• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Mobile: Intel i7-5650U vs. i5-5287U

Z

zephonic

Junior Member
Hello,

I'm at best a layman enthusiast when it comes to this stuff, and I'm trying to comprehend what the meaningful difference is between these two mobile CPU's. As far as I can tell, the i7 is a 'low-power' model (15W TDP) whereas the i5 has a 28W TDP. Base and turbo clocks reflect this.

Comparo here: http://ark.intel.com/compare/84995,84988

The reason I'm asking is: I'm comparing a maxed out 13" MacBookAir (i7-5650U | 8GB | 512GB = $1749) to a 13" MacBookPro (i5-5287U | 8GB | 512GB = $1799).

I don't care about retina displays, I do care about performance.

I'd use it for running software instruments at gigs (I play keyboards), and realtime performance and low latency are critical. On paper the i7-5650U looks like a better deal (despite it's lower base clock), I just wonder if the low-power models have some kind of power-saving scheme that can hamper realtime performance?

What would be the better choice for my particular usage?

Thanks.
 
zephonic said:
I don't care about retina displays, I do care about performance.

I'd use it for running software instruments at gigs (I play keyboards), and realtime performance and low latency are critical. On paper the i7-5650U looks like a better deal (despite it's lower base clock), I just wonder if the low-power models have some kind of power-saving scheme that can hamper realtime performance?

What would be the better choice for my particular usage?
Click to expand...
The MacBook Pro and it's 28W TDP CPU is a better choice performance wise. There will be plenty of situations where both CPUs will perform more or less the same, but the Macbook Pro will give you that extra guarantee that under increased stress it can deliver the same level of performance. You sacrifice a bit of mobility in order to gain a more reliable system performance wise and a far better screen. (I assume you already took into account external ports for both units)

That having been said, unless you are in a real hurry, you should wait for the new Skylake model. It's been almost a year since the last 13 inch Macbook Pro update, so expect one very soon. (March even)

Skylake brings a small technology update that might positively affect audio professionals. CPU management of power states is now hardware based, as opposed to controlled by the OS, which in turn reduces reaction time of the CPU when load is applied. This can affect overall latency.
 
Last edited:
Arachnotronic said:
Wait for Skylake MacBook Pro models and then get the Pro 🙂
Click to expand...

Seconded this, the Skylake version will most likely contains 28w parts with 64 MB eDRAM. The iGP performance difference is going to be huge compared to the current version, if you do care about it.
 
coercitiv said:
Not only at load, the platform itself has higher idle power usage. (the mainboard for the U platform is built with lower idle power usage in mind)
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. But with OS X, the 45W platform idles really well. During light usage, it will get fantastic battery life (8+ hours). Once the full turboboost bin is sustained at load, battery life goes out the window. It is possible to turn off turboboost in OS X which helps a lot along with proper fan control to avoid the "100C quiet fan" that really hurts efficiency.

Those mobile quad i7's are certainly worth the lesser battery life in situations where many threads are needed.
 
Last edited:
Thanks all for your replies.

The quad i7's only come in 15" MacBookPros. I'd rather stick with the 13" form factor, unless the dual cores really lack the power I need.

I'm not opposed to Windows, but when you spec them out they aren't that much cheaper than equivalent Macs. The only advantage would be wider choice (like maybe a quad 13").
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top