Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Which CPU for Retina?

R

Rangomango

macrumors member
Original poster
Jun 25, 2012
94
2
Hey everyone,

So im deciding which configuration MacBook pro retina I want to buy. I have already decided on getting the 16gb ram and 256gb SSD.

I would like to know what are user's experience in regard to the CPU and associated battery life, mainly the 2.3ghz and 2.6 Ghz. I feel that the 2.6ghz is definitely worth the cost, but my main concern is if there is additional drain on battery or is it the drain about the same.

Now i understand that both consume the same power, but searching here on the forum yields inconsistant answers to the question. Some say because the power draw is the same, it wont affect battery. Others say it will run at a slightly higher clock causing additional battery drain.

Question: So anyone with experience have an idea if the 2.6ghz processor does actually drain the battery faster than the 2.3 or is it relatively the same?

I understand it will depend on the task being done and which graphics card is being used. Just curious if anyone has experience and/or can comment on the topic.

My uses: Software engineering, web development and dj software.

I understand for my uses I wont need the additional power, but for $100 it makes sense to just upgrade.
 
2.6ghz Retina MacBook Pro

I just ordered a Retina Mac Book Pro with the 2.6GHz processor and 16GB of RAM and the 512GB SSD. Can't wait. I have an i7 2011 27" iMac and my wife has a 13" Mac Book Pro - both of which have been great machines.

My question in addition to experience with processor performance is if anyone has ever used a Mac and run a virtual machine to run Windows. Not a dual boot - but a virtual machine.

I will be using this computer partially for work and will need windows. My IT department is going to set it up for me and said it will work without any issue - but wanted to see if anyone else has had experience.

Can't wait to see the performance of the SSD and 16GB of RAM. If this is as good as everyone says it is...then I will updating my wife to a 13" Retina Mac Book Pro when it comes out.
 
Just get the 2.3 and save $100. You can compare the 2.3 and 2.6 side-by-side and, in most apps, you won't even notice any difference. Unless you know what you'd need the 2.6 for, you probably don't need it.
 
Rangomango said:
Do you mind justifying this? Thanks!

PS: Checked out your website, nice pics.
Click to expand...

Thanks!

Because $100 is worth 300mhz which will make 0 difference in almost anything unless its encoding/decoding. Oh and benchmarks.
 
Thanks for the replies guys,

I know at the moment I won't use either processor to the full potential, but I feel like for 5% of the cost of the machine, as long as there isn't major battery drain it makes sense to upgrade? Just incase a couple years down the line I do need the extra power?
 
Rangomango said:
Thanks for the replies guys,

I know at the moment I won't use either processor to the full potential, but I feel like for 5% of the cost of the machine, as long as there isn't major battery drain it makes sense to upgrade? Just incase a couple years down the line I do need the extra power?
Click to expand...

Unless you really need it or plan on using it for 5+ years then dont get it. I would upgrade RAM/SSD before CPU.
 
Orlandoech.com said:
Thanks!

Because $100 is worth 300mhz which will make 0 difference in almost anything unless its encoding/decoding. Oh and benchmarks.
Click to expand...

Makes sense, thanks for the help fellas. Looks like ill go with the 2.3

Going to leave this open just incase someone has battery stats between the two.
 
2.3 by the time this CPU is pushed its highly likely that other aspects of the system will be struggling to keep up. The only people that will realistically benefit are those.that frequently run their systems at 100% CPU load and can potentially convert the time save into revenue.

300Hz on a quad core. I7 will add nothing to the day to day user experience, nor will it aid to future proof the system. If you do a lot of video encoding what it will do is save you a minute or two here and there or if you are running some of the very heavyweight statistical analysis software which can also be very CPU intensive.
 
Rangomango said:
Sorry if I wasn't clear, I mean like why the 8gb ram vs the 16gb. Everyone has recommended upgrading that part so far.
Click to expand...

8gb is plenty for most users. But if you plan on running vms or keeping the machine for 3-4 years I'd recommend the 16gb.
 
Rangomango said:
Thats why I was asking does it affect battery life. The engadget test shows it gets about an hour and a half less than the 2.6.
Click to expand...

For basic tasks it shouldn't. For intensive tasks it should but the difference would be minor that I wouldn't even worry about it and went with the 2.6.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back