What am I missing here?

[mrianforest]

I know i'm being dumb, someone please help me...

I've got a Mid-2012 13" MacBook Pro, 2.9ghz i7 with 8GB of 1600mhz DDR3.

I want to upgrade to a retina version of this however umm, they only do 2-core i5's....

No i7?

 

[Intell]

There is a build to order i7 option for the retina 13" Macbook Pro.

 

[mrianforest]

The i7 I have now...is that quad core? Even online they state the i7 is dual-core?

 

[Intell]

There has never been a 4 core 13" Macbook. They have always been either 1 or 2 core.

 

[Spink10]

I know i'm being dumb, someone please help me...

I've got a Mid-2012 13" MacBook Pro, 2.9ghz i7 with 8GB of 1600mhz DDR3.

I want to upgrade to a retina version of this however umm, they only do 2-core i5's....

No i7?

i7 doesnt mean quad-core

 

[icsd08063]

i7 doesn't always mean quad-core

Fixed.
Most processors in the i7 lineup are quad core processors but there are 2 core processors too.

13" MacBook's are all equipped and configured with 2 core processor's, no matter if it is i5 or i7: they are all dual cores.
15" MacBook's on the other hand are all equipped and configured with quad core processor's.

 

[Spink10]

[/COLOR]

Fixed.
Most processors in the i7 lineup are quad core processors but there are 2 core processors too.

13" MacBook's are all equipped and configured with 2 core processor's, no matter if it is i5 or i7: they are all dual cores.
15" MacBook's on the other hand are all equipped and configured with quad core processor's.

context 13"

 

[Queen6]

You likely wont need the i7 unless you need to run the CPU at 100% as the difference in performance between the i5 & i7 is negligible. Better to go for 2.6 256SSD or 2.8 512 SSD

Q-6

 

[MrGimper]

Having owned the 3.0 i7 for about a week, I've now dropped to the 2.8 i5 and notice zero difference. Both are dual-core and both are hyper-threaded. I returned my i7/16/512 for a refurb i5 2.8/16/1TB

The difference between the i7 3.0 and i5 2.8 is about 150 points in geek bench. I think the general consensus is about a 5% performance difference between the two that 95% of users won't notice. I certainly haven't.

 

[maflynn]

I want to upgrade to a retina version of this however umm, they only do 2-core i5's....

You can upgrade to i7 on the rMBP, but it will still be dual core as mentioned.

 

[Freyqq]

The i7 I have now...is that quad core? Even online they state the i7 is dual-core?

dual core. 2 physical cores and 2 virtual cores.

 

[Meister]

dual core. 2 physical cores and 2 virtual cores.

4 virtual cores.

 

[Brian Y]

Having owned the 3.0 i7 for about a week, I've now dropped to the 2.8 i5 and notice zero difference. Both are dual-core and both are hyper-threaded. I returned my i7/16/512 for a refurb i5 2.8/16/1TB

The difference between the i7 3.0 and i5 2.8 is about 150 points in geek bench. I think the general consensus is about a 5% performance difference between the two that 95% of users won't notice. I certainly haven't.

Yep, this is pretty much spot on.

Unless you are doing anything computationally heavy, you will pretty much nevernever need, or notice any improvement, from the base spec processor. Heck, most people, in day to day usage, wouldn't notice the difference between a Core2Duo and an i7. The biggest noticeable performance increase comes from the SSD.

 

[MrGimper]

Just to put things in context.... if you look at geekbench, the current 2.8 i5 actually outperforms the late 2013 i7 (also 2.8). So if you would have been happy to buy last years i7, then there you go....

32-bit Single Core
3.0 i7 (Mid 2014) = 3123
2.8 i5 (Mid 2014) = 2968
2.8 i7 (Late 2013) = 2968

32-bit Multi Core
3.0 i7 (Mid 2014) = 6364
2.8 i5 (Mid 2014) = 6151
2.8 i7 (Late 2013) = 6025