cool enough to also be silent?
  7. jmthigpen macrumors regular

    Apr 18, 2011
    Charleston, SC
    I've had the 2.8 for over a week, it is dead silent.
  8. dgdosen macrumors 65816


    Dec 13, 2003
    I'm sure we'll have more info with the anandtech review. I'd also like to see battery comparisons between the two.

    No matter - either one, the 13" rMBP seems is a pretty good all around laptop. I'm also using a resolution switcher to 1920 x 1200 - and it's ideal to me.
  9. mingoglia macrumors 6502

    Dec 10, 2009
    The main difference between the 2.6 to 2.8 is the move from an i5 to i7 with of course the slight clock increase. Normally that would be a no-brainer since most i7's were known to be quad core. However with these mobile processors an i7 doesn't automatically mean quad core like the desktops. As such other than some cache, the processors are pretty much the same and IMHO not worth the additional cost. My 2010 MBP is an i7 and I had a difficult time NOT going with the i7 this time, but at the end of the day I went with the 2.6 i5 and have not regretted it. The machine is super fast and I run full time 3 screens, one of which has Windows 7 running full screen with vmware fusion. In everyday use, I doubt you'd ever tell the difference. The only difference you may see is a small increase if you're ripping video or other processor intensive applications. Most things we do really aren't as processor intensive as people think...


Share This Page