RMBP CPU options

[MrD1sturbed]

So the base RMBP (which I ordered) comes with the Intel Core i7 3610QM (base, 2.3), and the upgrade options are the 3720QM (mid, 2.6) & 3820QM (high, 2.7). I've looked on Intel's website and I see that the 3610QM is VT-x enabled (for Intel virtualization technology) and the other two options have VT-d support. What exactly does this mean?

I plan on using Parallels for virtualizing different OS's on the machine (which is why I opted for 16gb ram), but I don't know if I should have went with the 2.6 or 2.7 CPU. Price was kinda a factor to me, which is why I choose ram over ssd/CPU. Did I make the right choice?

 

[GGJstudios]

So the base RMBP (which I ordered) comes with the Intel Core i7 3610QM (base, 2.3), and the upgrade options are the 3720QM (mid, 2.6) & 3820QM (high, 2.7). I've looked on Intel's website and I see that the 3610QM is VT-x enabled (for Intel virtualization technology) and the other two options have VT-d support. What exactly does this mean?

I plan on using Parallels for virtualizing different OS's on the machine (which is why I opted for 16gb ram), but I don't know if I should have went with the 2.6 or 2.7 CPU. Price was kinda a factor to me, which is why I choose ram over ssd/CPU. Did I make the right choice?

You're more likely to benefit from increased RAM than from increased processor speed.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

You are literally talking about the difference of a few seconds. As far as I can see, for most users the 2.7 is for bragging rights only.

 

[bhtooefr]

Ooh, good catch on the 2.3 not having VT-d.

Basically, VT-d is for I/O virtualization. You won't need it for most stuff (having VT at all is the most important part), but being able to touch PCIe devices directly can greatly improve performance for some stuff (in the case of the MBPR, anything involving the GPU).

I can't find whether doing this is actually SUPPORTED, though, with the VM options for OS X, so it may not actually matter.

 

[uaecasher]

You're more likely to benefit from increased RAM than from increased processor speed.

I don't think this is correct but also depends on your usage, I'm an architecture student so the faster the cpu the faster i get things done..to be honest i think order of speed increase comes as following..SSD, CPU then RAM

 

[GGJstudios]

I don't think this is correct but also depends on your usage, I'm an architecture student so the faster the cpu the faster i get things done..to be honest i think order of speed increase comes as following..SSD, CPU then RAM

For most users, a somewhat slower CPU with more RAM will outperform a somewhat faster CPU with less RAM. So a 2.3GHz processor with 8GB of RAM will usually outperform a 2.7GHz processor with 2GB of RAM. Most users don't fully tax their CPUs. The HDD/SSD affects performance only during app launching or read/write operations. It really depends on what specific apps and tasks you're running, but the above is true for the vast majority of users.

 

[uaecasher]

For most users, a somewhat slower CPU with more RAM will outperform a somewhat faster CPU with less RAM. So a 2.3GHz processor with 8GB of RAM will usually outperform a 2.7GHz processor with 2GB of RAM. Most users don't fully tax their CPUs. The HDD/SSD affects performance only during app launching or read/write operations. It really depends on what specific apps and tasks you're running, but the above is true for the vast majority of users.

I agree the 2.7 is an overkill, but the price dif between 2.3 and 2.6 is good. As for SSD from experience I find it the life saver for laptops my late-2008 mbp (4gb ram) was dying and when I installed it an SSD it became very usable for most my tasks and as soon as i pop a normal HDD it becomes dead slow.