Is there a noticeable performance increase between the 15" 2014 MBP Retina 2.5GHZ and 2.8GHZ models?

Hi,

I am a software developer/designer on the verge of purchasing a maxxed-out MBP 15" 2014 model.
Before I make my purchase, however, I am considering the benefits of having the 2.8 GHZ processor option over the 2.5 GHZ one.
If the performance benefit is negligible in practice, I would personally rather spend that extra $200 on something more useful for my craft.

I haven't found any benchmarks comparing the 2.8Ghz version to the 2.5 one, so I would very much appreciate any information regarding it.

 

$200 for a 0.3GHz clock increase is pretty wasteful. If anything, CPU-wise you'll better benefit with a quad-core upgrade over a dual-core. IMO, you'll be much better served with a SSD.

 

I agree 100%. I would spend that money on upgrading the SSD storage capacity to 512GB or 1TB (I would at least go 512GB, 1TB was overkill for me, but that will depend on what you personally will be using your Mac for). You will not even notice the speed difference between 2.5 GHz and 2.8 GHz, so as Jarhead said, investing $200.00 there is pretty much a waste.

 

The 1 TB SSD upgrade can actually be worth it because it's capable of achieving 1 GB/s read/write performance. The 512 GB and lower capacity drives check in around 700 MB/s. It all depends on your workload, but it's a more worthwhile upgrade than going for the faster CPU.

 

Well, the sequential read/write speeds are actually irrelevant to most people, unless you're transferring large files between equal-spec SSDs. The random access performance is more relevant for most wants/needs.

Agree with the SSD > CPU suggestion though. And a good case wouldn't hurt either.

 

Good points made by you both. Either way, everyone pretty much agrees that the SSD upgrade is much more worthwhile than the minor processor upgrade. I know that when I personally spec out a laptop, the processor upgrade is usually the last thing that I care about, simply because the price-to-performance ratio just isn't there. As long as I am in the i7 family, I will take the 2.5 GHz processor over the 2.6 GHz, 2.7 GHz, or 2.8 GHz versions all day every day.

 

Well, my two cents on that: If it's a dual-core i7, I wouldn't even bother (compared to an i5). Now, if it's a quad-core i7, the base quad-core is good enough, imo. Maaaaaayybbeee an unlocked quad-core (-XM or such) if you don't mind cooking your laptop and have the large wad of disposable cash on hand... Though that's not an option with Apple's laptops, so that's a moot point anyway...

 

My bad, I should have clarified. I automatically think quad-core when I think of an i7, but I forgot that they make dual-core i7 versions. Yeah, I am with you all the way there. I definitely meant in the quad-core family.

 

You're not the only one thinking quad when you see i7, it's mostly because we tend to stick to one segment of the market where the low voltage parts are almost never used.

 

Thanks for the feedback everyone.

I didn't know that the 1TB SSD was faster than the 512GB one. Would you happen to have any links to benchmarks comparing the two?