Vast difference between 2.4 and 2.7?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by AroundTheFur922, Jan 26, 2015.

  1. AroundTheFur922 macrumors member

    AroundTheFur922

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Location:
    NJ
    #1
    I was recently trying to decide between buying a used iMac or a used rMBP for a decent power bump over my 2012 cMBP as I was starting to get more heavily involved in FCPX/After Effects/Photoshop. A close friend brought over his early 2013 15" rMBP with a 2.7 i7/16GB RAM/GT 650m for me to "experiment" with. I ran 8 tabs of Chrome (4 of which were streaming 4k videos on YouTube) while also running Aperture and iMovie in the background. Not a hitch to be found. No lag anywhere and the four simultaneous 4k videos were all running flawlessly. Needless to say I was very impressed and ordered an almost identical model used from Amazon the next morning, the only difference being my 2.4 i7 vs the 2.7 i7 I tested. After doing a fresh Yosemite install, I attempted to run a similar test on my machine and with only 4 Chrome tabs open (2 of which were 4k YouTube videos) and no other applications open I started to hit hiccups as both videos would just freeze every few seconds while trying to stream and if I expanded to fullscreen they just wouldn't load at all. I assumed at first my internet connection was the root of the issue but doing a quick Speedtest check revealed my FiOS connection was still giving me my usual 50/50 connection speed. My question being, would the downgrade from a 2.7 i7 to a 2.4 i7 yield such a drastic difference?
     
  2. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #2
    2.4 to 2.7 shouldn't make a vast difference, but if yours has 8GB of RAM instead of 16GB, it might.

    The GPU is the same, both have 1GB GT 650M.

    Note that RAM is soldered and not upgradeable.
     
  3. AroundTheFur922 thread starter macrumors member

    AroundTheFur922

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Location:
    NJ
  4. BasicGreatGuy Contributor

    BasicGreatGuy

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Location:
    In the middle of several books.
    #4
    If you can save money getting the 2.4, that is the way to go. Otherwise, you are buying spec just to say you have spec, in my opinion.
     
  5. iPad Retina macrumors 6502a

    iPad Retina

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2013
    Location:
    Canada
    #5
    Get 2.7ghz, it's just better in the long run

    ----------


    Same, looking for a MacBook pro still
     
  6. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #6
    Uh, the OP already stated that he already bought the 2.4GHz variant. He's wondering why does his 2.4/16 model perform much poorer than his friend's 2.7/16
     
  7. redheeler macrumors 603

    redheeler

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #7
    To clarify, the OP said the cMBP has a 2.4 i7, which would date it to late 2011.
     
  8. leman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    #8
    Try resetting SMC and PRAM. The CPU difference should not have such massive impact. But it has been noted that virtually the same MacBooks can have quite different performance characteristics. Maybe there is some hidden variation in hardware that we are not aware of.
     
  9. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #9
    Nope, the early-2013 15" rMBP has a 2.4GHz option as well.

    The OP got a 2.4GHz/16GB RAM/1GB GT 650M early-2013 15" rMBP.

    Unless, the OP happened to really goof up and bought a late-2011 model by accident instead.

    ----------

    Are you sure you did not buy the wrong MBP? The late-2011 non-retina 15" has a 2.4GHz option as well.

    Can you go to  → About This Mac, snap a screenshot and attach it here?
     
  10. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #10
    No no no the op was replacing his mbp with either an iMac or rmbp and settled for the rmbp 2.4/16

    Op have you checked everything's been updated? Also ask your friend if he's running a utility to force the dgpu to run rather than the igpu
     
  11. redheeler macrumors 603

    redheeler

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2014
    #11
    My mistake, I completely misunderstood what the OP was asking and the cMBP is irrelevant to the question. I doubt the OP got a late 2011 by mistake.
     
  12. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #12
    +1.

    Side note: I noticed that the OP stated that he's using Chrome. Doesn't Chrome force the dGPU to be active?
     
  13. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #13
    Usually but we know chromes a bit finicky lol
     
  14. AroundTheFur922 thread starter macrumors member

    AroundTheFur922

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Location:
    NJ
    #14
    I apologize for any confusion, I'll specify :
    1) I have already purchased the Macbook, it is indeed an early 2013 15" rMBP with 2.4 i7/16GB RAM. It has replaced a 2012 cMBP.

    2) I installed iStat Menus and when I was running the tests, the CPU/GPU meter had the GT 650m being listed as the active GPU. My friend is not running an app to force the Nvidia card and we are both running Yosemite. Is there a way to manually set which is running at all times between HD 4000/ GT 650m?

    I know this seems like such a minor thing to complain about but I just wanted to make sure there wasn't some easily overseen issue I was missing.
     
  15. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #15
    Use gfxcardstatus to see which GPU is active. You can also use it to force the dGPU to be active.

    Side note: Also run Geekbench 3 on both machines and see what are the score differences. If the differences are huge, chances are that there is something very wrong with your system to cause severe throttling.
     
  16. AroundTheFur922 thread starter macrumors member

    AroundTheFur922

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2013
    Location:
    NJ
    #16
    I ran Geekbench (only the 32-bit version was available for free and i wasn't connected to a power supply) and ended up with a score of 2853 single core, and 10920 multi score.
     
  17. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #17
    Alright, your results are in line with other i7-3635QMs in 32-bit mode.

    I wonder what's wrong.

    Have you made sure everything on your Mac is up to date? And try using gfxcardstatus to force the 650M to be active.
     

Share This Page