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 Processor Configuration is Better?
- Thread starter jmine83
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
People who need to ask this question generally don't care about the answer. You probably just browse the internet, listen to music, and do "some video or photo editing."
Most average users won't notice any difference in performance between the two. Those that would notice already know which they need.
Believe me I care. I run Parallels and multiple virtual machines. I am asking this because I am seriously considering buying the latest MCP with Retina Display that has 256 GB flash storage. There is a guy in my town who just bought one and is selling it at a steep discount and I'm wondering if it is significantly better than my 2010 MCP with 17 inch screen, 512 GB SSD, and 8 GB memory. On the whole, the specs look nearly the same between my MCP and the latest MCP except with regards to the processor and graphics specs. Therefore that where the real comparison comes down to.
You still won't likely notice any difference. Running VMs is more RAM intensive than it is processor intensive.
I understand your question, as most people here wonder about this at some point (some a lot 
).
The Quad is much faster. The dual will start to win the race when it's something like , 2GHZ quad vs 3GHZ dual. Then you are probably evenly matched.
Mind you, i'm guessing, and don't really know diddly. But over the years you get a feeling. There are a lot of arguments, most of them about threads, and multitasking. But this has been going to for a while
Everyone jump in (on me) please
).The Quad is much faster. The dual will start to win the race when it's something like , 2GHZ quad vs 3GHZ dual. Then you are probably evenly matched.
Mind you, i'm guessing, and don't really know diddly. But over the years you get a feeling. There are a lot of arguments, most of them about threads, and multitasking. But this has been going to for a while
Everyone jump in (on me) please
Because of Turbo Boost, the quad core is absolutely faster in pretty much all situations. The "do I get a slow quad core or fast dual core" problem was exactly what Turbo Boost was designed to solve.
If the quad core runs into a situation where the dual core would perform better at stock clocks (heavy single or dual threaded applications), it is generally smart enough to turbo boost itself up to 3.3 GHz. The dual core's max turbo speed is also 3.3 GHz.
If the quad core runs into a situation where the dual core would perform better at stock clocks (heavy single or dual threaded applications), it is generally smart enough to turbo boost itself up to 3.3 GHz. The dual core's max turbo speed is also 3.3 GHz.
1-the most expensive because the most expensive things are better
2-the one with bigger numbers because bigger is better
3-you don't need 2.6ghz because you won't notice the difference on 99% of tasks you do on your computer blah blah blah
4- get whatever makes you happy and you can afford no matter what people think be happy
2-the one with bigger numbers because bigger is better
3-you don't need 2.6ghz because you won't notice the difference on 99% of tasks you do on your computer blah blah blah
4- get whatever makes you happy and you can afford no matter what people think be happy
That's true, but the Apple laptops with quad-core processors all have batteries sufficiently large to compensate for the more power-hungry processor, so the battery life is actually roughly the same from what I've heard. But valid point on the heat.
The quad is 2x as fast. If the i7 dual you are referring to is Arrandale M620 the Quad 3615QM boosts to the same 3.3GHz so single thread they are matched. Everything else the Quad shreds it handily.
Geekbench 32-bit:
M620: 5420
3615QM: 10900
----------
Also you idle well below the clock speeds listed. They are amazingly power efficient. More so than all chips before them + the die shrink helps maintain cooler temps.
Geekbench 32-bit:
M620: 5420
3615QM: 10900
----------
Also you idle well below the clock speeds listed. They are amazingly power efficient. More so than all chips before them + the die shrink helps maintain cooler temps.
Even if you do video processing,
get the 2.3GHz model.
A 300MHz boost, for the added cost, is not worth the money. Practical results for CPU-intensive tasks are not there... especially with Photoshop and more now using the GPU for effects processing, get the best GPU possible for the money... if the higher-end BTO has a higher GPU, then definitely get that.
On the plus side, the maximum power draw by the rMBP is ~83W, lower than the 85W maximum... so the CPU won't throttle itself down over power issues.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Review-Apple-MacBook-Pro-15-Retina-2-3-GHz-Mid-2012.78959.0.html