Selling MBP to get rMB - what level?

[Fineance]

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?

 

[Vanilla Face]

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.

 

[applegeek97]

Depends on what your using it for.

 

[Fineance]

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.

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.

It will take a little while for Geekbench results to firm up as the machines work through their early housekeeping tasks, but the best results we're seeing so far for the 1.2 GHz model are approaching 2600 on 64-bit single-core tests and over 5300 on multi-core tests. That performance compares to roughly 2400/4450 for the 1.1 GHz model, meaning that the mid-range model seems to be showing performance improvements at least in line with the 9 percent increase in CPU frequency. Multi-core performance in particular seems to be seeing a nice bump with the faster chip.

Depends on what your using it for.

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.

 

[Vanilla Face]

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.

1.1 = to 2011 Air with a multicore score of about 4000.
https://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
https://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

 

[junkw]

technically may worth 300$, but for your needs, no. Put the 300$ on something else you really need

 

[emoose]

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.

 

[Fineance]

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.

Just out of curiosity, which tasks do you perceive to be slower? I am just curious where you notice it.

 

[brand]

Shoot I am going from a late 2013 BTO 16GB/1TB/2.6 to a 500MB 1.2 MB pro.

It is GB and not MB, a very big difference. Also the new 12" MacBook is not a pro model.

 

[ultrakyo]

You could also opt for 1.2/256

 

[Mildredop]

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.

Seriously?! That's surely a massive difference and, to a layman like me, just a 0.1 increase sounds like nothing.

 

[Fineance]

You could also opt for 1.2/256

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.

Seriously?! That's surely a massive difference and, to a layman like me, just a 0.1 increase sounds like nothing.

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%.

 

[newellj]

You could also opt for 1.2/256

Not a big deal, but Apple isn't offering that right now.

----------

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%.

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... Very pleased with the machine, which I've had since Monday afternoon.

 

[snapper64]

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

 

[Fineance]

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

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?

 

[close2reality]

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.

 

[legioxi]

Has anyone performed battery life tests?

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.

 

[PDFierro]

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.

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.

 

[Fthree]

how much for the 15'?

 

[Fineance]

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.

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

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.

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.

how much for the 15'?

Send me a PM.

 

[dexterbell]

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

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

 

[Fineance]

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

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)?

 

[legioxi]

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)?

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.

 

[Fineance]

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.

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?

 

[dexterbell]

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?

Yes.