Which CPU for Retina?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Rangomango, Oct 2, 2012.

Most Liked Posts
  1. Rangomango, Oct 2, 2012

    Rangomango macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    #1
    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.
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  2. Orlandoech, Oct 2, 2012

    Orlandoech macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #2
    2.3/16/256 or 512
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  3. 2005CTS, Oct 2, 2012

    2005CTS macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    #3
    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.
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  4. Rangomango, Oct 2, 2012

    Rangomango thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    #4
    Do you mind justifying this? Thanks!

    PS: Checked out your website, nice pics.
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  5. theineffablebob, Oct 2, 2012

    theineffablebob macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2012
    #5
    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.
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  6. Orlandoech, Oct 2, 2012

    Orlandoech macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #6
    Thanks!

    Because $100 is worth 300mhz which will make 0 difference in almost anything unless its encoding/decoding. Oh and benchmarks.
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  7. Rangomango, Oct 2, 2012

    Rangomango thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    #7
    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?
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  8. eagandale4114, Oct 2, 2012

    eagandale4114 macrumors 65816

    eagandale4114

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    #8
    Unless you really need it or plan on using it for 5+ years then dont get it. I would upgrade RAM/SSD before CPU.
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  9. nitromac, Oct 2, 2012

    nitromac macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2012
    Location:
    US
    #9
    I'd get the 800mhz option
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  10. Rangomango, Oct 2, 2012

    Rangomango thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    #10
    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.
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  11. Dark Void, Oct 2, 2012

    Dark Void macrumors 68030

    Dark Void

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    #11
    I'd just get the base, honestly.
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  12. Rangomango, Oct 2, 2012

    Rangomango thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    #12
    Could you please elaborate?
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  13. Orlandoech, Oct 2, 2012

    Orlandoech macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #13

    He means the 2.3/8/256

    I got the 2.3/16/256 for future use.
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  14. Queen6, Oct 2, 2012

    Queen6 macrumors 604

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Land of the Unexpected
    #14
    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.
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  15. Rangomango, Oct 2, 2012

    Rangomango thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    #15
    Sorry if I wasn't clear, I mean like why the 8gb ram vs the 16gb. Everyone has recommended upgrading that part so far.
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  16. Orlandoech, Oct 2, 2012

    Orlandoech macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #16
    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.
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  17. Dark Void, Oct 2, 2012

    Dark Void macrumors 68030

    Dark Void

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2011
    #17
    I meant the base processor - 2.3GHz i7-3615QM.
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  18. hawon, Oct 2, 2012

    hawon macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    #18
    I got 2.6/16/256.
    It's only $100 more. why not?
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  19. iAppl3Fan, Oct 3, 2012

    iAppl3Fan macrumors 6502a

    iAppl3Fan

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    #19
    My words exactly.
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  20. Rangomango, Oct 3, 2012

    Rangomango thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2012
    #20
    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.
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
  21. iAppl3Fan, Oct 3, 2012

    iAppl3Fan macrumors 6502a

    iAppl3Fan

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    #21
    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.
     
    share
    + Quote Reply
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Share This Page