Yet another 2.3 vs 2.6 thread but on Battery life..

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by ducatiti, Aug 12, 2012.

  1. ducatiti macrumors 6502a

    ducatiti

    Joined:
    May 18, 2011
    #1
    I have been reading the past threads but none have concluded the battery life difference between the two. Some have speculated that the 2.3 lasts 90 mins longer, as per a review of an outside source.

    Has anyone actually compared or experienced both systems? I am only concerned about how long the battery last from a full charge, nothing else. It's OK if there is not much difference performance wise. It's just my personal preference.

    I will be purchasing one later today and would like to hear from you guys
     
  2. w00t951 macrumors 68000

    w00t951

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #2
    A 2.3 GHz processor will not be running at 2.3GHz for the entire time - most of the time, it will throttle back to 400MHz or so to save power. The GHz rating is just a measure of how many clock cycles the processor is capable of.

    It's just like a power supply - Just because my PC has a 1 kilowatt PSU doesn't mean it's absorbing 1KW of electricity all the time.

    So unless you run your processor as hard as it can go on battery power, you won't see a difference. The processors are virtually identical except for small differences in cache memory size.
     
  3. iLikeTurtles! macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2012
    #3
    would u say its worth the extra 100 for the 2.6ghz?
     
  4. JD92, Aug 12, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2013
  5. calderone macrumors 68040

    calderone

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle
    #5
    Give it a rest man. At this point you could have made much more than $100 given the time you have wasted.
     
  6. ivoruest macrumors 6502

    ivoruest

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Guatemala
    #6
    I say yes. Its $100 for a difference noticeable when doing intensive work and others. If the change was for a 100mhz increase then I say no. But between the 2.3 and the 2.6 there is a wider difference. Cache size is the same. The 2.7Ghz option has 2Mb more of cache and is the option I'd choose but its $350 more so it may not be worth it.
     
  7. Textureboy macrumors 6502

    Textureboy

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2012
    #7
    ^
     
  8. iLikeTurtles! macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2012
    #8
    leave me alone!
     
  9. iaymnu macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
  10. swamyg1 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2007
    #10
    Dude, leave us alone!!!
     
  11. w00t951 macrumors 68000

    w00t951

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #11
    While I would like to examine those reports for myself, I try to steer clear of Engadget - would you please link me to that page?

    I can think of no possible reason other than possibly more RAM installed, or possibly an SSD in one and an HDD in the other. Maybe the brightness was messed up or there was a software glitch during their testing.

    Whatever it is, those results should not be.
     
  12. iLikeTurtles! macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2012
    #12
    retina macbooks dont use an HD LOL
     
  13. austinguy23 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #13
    Yeah, Engadget honestly isn't that technical of a site. They're more flash than substance.
     
  14. calderone macrumors 68040

    calderone

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle
    #14
    Are you 5 years old? You bought the machine, you clearly do not need the extra power. I am not sure you could reason yourself into opening a door at this point.

    Asking the same question over and over again in various threads is extremely annoying. Either spend the $100 or shut up. Better yet, go out and do some extra work and use that to foot the extra $100 to give you piece of mind.
     
  15. iLikeTurtles! macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2012
    #15
    i still havent gotton the macbook yet
     
  16. w00t951 macrumors 68000

    w00t951

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, PA
    #16
    I tend to get drawn into flame wars. My Disqus account is banned on and off day by day.

    ----------

    My mistake. By the way, you should get the 2012 Mature Person of the Year award.
     
  17. Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Enjoying Better Things
    #17
    Simply search, you will see that the performance between the three CPU`s is negligible;

    The difference you will see is time save at full performance, the 2.7 is useful to those that rely on their Mac`s for businesses, if you can reduce your render times by say an arbitrary figure of 8%, you can therefore moniterize the time saving, increase your productivity etc. 2.7 with the 8Mb L3 will really only be of significant benefit to certain applications that can address the additional L3 cache, essentially you will see no tangible benefit unless applications can utilise the additional cache.

    For the average user the 2.6 and even the 2.7 will offer little if any real world increase in performance, a few fps in a game etc, even the base 2.3 is an extremely powerful machine by portable standards. The 2.6 or 2.7 are simply not going to kick in and "smoke" the 2.3, dont get me wrong the 2.6 & 2.7 are faster the only question is will you ever notice that difference being so small? Hardly anything, certainly nothing worth shouting about

    Geek Test Mid 2012 Retina Benchmark`s

    MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012)
    Intel Core i7-3820QM 2700 MHz (4 cores)
    12229

    MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012)
    Intel Core i7-3720QM 2600 MHz (4 cores)
    11774

    MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012)
    Intel Core i7-3615QM 2300 MHz (4 cores)
    10770

    My own 2.3 consistently bench marks over 11K (32bit) further narrowing the margin further. I know it`s very cliched, however if you need to ask, you likely don't need the performance increase...
     
  18. austinguy23 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #18
    Some people just enjoy having a blazing fast laptop with awesome specs whether they put them to use or not. It's like owning a crazy-fast sports car. Are you ever going to drive 200 MPH? Probably not, but that doesn't take away from the coolness factor. Nothing wrong with that...
     
  19. iLikeTurtles! macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2012
    #19
    thank you
     
  20. hvfsl macrumors 68000

    hvfsl

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Location:
    London, UK
    #20
    I was in the same boat, but went with the 2.6 in the end as the extra memory on the graphics card in that version seems to make a noticeable difference in some apps.
     
  21. Dustman macrumors 65816

    Dustman

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    #21
    I highly doubt you'd see a 90 minute difference in real world usage. Maybe like 5-10 minutes*

    *educated opinion.

    P.S. Where are the mods in this thread? You've clearly got a bad seed running a muck stealing threads and starting flame wars. To the rest of you, I know its hard but resist feeding the trolls.
     
  22. Tuphlos-Veritas macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    #22
    No

    Not true the graphics card in the retina is the same for both only different on the macbook pro unibody.
     
  23. Fed, Aug 14, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2012

    Fed macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Location:
    Liverpool.
    #23
    I thoroughly agree with this post. Why do people constantly think of the hypothetical and not the real when it comes to their computational devices? It baffles me and only strengthens the position of those who believe people who buy Apple devices only want to be flashy and want what is perceived to be the best. It's all extremely irritating.

    @OP, just use basic logic (like the majority of people): They both have the same battery. The difference is the processor. If a processor can operate at higher speeds, it most likely requires more energy. Higher energy consumption means lower battery times. The only thing left to consider is: How likely are you to operate at near-total utilisation?
     
  24. brentsg macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2008
    #24
    So you have irritated yourself over some concern over why others buy the same thing that you do? If someone was buying an upgraded CPU to be flashy it wouldn't work too well. It's not like the 2.6 and 2.7 come in a special color.

    I think I'll be irritated by the self important folks that feel the need to have everyone make the same choices that they did.
     
  25. Fed macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Location:
    Liverpool.
    #25
    No. I have absolutely no concern or interest in what other people buy. My aim was to urge people that, when buying, you should focus on what your actual requirements are. From what I can gather on these forums, people are doing the complete opposite. They're seeing something new and then asking the question "What is there to buy with it?" (which is obviously the wrong question).

    It was intended to be an observation to accompany my agreement with another post. Nothing more (and certainly no attempt at self-importance).
     

Share This Page