Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
hm okay.. yeah, you might be right then though. I don't know, I just sorta assumed (aka hoped) that $200 has got to make more than a 5% difference.

does this help? http://www.primatelabs.com/blog/2013/10/retina-macbook-pro-benchmarks/
sorry, I'm totally useless when it comes to figuring out what this stuff actually means in the real world.. I look at a bunch of numbers and bars and models and my eyes glaze over...

I just look on their main page of benchmark results.

This is what the benchmark results show for the 13" Late 2013 2.6GHz i5 vs. 2.8GHz i7:

Single-core 32-bit: +4.6%
Multi-core 32-bit: +3.0%

Single-core 64-bit: +4.2%
Multi-core 64-bit: N/A (no i7 benchmark showing?) Estimate: +2.8-3.2%

Percentages are in favour of the i7, of course :)

The laptop is severely limited by the thermal issues around packing power into a metal casing that tightly. I'd imagine that might be why the differences between each model is very minimal. They don't want to set the base model too low, nor can they set the top model too high due to the annoying laws of physics.

My 3 year old 27" iMac (see signature) benchmarks quite a bit higher than these 13" MacBooks. Somewhat disappointing.
 
I just look on their main page of benchmark results.

This is what the benchmark results show for the 13" Late 2013 2.6GHz i5 vs. 2.8GHz i7:

Single-core 32-bit: +4.6%
Multi-core 32-bit: +3.0%

Single-core 64-bit: +4.2%
Multi-core 64-bit: N/A (no i7 benchmark showing?) Estimate: +2.8-3.2%

Percentages are in favour of the i7, of course :)

The laptop is severely limited by the thermal issues around packing power into a metal casing that tightly. I'd imagine that might be why the differences between each model is very minimal. They don't want to set the base model too low, nor can they set the top model too high due to the annoying laws of physics.

My 3 year old 27" iMac (see signature) benchmarks quite a bit higher than these 13" MacBooks. Somewhat disappointing.

thanks so much! hm, okay, yeah, I can't imagine myself saying "oh yes, I'm so glad I spent those $200, photoshop is totally 4.2% faster..!" maybe this change has a domino effect somehow and actually affects real life overall performance more than the benchmarks make it seem.. :confused: but from what you're saying it's really not looking like it's worth the money. And I'm totally down with spending a little extra to get a good machine since it'll be my workhorse for probably another 3 years, but seriously, 3-4% for 200 is not a good ratio.

Basically it comes down to this- if three years ago I had spent more on my current machine and it were now, lets say, 5% faster than it is... I think I'd still be itching for a new machine right about now. So I don't see it extending the amount of time I'll keep it.. maybe just make it a tiny bit more pleasant in some rare situations..?
 
thanks so much! hm, okay, yeah, I can't imagine myself saying "oh yes, I'm so glad I spent those $200, photoshop is totally 4.2% faster..!" maybe this change has a domino effect somehow and actually affects real life overall performance more than the benchmarks make it seem.. :confused: but from what you're saying it's really not looking like it's worth the money. And I'm totally down with spending a little extra to get a good machine since it'll be my workhorse for probably another 3 years, but seriously, 3-4% for 200 is not a good ratio.

Basically it comes down to this- if three years ago I had spent more on my current machine and it were now, lets say, 5% faster than it is... I think I'd still be itching for a new machine right about now. So I don't see it extending the amount of time I'll keep it.. maybe just make it a tiny bit more pleasant in some rare situations..?

I can't really put up an argument against you're thinking I'm afraid! I know you're looking for someone to convince you it's worth the money, but you and I seem to be in complete agreement with the situation – €/£200 isn't worth 5%.

Even if it were 10% I'd still be on the fence. As you said, there comes a certain point where you just want to update yourself to the latest kit anyway.

I'm strongly considering the top model, with no modifications. However, the base 15" benchmarks at ~185% of the top 13". I want 13" form factor, but without that ridiculous performance loss!
 
I can't really put up an argument against you're thinking I'm afraid! I know you're looking for someone to convince you it's worth the money, but you and I seem to be in complete agreement with the situation – €/£200 isn't worth 5%.

you nailed it.. yeah, I'm sort of hoping someone will jump in and explain why this makes more difference than one would think.. but alas it's probably not the case.

Even if it were 10% I'd still be on the fence. As you said, there comes a certain point where you just want to update yourself to the latest kit anyway.

I'm strongly considering the top model, with no modifications. However, the base 15" benchmarks at ~185% of the top 13". I want 13" form factor, but without that ridiculous performance loss!

For me form factor wins out. I try not to even look at the 15" stats to be honest. Sometimes I have a crazy moment of "but maybe.." but I know in the end I carry my macbook around way too much for it to be worth it. I like balancing it on one leg when sitting cross-legged. I like how it fits nicely on the tray on most planes/trains. And I don't do professional video editing or much gaming, so that cinches it for me.

edit: plus, unlike you, I haven't had a mac desktop machine since the G5 iMac. After that it was a 12" iBook, then the 13" white macbook that came after (You should'a seen my little hissy fit about the form factor getting bigger) and then the 2010 MBP. So pretty much any of apple's 13" offerings will blow my socks off at this point.
 
Last edited:
As for the 2.6 vs. 2.8 decision – it's £180 (probably €200?) for a 3-5% increase in single/multi core performance. Perhaps it's slightly more future proof, though.

Regarding an external display, I was disappointed Apple didn't update the TBDs. I've been looking at those LG 29" super widescreen displays…but I'm not convinced. I bought a Samsung phone about a year ago, suffice to say I'm now back on a 5s – I have limited faith in the quality of products from competitors, and their compatibility with Apple products.

Re: 2.6 vs 2.8 - apart from a few % difference - are you going to notice a task taking 55s instead of 60s?

As for the comment about the LG monitor: "I have limited faith in the quality of products from competitors"
You realise that Apple doesn't actually make the displays in their computers and monitors, right? AFAIK LG-Philips, Samsung and AO are the only current LCD manufacturers for laptop/desktop sized displays. Moreover the Apple 23" Display was plagued with reliability (pink hue) issues - I'm perfectly happy with my NEC 2690 WUXi and my Dell 2007FP displays - neither of which have the glare of the super-glossy Apple displays (and both a professional monitors, the gamut and calibration of the NEC even more so).
 
Re: 2.6 vs 2.8 - apart from a few % difference - are you going to notice a task taking 55s instead of 60s?

does it really translate into seconds like that though? Either way, I agree, it doesn't seem like it's going to be a noticeable difference.


As for the comment about the LG monitor: "I have limited faith in the quality of products from competitors"
You realise that Apple doesn't actually make the displays in their computers and monitors, right? AFAIK LG-Philips, Samsung and AO are the only current LCD manufacturers for laptop/desktop sized displays. Moreover the Apple 23" Display was plagued with reliability (pink hue) issues - I'm perfectly happy with my NEC 2690 WUXi and my Dell 2007FP displays - neither of which have the glare of the super-glossy Apple displays (and both a professional monitors, the gamut and calibration of the NEC even more so).

sorry, please don't take this the wrong way.. but I must now mock you for this. It's the law.

You realise that phrasing information like this is counterproductive and unnecessarily adversarial, right?

You do realise that when you speak like this, you are effectively insulting the other person, right?

also.. you realise that while apple doesn't manufacture the displays, they do pick the manufacturer and order a certain quality- i.e. (guessing here) they might scoop up the panels with no dead pixels, they might not let displays with light leaks get shipped.. etc.

ok I'm done, don't be mad plz.. :D

Of course, you do have a valid point- apple displays have indeed shipped with problems. But.. let's not forget the that they also include a FaceTime camera, speakers, charging cable for your mac laptop, thunderbolt.. so the value and quality isn't just in the display itself.
 
does it really translate into seconds like that though? Either way, I agree, it doesn't seem like it's going to be a noticeable difference.

By way of example, yes. My experience of computers since the mid-80s shows that I need at least a 50% performance increase to notice it in the "real world".

Now in practice, I run simulations that can take many minutes / hours to finish. This tends to be a best case scenario for showing CPU performance differences, but even then a few percent improvement is not worth the extra cost - unless I could directly invoice the time gain (which I can't because the simulation is only a small part of the total job).


sorry, please don't take this the wrong way.. but I must now mock you for this. It's the law.
You realise that phrasing information like this is counterproductive and unnecessarily adversarial, right?

I feel a certain need to ensure that the common fallacy that an Apple product is somehow magical because it has Apple fairy-dust inside is not propagated, thereby doing my part to foster a heterogeneity in the marketplace. Unless everyone wants all-in-one computers, with display options dictated by Apple; where we remain at the mercy of the Big A to release, for example, a Pro computer, when they see fit - if they see fit, or a professional screen that actually has good anti-reflective coatings (still waiting for that).


You do realise that when you speak like this, you are effectively insulting the other person, right?

Yes (but see below for apology and further explanation)

also.. you realise that while apple doesn't manufacture the displays, they do pick the manufacturer and order a certain quality- i.e. (guessing here) they might scoop up the panels with no dead pixels, they might not let displays with light leaks get shipped.. etc.

Amongst the higher quality displays, in a similar price class, I have not found Apple displays to be any better, and in certain aspects worse, than others and the blind faith that "because it's Apple it must be the best", is detrimental to the Apple community (cf John Siracusa - hypercritical)

Of course, you do have a valid point- apple displays have indeed shipped with problems.

You are right - I was being a jerk in my reply and I will try to be less of a jerk in the future.

I have a problem dealing with what I perceive as Apple-fanperson-ism* and I have the abrasive personality that feels the need to make others aware of errors in their logic (cf John Roderick - Roderick on the Line), for the selfish nature of hoping that this will cause consumers to demand Apple to make changes to what I (and often others) consider deficient in their products.

Good luck with your purchase - FWIW I have ordered a 2013 rMBP 2.6GHz/8GB/512GB. Doing some LR5, some virtual Win7 (Matlab/ADS/Spice etc). Only chose the 2.6GHz CPU as I wanted 512GB to allow all my data to be on the computer.

Hopefully LR will be updated to use some of the GPU power for generating previews and exporting, which are currently annoyingly slow and which I don't expect to improve much compared to the 1.7GHz 2011 MBA that I have.


*I don't like OS X - I just hate it the least amongst the operating systems.
 
As for the comment about the LG monitor: "I have limited faith in the quality of products from competitors"
You realise that Apple doesn't actually make the displays in their computers and monitors, right? AFAIK LG-Philips, Samsung and AO are the only current LCD manufacturers for laptop/desktop sized displays. Moreover the Apple 23" Display was plagued with reliability (pink hue) issues - I'm perfectly happy with my NEC 2690 WUXi and my Dell 2007FP displays - neither of which have the glare of the super-glossy Apple displays (and both a professional monitors, the gamut and calibration of the NEC even more so).

Of course I realise this. However, the display panel is only partially relevant to compatibility and quality of a monitor as a standalone piece of hardware. There's a little more to them than the physical display component.

NEC is a trusted, premium brand often used by designers (often quite expensive unless I'm mistaken). Due to this, I'd expect them to be heavily tested with Macs – so I'd trust them. LG and Samsung monitors, however, are going to be primarily used with PCs. That's where the cautious-side of me starts to ask questions, that's all.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.