Touchbar MBP 13" i5,i7, or base 15"?

[Nbnewcar]

Hello all!,
Im looking to purchase a MBP for final cut and photoshop. Im struggling to figure out wether it is worth the extra $200 to go for the i7 vs the upgraded i5. Is .2 GHz going to make such a big difference in rendering time? Im planning on running the 256 ssd and 16gb of ram. I know the best route it going 15" with the quad core and graphics but I don't want to lug around the extra size through school.

Thanks

 

[Xrayspectacles]

I do the same type of work plus 3d modeling. I went with the 13" i5 3.1Ghz. I am by no means an hardware expert (hopefully someone else can chime in on your question), but I chose this configuration after considering this:

• It seems that the difference between the speeds is about ~5%. And usually it won't be running full hilt.
• I also assume the i7 will, in general, take more power -thus reducing practical battery life.

Those two factors, if at all accurate, didn't warrant an extra $200. I saved that money and dumped it into upgrading the RAM, which for this kind of day-to-day use, is far more important. The only reason I even upgraded to the 3.1 was honestly for peace of mind. I doubt I'd notice the difference between the 2.9 and the 3.1, but I figured what the heck. I feel like upgrading to the i7 could possibly hurt however.

I am in the same boat as you as far as weight is concerned. I fly all the time -and a pound here and there makes a huge difference, imo. The 13" wins in this arena for me.

Again, I have NO idea, but this was my laymen logic regarding the i5 vs. the i7. Regardless, I'm coming from a mid-2010 MBP 15". ANYTHING will seem better at this point

Good luck Nbnewcar!

 

[Softwarez]

The i7 upgrade in the 13inch is NOT worth the price. You will never notice the difference in .2 GHz. The upgraded i5 is completely fine.

On more technical terms, all of the CPUs are designed to run under a 28W power envelope, so the i7 should not be noticeably worse in terms of power consumption/battery life.

In fact, after checking the intel's spec charts, the i7 is exactly the same chip as the i5, just with slightly higher clocks. So realistically, it's just the same chip but better binned. Not worth the price!

 

[Nbnewcar]

I do the same type of work plus 3d modeling. I went with the 13" i5 3.1Ghz. I am by no means an hardware expert (hopefully someone else can chime in on your question), but I chose this configuration after considering this:

• It seems that the difference between the speeds is about ~5%. And usually it won't be running full hilt.
• I also assume the i7 will, in general, take more power -thus reducing practical battery life.

Those two factors, if at all accurate, didn't warrant an extra $200. I saved that money and dumped it into upgrading the RAM, which for this kind of day-to-day use, is far more important. The only reason I even upgraded to the 3.1 was honestly for peace of mind. I doubt I'd notice the difference between the 2.9 and the 3.1, but I figured what the heck. I feel like upgrading to the i7 could possibly hurt however.

I am in the same boat as you as far as weight is concerned. I fly all the time -and a pound here and there makes a huge difference, imo. The 13" wins in this arena for me.

Again, I have NO idea, but this was my laymen logic regarding the i5 vs. the i7. Regardless, I'm coming from a mid-2010 MBP 15". ANYTHING will seem better at this point

Good luck Nbnewcar!

Thanks for the input! Same here, I'm coming from a 2010 13" with a core 2 duo... anything will do better than that thing

Thanks
[doublepost=1478070740][/doublepost]

The i7 upgrade in the 13inch is NOT worth the price. You will never notice the difference in .2 GHz. The upgraded i5 is completely fine.

On more technical terms, all of the CPUs are designed to run under a 28W power envelope, so the i7 should not be noticeably worse in terms of power consumption/battery life.

In fact, after checking the intel's spec charts, the i7 is exactly the same chip as the i5, just with slightly higher clocks. So realistically, it's just the same chip but better binned. Not worth the price!

Very interesting how they can get away calling it an i7 but it's only an overclocked i5... intel and apple at it again with the marketing for ya...

Thanks for the reply

 

[SBruv]

But surely, with hypertheading, that 0.2GHz can ramp up to 0.8GHz in total (4x0.2), no?

 

[NickPhamUK]

For FCP and Photoshop, shouldn't you buy the 15" to have more screen real estate? It's lighter & thinner than previous generations. Also gives gou a dedicated GPU & a quad core, saves you from upgrading to i7.

And let's not pretend that an extra 1 lb is such a huge problem...

 

[Samuelsan2001]

But surely, with hypertheading, that 0.2GHz can ramp up to 0.8GHz in total (4x0.2), no?

Not really because the more cores the less turbo is used and all the cores/threads get down clocked to stay within thermals and the performance increase comes from parallel processing. Really unless you always need your MacBook Pro running at the limit then it's not worth it and then you'd be far better off with a 15 inch anyway.

 

[SBruv]

Not really because the more cores the less turbo is used and all the cores/threads get down clocked to stay within thermals and the performance increase comes from parallel processing. Really unless you always need your MacBook Pro running at the limit then it's not worth it and then you'd be far better off with a 15 inch anyway.

Makes sense. Oh well, I've ordered the i7, but too late to change it now without being sent to the back of the queue. I'm a heavy Logic Pro user, so at least that tiny boost will make a difference now and then.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Makes sense. Oh well, I've ordered the i7, but too late to change it now without being sent to the back of the queue. I'm a heavy Logic Pro user, so at least that tiny boost will make a difference now and then.

Yeah it may well help with a bit more on board cache for that as well.

 

[Nbnewcar]

For FCP and Photoshop, shouldn't you buy the 15" to have more screen real estate? It's lighter & thinner than previous generations. Also gives gou a dedicated GPU & a quad core, saves you from upgrading to i7.

And let's not pretend that an extra 1 lb is such a huge problem...

Ok, after looking around at some other posts I am starting to give in to the 15" option because its only really $100 more (comparing a base 15" with an i7 13") and you get a lot more computer for that. But I also noticed the quad core in the 15" seems to be clocked slower than the 13" i7... Im in no way an expert in this stuff so does the quad core make up for this speed difference with the extra cores?

 

[keviig]

Ok, after looking around at some other posts I am starting to give in to the 15" option because its only really $100 more (comparing a base 15" with an i7 13") and you get a lot more computer for that. But I also noticed the quad core in the 15" seems to be clocked slower than the 13" i7... Im in no way an expert in this stuff so does the quad core make up for this speed difference with the extra cores?

While the base speed is a bit lower (2.6 vs 3.3) the turbo speed is almost identical at 3.5 (QC) vs 3.6 (DC). So you're only down 3% when it comes to clock speed, but you have double the cores.

 

[Nbnewcar]

While the base speed is a bit lower (2.6 vs 3.3) the turbo speed is almost identical at 3.5 (QC) vs 3.6 (DC). So you're only down 3% when it comes to clock speed, but you have double the cores.

So will it feel slower with day to day stuff but then do better with graphic and cpu intensive tasks? or will it be about the same when not in turbo?

 

[keviig]

So will it feel slower with day to day stuff but then do better with graphic and cpu intensive tasks? or will it be about the same when not in turbo?

Turbo boost kicks in even when doing ordinary tasks. It'll only run at base clock (or slower) when idling or when it gets really hot, which it shouldn't. So it won't be slower at any point. It'll be as quick or slightly quicker in normal tasks, and blow the 13" out of the water in CPU and GPU intensive tasks.

 

[Nbnewcar]

Turbo boost kicks in even when doing ordinary tasks. It'll only run at base clock (or slower) when idling or when it gets really hot, which it shouldn't. So it won't be slower at any point. It'll be as quick or slightly quicker in normal tasks, and blow the 13" out of the water in CPU and GPU intensive tasks.

Thank you so much! That sealed the deal for me... 15" it is... my wallet isn't going to like it but I believe it will be well worth the upgrade for what I want to use it for

 

[keviig]

Thank you so much! That sealed the deal for me... 15" it is... my wallet isn't going to like it but I believe it will be well worth the upgrade for what I want to use it for

Congrats! I'm sure you'll love it! Waiting for a 13" myself, the wait is killing me!

 

[Xrayspectacles]

It'll be as quick or slightly quicker in normal tasks, and blow the 13" out of the water in CPU and GPU intensive tasks.[/QUOTE

Why is this? Is it because of the extra cores? And by blow it out of the water, can you quantify that a bit? Maybe a % or time difference on a strenuous task? I'm really into the idea of the 13" due to portability first and foremost.

 

[keviig]

CPU wise it's down to the extra cores yes. In CPU bound tasks you'll see almost double performance as long as it uses all cores and isn't bottlenecked by other parts.

When it comes to the GPU, it depends what model you go for. The top end Radeon Pro 460 is over double the performance of the Iris 550 (800 gflops vs 1800 gflops). The 450 should still be a fair bit better than the Iris.