Selling MBP to get rMB - what level?

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by Fineance, Apr 17, 2015.

  1. Fineance macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2015
    #1
    Currently, I am in the process of selling my iPad Air 2 and my Mid-2014, upgraded 15" rMBP.

    I bought the 15" because of the screen resolution, and in the process, thought I might buy the upgraded model because I might "need" the dedicated GPU - I didn't. I regret the upgraded model because of the extra heat, reduced battery life, etc. It is a great machine, it is just a pain to carry around and I am not happy with the battery life and heat. I have to "pack it up" as opposed to grabbing and going (like the iPad).

    The iPad is great, except it doesn't do the extra 10% of things I need. Typing documents is a pain, and without a full filesystem, I cannot store more general file types.

    After playing with the rMB in the store, I am really pleased. It is beautiful, I love the keyboard, love the screen, and love the weight. I used to have a MBA before this pro and miss that machine the most - I see the rMB as a way to combine the best of the pro with the best of the air.

    That brings me to my point: do I go for the 1.1GHz/256GB model or the 1.2GHz/512GB model? All of my data fits into a bit less than 80GB, and that can probably be trimmed a bit too.

    Is the extra 9% performance increase worth the hit in battery life? Is it worth the $300? I am sure most of you have asked yourself this question and gone through this decision - which did you buy and why?
     
  2. Vanilla Face macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2013
    #2
    It's not a 9% difference. The performance of the 1.1 is going to be similar to a 2011 Macbook Air, while the 1.2 exceeds the 2015 Macbook Air. If you think what you are doing would be okay on a 2011 Macbook Air, then go for the 1.1.
     
  3. applegeek97 macrumors 6502a

    applegeek97

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    Location:
    California
  4. Fineance thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2015
    #4
    Can you elaborate on this? The clock frequency is 9% higher for the 1.2 GHz model, and Geekbench results show an 8.3% improvement in single core performance and a 19% improvement in multi-core performance.

    Performance and battery life go hand in hand, so this is why I am concerned.

    Honestly, mostly word processing, email, presentations, Netflix/Hulu/etc., and the occasional Matlab/Python programming use (although not heavy). I'm not into gaming and am just looking for a nice, portable machine that can do most every day tasks.
     
  5. Vanilla Face macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2013
    #5
    1.1 = to 2011 Air with a multicore score of about 4000.
    http://www.macrumors.com/2015/04/01/retina-macbook-benchmark-performance/

    while the 1.2 is doing significantly better getting a multi-core score of over 5300
    http://www.macrumors.com/2015/04/13/1-2-ghz-retina-macbook-geekbench/

    Compare that to the 2015 Macbook Air i5 which is consistently getting about 5000.
    http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?utf8=✓&q=macbook+air+2015+i5


    Everyone that's posted with a 1.2 seems to love it, except one guy. It seems a lot of people are unhappy with the 1.1
     
  6. junkw macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    #6
    technically may worth 300$, but for your needs, no. Put the 300$ on something else you really need
     
  7. emoose macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2010
    #7
    Shoot I am going from a late 2013 BTO 16GB/1TB/2.6 to a 500MB 1.2 MB pro.

    In fairness my motivation is I am doing a lot less software development and a lot more air travel/commuting.

    I've had it for 2 days now and while some tasks are a bit slower the portability will more than make up for the speed diff.

    The only thing I will really give up is the 1TB. I would still like that.
     
  8. Fineance thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2015
    #8
    Just out of curiosity, which tasks do you perceive to be slower? I am just curious where you notice it.
     
  9. brand macrumors 601

    brand

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #9
    It is GB and not MB, a very big difference. Also the new 12" MacBook is not a pro model.
     
  10. ultrakyo macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2015
  11. Mildredop macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    #11
    Seriously?! That's surely a massive difference and, to a layman like me, just a 0.1 increase sounds like nothing.
     
  12. Fineance thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2015
    #12
    This combination does not appear for me on the Apple Store. The 1.1/256 is upgradeable to 1.3/256 (for basically the same prices as the 1.2/512) and the 1.3 is an option on the 512 model.

    Again, I am not sure what to take from these results. Without having done the research (which I haven't, yet), it seems like, assuming his statement is accurate, the performance upgrade from a 2011 MBA to a 2015 MBA is only about 15-20%.
     
  13. newellj macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    Boston, MA, US
    #13
    Not a big deal, but Apple isn't offering that right now.

    ----------

    I think it's hard to really reach conclusions about the three CPU options until someone gets one of each in their hands and does a controlled test. You could wait for that...I didn't, and went with the 1.2/512 because it offered some upside comfort on CPU speed and extra storage - when you look at the price (!!!) for the CPU upgrades, you can figure you're getting one or the other very cheap ($50). Not very scientific... :eek: Very pleased with the machine, which I've had since Monday afternoon.
     
  14. snapper64 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    #14
    I would discount all early individual benchmarks linked to in this thread and elsewhere on MacRumors as they're unreliable. The averaged results on http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks are much more representative.

    1.1GHZ

    64-bit Single Core - 2357
    64-bit Multi-Core - 4536

    1.2GHZ

    64-bit Single Core - 2372
    64-bit Multi-Core - 4936

    Given that you have no need for the extra storage and based on your typical usage the marginal multi-core increase is not worth anywhere close to $300. If you have a burning desire to spend more money buy yourself an Apple Watch :)
     
  15. Fineance thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2015
    #15
    I'm really curious why single versus multi-core shows such a large swing. The more I am reading here, the more I am not sure whether to go with the 1.1 or the 1.2. There are remarkably small differences between the 5Y31 and 5Y51 on the Intel's ARK, except for the differences in GPU base clock.

    Has anyone performed battery life tests?
     
  16. close2reality macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    #16
    I think your going to have an issue adjusting from a 15" i7 Quad Core with 16GB ram to a rMB.

    I do not say that out of narcasism or ignorance because I own one, I just think whether you utilize that 15" or not it is what you are use to.
     
  17. legioxi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2013
    #17
    Not that I am aware of. But the 1.1 has a higher TDP than the 1.2. 6w vs 4.5-5w. I would expect similar or better on the 1.2.
     
  18. PDFierro macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    #18
    It's pretty obvious that the OP does not need all that horsepower. So they won't notice a difference by switching to the rMB.
     
  19. Fthree macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2014
  20. Fineance thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2015
    #20
    Can you cite this? The Intel ARK suggests all chips (5Y31/5Y51/5Y71) have a TDP of 4.5W with a SDP of 3.5W:

    http://ark.intel.com/products/84666/Intel-Core-M-5Y31-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-2_40-GHz
    http://ark.intel.com/products/84669/Intel-Core-M-5Y51-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-2_60-GHz
    http://ark.intel.com/products/84672/Intel-Core-M-5Y71-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-2_90-GHz

    Yeah, I have had this concern, but I really do miss the portability of my 13" MBA. The 15" is a phenomenal machine, but for a personal machine (lounging around the house, watching Netflix, basic documents, that sort of thing) it just too much, I think.

    Send me a PM.
     
  21. dexterbell macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    #21
    The 5Y31 is already running at its max TDP of 6W while the 51 and 71 are not, they are running around 5-5.5W

    With a TDP of only 4.5 W, the Core M-5Y31 draws noticeably less power than the Haswell Y-series (11.5 W). However, the TDP can be set to different values such as 3.5 or 6 W, affecting clock rates and performance (6 W: 1.1 GHz base clock, 3.5 W: 0.6 GHz base clock)

    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-M-5Y31-SoC.129328.0.html
     
  22. Fineance thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2015
    #22
    Hmm, so the 5Y31 is set to 6W, the 5Y51 is set at 4.5W and the 5Y71 is set at 6W? So it sounds like the 5Y51 is the lowest power consuming chip (at maximum clock)?
     
  23. legioxi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2013
    #23
    Look at the Ark entries again and compare the top speeds and TDPs vs what the MacBooks run at. Both the 51 and 71 are not running at max while the 31 is. The 71 is not running at 6W, if it was, it would be 1.4Ghz.
     
  24. Fineance thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2015
    #24
    5Y31: - 1.1GHz (nominal)
    3.5W at 0.6GHz
    4.5W at 0.9GHz
    6W at 1.1GHz

    5Y51: - 1.2GHz (nominal)
    3.5W at 0.6GHz
    4.5W at 1.1GHz
    6W at 1.3GHz

    5Y71: - 1.3GHz (nominal)
    3.5W at 0.6GHz
    4.5W at 1.2GHz
    6W at 1.4GHz

    From this, I gather the 1.1GHz is running at a TDP of 6W and the 1.2GHz/1.3GHz are running at TDPs of around 5.25W. Does this sound right?
     
  25. dexterbell macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2015
    #25
    Yes.
     

Share This Page