Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I'm planning on getting the exact same configuration
13" with TB and 2.9ghz, 16gb ram, 512 or 1TB SSD.

To get the 3.1 ghz is only another $90...so I'm seriously considering doing that.
 
I'm planning on getting the exact same configuration
13" with TB and 2.9ghz, 16gb ram, 512 or 1TB SSD.

To get the 3.1 ghz is only another $90...so I'm seriously considering doing that.

I did consider it, but like people have said, it's an almost negligible upgrade. That money is probably better off spent elsewhere.
 
I am going for 2,9 16 GB 1 TB

On the 13" cpu upgrades are non sense since there is no cache improvement.

Although there's not much difference in the single core performance in Geekbench, the scores for multi-core performance are much better for the 3.1GHz i5. Really can't make up my mind!
 
Although there's not much difference in the single core performance in Geekbench, the scores for multi-core performance are much better for the 3.1GHz i5. Really can't make up my mind!
Mhmm... it does not sound quite right. Define "much better" and quote the source
 
  • Like
Reactions: RyanC1384
I was looking at the scores from the Geekbench results (https://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks).

2.9GHz i5 CPU: 3761 / 7415

3.1GHz i5 CPU: 3821 / 7582

So not much difference in single core performance, but there's a bigger gap between the multi-core scores.

This doesn't look very compelling for the cost. I wouldn't imagine you would even be able to recognize the difference on either score.
 
  • Like
Reactions: chabig
I was looking at the scores from the Geekbench results (https://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks).

2.9GHz i5 CPU: 3761 / 7415

3.1GHz i5 CPU: 3821 / 7582

So not much difference in single core performance, but there's a bigger gap between the multi-core scores.

You are talking about 2%, meaning for instance:
- Assuming that you play videogames with your Mac, it would be 0,3 more FPS. Not worth mentioning.
- Assuming that you earn your salary with it, say you are a video editor, it would be 10" quicker in a 10' video rendering. Assuming that your price per hour is 200 bucks, it would take you 1.800 hours to earn that investment back. Basically after one year you will break even. Unfortunately by then the new model may be out and the depreciation of your used one will be much more than that.

By the way: I got an irresistible offer for a MacBook 12 512 GB and I jumped on it - I postponed my purchase to next year, until the battery problems are solved
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ash9414
This doesn't look very compelling for the cost. I wouldn't imagine you would even be able to recognize the difference on either score.

Sounds like you've changed your mind from considering the upgrade to the 3.1GHz i5 then. I've now been similarly convinced. I will be ordering the 2.9/16/512 model this evening. Thanks for all your help guys!
 
Sounds like you've changed your mind from considering the upgrade to the 3.1GHz i5 then. I've now been similarly convinced. I will be ordering the 2.9/16/512 model this evening. Thanks for all your help guys!

Indeed, the only other decision I'm stuck on is to go with the i7 13"?

It just seems by the time you fully upgrade the 13" it's smarter to just go to the 15"...but I like the smaller form factor.

Will probably end up with the 2.9, 16gb, and 1TB
 
Indeed, the only other decision I'm stuck on is to go with the i7 13"?

It just seems by the time you fully upgrade the 13" it's smarter to just go to the 15"...but I like the smaller form factor.

Will probably end up with the 2.9, 16gb, and 1TB

From the looks of the benchmarks, it doesn't seem like the i7 is a huge improvement either. And it doesn't have any more cache. Therefore, probably not worth the extra ~£250 it'll cost to upgrade.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.