RMBP 2.7 vs 2.8

[JPizzzle]

Hey all,
So with the recent CPU changes in the lineup it looks like there's a $220 dollar (education pricing) difference between these two choices. Plus the L3 cache is 6mb (2.7) vs 8mb. I plan to use the computer to edit raw files in adobe Lightroom and photoshop and to do some gaming (probably Starcraft). Will I notice a difference with the higher speed and cache of the 2.8?

Thanks

JP

 

[bniu]

You get the satisfaction knowing that you bought the best CPU you could buy for a rMBP in March 2013

I did the plunge similarly two years ago when it was 2.3 vs 2.2 for a 2011 17" MBP. Laptop showed up with 8GB of ram instead of 4GB. 8GB of RAM was $100 back then (which I had to drive to Fry's to return the kit I had bought in anticipation), and they gave me a free mouse, so basically $50 was my upgrade.

 

[akdj]

I bought my rMBP last October, the 2.7 @ the time was the 'high end' chip, I splurged and upgraded to that option as well as the 768GB SSD. I don't regret either decision. However...at that time, the 2.7Ghz option was also an 8MB cache. Are you sure they 'decreased' the 2.7Ghz chip's cache size? That seems weird...I'm looking @ my L3 cache right now on my 2012/2.7Ghz machine and it does indeed confirm 8MB.

Anyone with more knowledge know if this is true? And if so, why?

To the OP--I'd say---if money isn't of concern or you're 'making money' with your laptop and any sort of time savings = profit, go for it

J

 

[Stetrain]

I bought my rMBP last October, the 2.7 @ the time was the 'high end' chip, I splurged and upgraded to that option as well as the 768GB SSD. I don't regret either decision. However...at that time, the 2.7Ghz option was also an 8MB cache. Are you sure they 'decreased' the 2.7Ghz chip's cache size? That seems weird...I'm looking @ my L3 cache right now on my 2012/2.7Ghz machine and it does indeed confirm 8MB.

Anyone with more knowledge know if this is true? And if so, why?

To the OP--I'd say---if money isn't of concern or you're 'making money' with your laptop and any sort of time savings = profit, go for it

J

They didn't decrease the cache on the 2.7Ghz, chip, they just increased the clock on the old 2.6Ghz and 2.7Ghz so that they are now 2.7Ghz and 2.8Ghz respectively.

 

[JPizzzle]

They didn't decrease the cache on the 2.7Ghz, chip, they just increased the clock on the old 2.6Ghz and 2.7Ghz so that they are now 2.7Ghz and 2.8Ghz respectively.

Guys thanks for the replies, they did in fact decrease the cache. I spoke with apple to confirm, plus look at their comparison page for the 2.7-it clearly states 6mb cache now (http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs-retina/). Although, the previous 2.7 was in fact 8mb. So i'm trying to see if the increase in cache plus .1ghz will be noticeable for my purposes. I'm not as concerned with the .1 ghz as I am with the extra 2mb of cache.

 

[JPizzzle]

So it looks like macmall is having a sale, which includes the 2.7 at 8mb of cache (pre-feb revisions) Other than the performance bumb, has their been any other changes in the february revisions of the retina macbook pros? I heard that the logic board or SSD's may have been changed, but is it enough to warrant purchasing the newer version?

 

[B...]

So it looks like macmall is having a sale, which includes the 2.7 at 8mb of cache (pre-feb revisions) Other than the performance bumb, has their been any other changes in the february revisions of the retina macbook pros? I heard that the logic board or SSD's may have been changed, but is it enough to warrant purchasing the newer version?

At this point it is unclear, but I would say no. Save the money, and if at any point problems arise (within Applecare) just bring it in and Apple will make it right.

 

[Stetrain]

Guys thanks for the replies, they did in fact decrease the cache. I spoke with apple to confirm, plus look at their comparison page for the 2.7-it clearly states 6mb cache now (http://www.apple.com/macbook-pro/specs-retina/). Although, the previous 2.7 was in fact 8mb. So i'm trying to see if the increase in cache plus .1ghz will be noticeable for my purposes. I'm not as concerned with the .1 ghz as I am with the extra 2mb of cache.

What I meant is from the 2012 models to the 2013 models.

In the 2012 models the high end BTO processor with extra cache was clocked at 2.7Ghz. Now that CPU is clocked at 2.8Ghz.

In the 2012 models the middle CPU option was 2.6Ghz with 6mb cache. That CPU is now clocked at 2.7Ghz.

I don't think it will matter much for your purposes honestly. The only times you will really exercise that CPU fully will be things like applying filters to large photos and that's going to be pretty fast anyway.

You would probably notice the difference more when doing something like video encoding that would really push the CPU to its limits.

 

[Asuriyan]

It's different CPUs entirely, but within the same series relative to the tier.

The 2012 CPUs were the i7-3720QM at 2.6GHz (6m cache) and the i7-3820QM at 2.7GHz (8m cache).

The 2013 CPUs are the i7-3740QM at 2.7GHz (6m cache) and the i7-3840QM at 2.8GHz (8m cache).

 

[fskywalker]

How big is the difference in speed between a 2012 rMBP 2.6 and a 2012 rMBP 2.7 Ghz? What about battery life?

 

[B...]

How big is the difference in speed between a 2012 rMBP 2.6 and a 2012 rMBP 2.7 Ghz? What about battery life?

Around 3%. Cache is the same, so just the .1 GHz difference. Battery life should be very similar, if not identical.

 

[maratus]

You guys may want to check the thread from my sig, we've recently got some info on 2.7GHz (6MB L3 cache) from 2013, for instance! :