Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Which MBP is best on PERFORMANCE
- Thread starter JR1993
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
obviously the 15in since it has quad core processor and the graphics are better than the 13in MBPs.
I'm not sure about this. I've read a couple of roundups where they say that the 2.7Ghz 13" dual core can better the 15" 2.0 quad core in simple day-to-day tasks.
Plus, if you add an SSD and 8GB of memory to your 13", the difference is even more negligible. I have a 2010 model 13" and recently bought the 2.2Ghz quad core 2011 15". Both use SSDs.
For most day to day tasks, there's no difference at all. It's only when you start playing games, video editing and so on, when the 15" power comes through.
If you only write, edit spreadsheets, chat, surf the internet etc, the 13" is all you'll ever need.
On a personal level, I much prefer the 13" design, too. 15" seems heavy, large, not particularly portable etc.
The only reason I ask is to convince myself the 13 inch isnt enough for me.
I want an AG screen, which i can get only on 15". I want to play games, so dGPU helps on 15". I also want to use as a desktop pc, so 15" is obv better. I just look back to the 13" because I would save £370, but as it will last a long time, im hoping that is less than £100 per year.
I want an AG screen, which i can get only on 15". I want to play games, so dGPU helps on 15". I also want to use as a desktop pc, so 15" is obv better. I just look back to the 13" because I would save £370, but as it will last a long time, im hoping that is less than £100 per year.
I like the shiny screen. I don't play games. I use the MBP as a desktop PC. I carry my computer around on my back a lot of the day. I think the 13" is perfect for me.
But, it sounds like you wouldn't like it. So, get a 15". It seems like an easy choice for both of us!
It just depends on what you do with the computer, because there isn't a straight up answer as to which is better.
So, what do you do with a computer?
This is false. It's highly dependent of the application.
The Dual core is faster than the quad core if only 2 or less cores are supported. Only if all 4 cores are used, then it's faster.
So there is no answer to this question which is better. Maybe in the future when all applications support 4 cores, then the quad core should be faster.
Doesn't compensate for it. Saw some benchmark where the 2.7 ghz i7 Dual Core won in single core performance.
So it's highly dependent on what you use
Doesn't compensate for it. Saw some benchmark where the 2.7 ghz i7 Dual Core won in single core performance.
So it's highly dependent on what you use
That's surprising because the 2.0 should turbo boost the hell out of the processor and eat the 2.7 alive. Or does the low end 2.0 quad on the 15" not have turbo boost?
-baffled-
In any event, get the 15" OP. It's much more future proof, and will still be faster than the 13" for most everything. Stuff should start being optimized for more cores too. Also, it'll eat the 13"s lunch when it comes to gaming performance.
Last edited:
That's surprising because the 2.0 should turbo boost the hell out of the processor and eat the 2.7 alive. Or does the low end 2.0 quad on the 15" not have turbo boost?
-baffled-
Both got Turbo boost. 4 cores generate more heat so I guess the Dual core can Turbo boost a single core more aggressive?
Cinebench R10 - single-cpu
iMac 2011 ********* 5227
MBP 2011 dualcore (2,7GHz) ******** 4814
MBP 2011 dualcore (2,3GHz) ******* 4080
MBP 2011 quadcore (2GHz) ******* 4025
iMac 2009 ****** 3859
Cinebench R10 - multi-cpu
iMac 2011 ********* 20.050
MBP 2011 quadcore (2GHz) ****** 14.727
iMac 2009 ***** 12.161
MBP 2011 dualcore (2,7GHz) **** 10.195
MBP 2011 dualcore (2,3GHz) **** 8686
It is actually that the 2630QM with its 2.0 Ghz is a sort of limited Quad Core. Kind of the low end that is artificially limited so people have a reason to pay for the 2720QM (2.2 Ghz).
The difference is mostly the Turbo boost. At the same clock speeds all Sandy Bridge cores are the same for all intents and purposes.
Cores Modelname default Clock Turbo bins
2 2620M 2.7Ghz 3.1, 3.4
4 2630QM 2.0Ghz 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9
4 2720QM 2.2Ghz 3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3
4 2820QM 2.3Ghz 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4
This is all maximum Turbo and how long it can stay on which clock speed depends on the thermals and the TDP but still everyone can see, there is hardly any difference between the highend 2.2 and 2.3 GHZ Quads and both will finish or be at least as fast as the 2.7Ghz Dual Core but the 2.0 Ghz Quad just offers a comparably poor Turbo mode.
At the same Clock though the 2.2 Ghz Quad will always be faster because when it is running only 2 cores it is running them almost as fast but with twice the L3 Cache which gets shared among all cores if only one uses it or two than there is more than with the DC.
Everything that needs only one or two HT cores than the 2.7Ghz Dual Core will be almost as fast as the highend Quads or faster than the 2.0 Ghz Quad.
Highly threaded workload which means pretty much any heavy duty stuff will be faster on the DC.
In practice this means only in some benchmarks the DC might be better in real life the Quad always wins. The situations where the DC is slightly better in real world usage are really the unimportant ones where you won't feel the difference (like starting up a browser where the SSD matters more). When you require speed software today is always parallel enough and the Quad wins by a big margin.
The difference is mostly the Turbo boost. At the same clock speeds all Sandy Bridge cores are the same for all intents and purposes.
Cores Modelname default Clock Turbo bins
2 2620M 2.7Ghz 3.1, 3.4
4 2630QM 2.0Ghz 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9
4 2720QM 2.2Ghz 3, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3
4 2820QM 2.3Ghz 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4
This is all maximum Turbo and how long it can stay on which clock speed depends on the thermals and the TDP but still everyone can see, there is hardly any difference between the highend 2.2 and 2.3 GHZ Quads and both will finish or be at least as fast as the 2.7Ghz Dual Core but the 2.0 Ghz Quad just offers a comparably poor Turbo mode.
At the same Clock though the 2.2 Ghz Quad will always be faster because when it is running only 2 cores it is running them almost as fast but with twice the L3 Cache which gets shared among all cores if only one uses it or two than there is more than with the DC.
Everything that needs only one or two HT cores than the 2.7Ghz Dual Core will be almost as fast as the highend Quads or faster than the 2.0 Ghz Quad.
Highly threaded workload which means pretty much any heavy duty stuff will be faster on the DC.
In practice this means only in some benchmarks the DC might be better in real life the Quad always wins. The situations where the DC is slightly better in real world usage are really the unimportant ones where you won't feel the difference (like starting up a browser where the SSD matters more). When you require speed software today is always parallel enough and the Quad wins by a big margin.
I would use the pc for:
Internet & Word processing in Office and LaTeX
Light gaming, CSS COD4 etc
Mathematical modelling in MATLAB and R
thats about it I think.
I would put in a SATA III SSD 120GB, then put the 500GB 5400rpm apple HDD in a caddy/enclosure thingy to use for photo/movie storage.
I think the 13" would do what I want really, however in my mind:
13" = very portable, have to have a desktop or external monitor
15" = portable without need for monitor
17" = rare need for portability, and just too much for what I want.
It would be while im at university, so on a nice day I would do work outside (hence desire for AG). Also to use on train and around campus.
I know I want the 15", just I keep looking at the 13" for some reason.
Internet & Word processing in Office and LaTeX
Light gaming, CSS COD4 etc
Mathematical modelling in MATLAB and R
thats about it I think.
I would put in a SATA III SSD 120GB, then put the 500GB 5400rpm apple HDD in a caddy/enclosure thingy to use for photo/movie storage.
I think the 13" would do what I want really, however in my mind:
13" = very portable, have to have a desktop or external monitor
15" = portable without need for monitor
17" = rare need for portability, and just too much for what I want.
It would be while im at university, so on a nice day I would do work outside (hence desire for AG). Also to use on train and around campus.
I know I want the 15", just I keep looking at the 13" for some reason.
There is no point in me going for the 2.2GHz quad because the performance gained/price is very low for me.
In the UK the step up is £300, and when it is expensive enough already, that is just too expensive.
Get the 15" with AG. You will be unhappy if you get the glossy screen when you know you don't want it.
I would definitely like to get another 13" for household use, but, the glassy 13" display bugs me. Most of Apple's marketing decisions make sense to me, but, the lack of AG option on the 13" is completely baffling.