What difference has 1.3 really made?

[ZipZap]

I see all those people who have or are still waiting for the 1.3 version of the rMB and I wonder why.

Seems all they do is get the laptop and then immediately run Geekbench as some sort of validation.

Seriously...

In your day to day usage what difference has the faster CPU really made?

 

[freitz]

I see all those people who have or are still waiting for the 1.3 version of the rMB and I wonder why.

Seems all they do is get the laptop and then immediately run Geekbench as some sort of validation.

Seriously...

In your day to day usage what difference has the faster CPU really made?

I was wondering the same question and have come to this conclusion. After researching the forums for a little bit. The 1.3 is more power efficient because it has faster bursts and performance better in more demanding applications.

For me personally If I were to purchase rMB it is a second machine that I am replacing a 2011 MBA for mobile lightroom and photoshop use. I need high portability and the extra bursts from the 1.3 would help with processing images.

 

[PDFierro]

Peace of mind, really. Plus, I occasionally rip/encode Blu-rays. It's my only computer, so I can justify maxing out the specs. But no, I don't notice a difference in day-to-day usage, but that doesn't bother me.

 

[freitz]

Peace of mind, really. Plus, I occasionally rip/encode Blu-rays. It's my only computer, so I can justify maxing out the specs. But no, I don't notice a difference in day-to-day usage, but that doesn't bother me.

Nice.


To the OP, if your uses need more cpu horsepower than 1.1 then a 1.3 is not going to do it. It will run everything the 1.1 runs just with quicker bursts. What types of programs are you running?

 

[mac-jam]

I agree with the OP.
If the stock 1.1 can't really handle your needs and you think the 1.3 can you may be thinking wrong. I mean I think you should perhaps look at a different mac line.

 

[ZipZap]

I agree with the OP.
If the stock 1.1 can't really handle your needs and you think the 1.3 can you may be thinking wrong. I mean I think you should perhaps look at a different mac line.

So that is my point. No one has said anything concrete. Bursts, picture processing. Little faster. Should you need or want that on a rMB?

There is nothing here that can be measured to support the cost. I sure can see the need for diversity in processors on more capable devices but on the rMB its feels unnecessary.

All of the rMBs should have been 1.3. Based upon design and price, Apple should have put the best most efficient processor in the device.

----------

Nice.


To the OP, if your uses need more cpu horsepower than 1.1 then a 1.3 is not going to do it. It will run everything the 1.1 runs just with quicker bursts. What types of programs are you running?

Can you measure that need? Do you actually know what difference it makes. Is it 5 seconds faster or 120 seconds faster?

Did Apple provide any benchmarks?

I think this comes down to thermal efficiency. And because of that the only processor in this device should have been the 1.3.

----------

I would really like to see the following across all 3 CPUS:

1) Temp at bottom
2) Charge duration
3) web browsing timing

Geekbench, in my opinion seeks peeks and not everyday use.

 

[PDFierro]

Is it that big of a decision, though?

 

[Yakibomb]

I would really like to see the following across all 3 CPUS:

1) Temp at bottom
2) Charge duration
3) web browsing timing

Geekbench, in my opinion seeks peeks and not everyday use.

This has always been a pet peeve of mine when looking for an upgrade, all the benchmarks and reviews focus on the absolute peek performance of devices with only a footnote going towards everyday usage. I'd love to see a new benchmarking tool that compared everyday performance of devices!

----------

Is it that big of a decision, though?

For someone on a tight budget (like a student) a few hundred dollars can make a huge difference

 

[magbarn]

Peace of mind, really. Plus, I occasionally rip/encode Blu-rays. It's my only computer, so I can justify maxing out the specs. But no, I don't notice a difference in day-to-day usage, but that doesn't bother me.

I really hope you have set up a bootcamp partition so you can do handbrake using quick sync (which OS X doesn't allow), There's a small quality loss, but with quick sync my wife's rMB is pretty much as fast as rMBP 13 also using quick sync. Also, the difference between the 1.1/1.3 would be nonexistent. OTOH, if using handbrake in OS X, her rMBP is about 5 times slower in encoding blu rays than my 2012 rMBP 15.

PS I'm not so sure if the 1.3 is even an advantage in OS X as you would be thermally limited the whole time and all three 1.1/1.2/1.3 cpu's would throttle a bit if running something that intensive for hours.

 

[jimboutilier]

I typically purshase the "maxed out" version of most things I buy.

You know you got the "best" version available, the ownership experience is usually better, it tends to extend the ownership period, and resale price is usually better. Why scrimp up front for something you'll be living with for years?

For this particular case, nothing is upgradable and this is a low powered CPU that other implementations have had poor performance reviews on. The fastest version is going to minimize this possibility. As this is a binned CPU, the fastest version will be most power and heat effecient. And as the fastest version I will feel more productive over a longer time before I feel the need to replace it. As this is the primary machine I'll be using to make a good living, the cost to max out is very small compared to my perceived benefits over time.

Everyone has their own resources, priorities, needs and use cases so this approach isn't the best for everyone. Most folks are very happy and well served by one of the stock offerings and I'm sure that's why they ARE the stock offerings.

Sure there is a speed and effeciency advantage to the 1.3. The question is if the price premium is worth the benefit to you. Everyone can have a different calculation and there is no one right answer for everyone.

 

[PDFierro]

I really hope you have set up a bootcamp partition so you can do handbrake using quick sync (which OS X doesn't allow), There's a small quality loss, but with quick sync my wife's rMB is pretty much as fast as rMBP 13 also using quick sync. Also, the difference between the 1.1/1.3 would be nonexistent. OTOH, if using handbrake in OS X, her rMBP is about 5 times slower in encoding blu rays than my 2012 rMBP 15.

PS I'm not so sure if the 1.3 is even an advantage in OS X as you would be thermally limited the whole time and all three 1.1/1.2/1.3 cpu's would throttle a bit if running something that intensive for hours.

I wasn't aware of that. Thanks, I'll look into it. What I do right now is use MakeMKV first to rip the file directly, and then HandBrake to bring it down to a smaller size. Most of my movies are bought through iTunes, so I only do this for certain movies. It's not an everyday thing.

 

[bcaslis]

I agree with the other posters, the 1.3 doesn't make a noticeable real world difference. But compared to the 1.2 model, it's only a $150 upgrade, so why not for whatever performance gain there might be.

And yes, first thing I did was run Geekbench 3. And it was slow until all the indexing finished.

 

[Wahlstrm]

I think maybe the 1,3 is what the base should have been but Apple has entry-level prices to meet so that´s why we have cheaper versions.

(Kinda like the 4GB soldered ram with other models, totally useless but makes the machine meet a price point)

And if you do the math you basically get what you pay for.
According to todays geek bench MC scores and prices on apple.com:

1,3ghz ≈ 3,441 GB points / $1 spent
1,1ghz ≈ 3,411 GB points / $1 spent
1,2ghz ≈ 3,125 GB points / $1 spent

(If you could buy 1,2ghz w/o the SSD upgrade: ≈ 3,571 GB points / $1 spent)

 

[andeschau]

just simple for me.

I can afford the price of max spec, then I choose it.

At least I don't regret not choosing the max spec, when it doesn't have the horsepower to run the program.

 

[ProwlingTiger]

Just looking at the title, I thought we were talking about screen real estate coming from a 13.3". That hasn't made much difference to me.

 

[BoneHead001]

I typically purshase the "maxed out" version of most things I buy.

You know you got the "best" version available, the ownership experience is usually better, it tends to extend the ownership period, and resale price is usually better. Why scrimp up front for something you'll be living with for years?

For this particular case, nothing is upgradable and this is a low powered CPU that other implementations have had poor performance reviews on. The fastest version is going to minimize this possibility. As this is a binned CPU, the fastest version will be most power and heat effecient. And as the fastest version I will feel more productive over a longer time before I feel the need to replace it. As this is the primary machine I'll be using to make a good living, the cost to max out is very small compared to my perceived benefits over time.

Everyone has their own resources, priorities, needs and use cases so this approach isn't the best for everyone. Most folks are very happy and well served by one of the stock offerings and I'm sure that's why they ARE the stock offerings.

Sure there is a speed and effeciency advantage to the 1.3. The question is if the price premium is worth the benefit to you. Everyone can have a different calculation and there is no one right answer for everyone.

I could not have said it better. I completely agree.

 

[pasadena]

I initially got the 1.2/512 - although what I sure don't need is extra storage. But I didn't think the 1.3 was worth the difference in waiting.

Then I returned it (because the battery seemed deffective), and ordered the 1.3/256 for the same price (roughly). By then, both had the exact same estimated shipping time.

I chose the 1.3 because, as I said, I don't need the extra storage, so I'd rather spend the same money for the potential improvements from the CPU upgrade. By the time I ordered, I was starting to see quite a few user reviews of the 1.3, and it seems that it's more efficient in terms of heat and battery life. For me, that's more important than storage. Maybe 99% complaints I see regarding performances are about the base models, so that one was out for me.

 

[ucfgrad93]

I typically purshase the "maxed out" version of most things I buy.

You know you got the "best" version available, the ownership experience is usually better, it tends to extend the ownership period, and resale price is usually better. Why scrimp up front for something you'll be living with for years?

For this particular case, nothing is upgradable and this is a low powered CPU that other implementations have had poor performance reviews on. The fastest version is going to minimize this possibility. As this is a binned CPU, the fastest version will be most power and heat effecient. And as the fastest version I will feel more productive over a longer time before I feel the need to replace it. As this is the primary machine I'll be using to make a good living, the cost to max out is very small compared to my perceived benefits over time.

Everyone has their own resources, priorities, needs and use cases so this approach isn't the best for everyone. Most folks are very happy and well served by one of the stock offerings and I'm sure that's why they ARE the stock offerings.

Sure there is a speed and effeciency advantage to the 1.3. The question is if the price premium is worth the benefit to you. Everyone can have a different calculation and there is no one right answer for everyone.

Well said, and I completely agree.

 

[French River]

I typically purshase the "maxed out" version of most things I buy.

You know you got the "best" version available, the ownership experience is usually better, it tends to extend the ownership period, and resale price is usually better. Why scrimp up front for something you'll be living with for years?

For this particular case, nothing is upgradable and this is a low powered CPU that other implementations have had poor performance reviews on. The fastest version is going to minimize this possibility. As this is a binned CPU, the fastest version will be most power and heat effecient. And as the fastest version I will feel more productive over a longer time before I feel the need to replace it. As this is the primary machine I'll be using to make a good living, the cost to max out is very small compared to my perceived benefits over time.

Everyone has their own resources, priorities, needs and use cases so this approach isn't the best for everyone. Most folks are very happy and well served by one of the stock offerings and I'm sure that's why they ARE the stock offerings.

Sure there is a speed and effeciency advantage to the 1.3. The question is if the price premium is worth the benefit to you. Everyone can have a different calculation and there is no one right answer for everyone.

This. I use my computers for many years, then pass them on to relatives. If purchasing the 1.3 means my niece or nephew will experience a little more speed and effeciency and a little less frustration four years from now, it's worth the extra cost to me now.

 

[Music Lover]

I also got the 1.3 model, and for same reason as others in the thread. Better termial effeciency and battery lifetime being the main reasons.
And it will also handle more firmare upgrades over the years.

 

[ZipZap]

I typically purshase the "maxed out" version of most things I buy.

You know you got the "best" version available, the ownership experience is usually better, it tends to extend the ownership period, and resale price is usually better. Why scrimp up front for something you'll be living with for years?

For this particular case, nothing is upgradable and this is a low powered CPU that other implementations have had poor performance reviews on. The fastest version is going to minimize this possibility. As this is a binned CPU, the fastest version will be most power and heat effecient. And as the fastest version I will feel more productive over a longer time before I feel the need to replace it. As this is the primary machine I'll be using to make a good living, the cost to max out is very small compared to my perceived benefits over time.

Everyone has their own resources, priorities, needs and use cases so this approach isn't the best for everyone. Most folks are very happy and well served by one of the stock offerings and I'm sure that's why they ARE the stock offerings.

Sure there is a speed and effeciency advantage to the 1.3. The question is if the price premium is worth the benefit to you. Everyone can have a different calculation and there is no one right answer for everyone.

In some cases it makes sense. For the rMB it makes no sense. There does not appear to me to be any added value. I would even debate the need for a 512 GB drive.

----------

I agree with the other posters, the 1.3 doesn't make a noticeable real world difference. But compared to the 1.2 model, it's only a $150 upgrade, so why not for whatever performance gain there might be.

And yes, first thing I did was run Geekbench 3. And it was slow until all the indexing finished.

Because your money may have been better spent on AppleCare for example. $150 is not a small amount for something that will be dated in a year.

----------

I initially got the 1.2/512 - although what I sure don't need is extra storage. But I didn't think the 1.3 was worth the difference in waiting.

Then I returned it (because the battery seemed deffective), and ordered the 1.3/256 for the same price (roughly). By then, both had the exact same estimated shipping time.

I chose the 1.3 because, as I said, I don't need the extra storage, so I'd rather spend the same money for the potential improvements from the CPU upgrade. By the time I ordered, I was starting to see quite a few user reviews of the 1.3, and it seems that it's more efficient in terms of heat and battery life. For me, that's more important than storage. Maybe 99% complaints I see regarding performances are about the base models, so that one was out for me.

I have seen nothing quantifiable that says those benefits are true in everyday use.

 

[KPOM]

I used to buy CPU updates but for my last 2 Macs have not. The difference isn't enough to justify the extra expense, IMO. In percentage terms the base models get better resale value.

 

[CausticSoda]

In some cases it makes sense. For the rMB it makes no sense. There does not appear to me to be any added value. I would even debate the need for a 512 GB drive.

How can you possibly "debate the need for a 512 GB drive"? For some people it will be too big, for others it will be about right and for others it will be too small. People have different needs. In my personal case, for what it is worth, when I transfer my files to it (it arrives in three days' time - finally!) I will fill about 250 Gb. That leaves more room to grow into. So, 512 Gb is just right for me. And before you say it, no, I don't want to store everything in the Cloud.

 

[dukebound85]

I used to buy CPU updates but for my last 2 Macs have not. The difference isn't enough to justify the extra expense, IMO. In percentage terms the base models get better resale value.

This....and the premiums used to get the higher cpu is often times a significant % of the future "base machine" that would be better in all regards

 

[bcaslis]

Because your money may have been better spent on AppleCare for example. $150 is not a small amount for something that will be dated in a year.

In your opinion. Not mine. Why do people here assume everyone must think like them. No one is forcing you to get one, and no one can tell me what is the better way for me to spend my money.