13" MacBook Pro (2017) with 3.1GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 CPU problematic for e...
 
Notifications
Clear all

13" MacBook Pro (2017) with 3.1GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 CPU problematic for eGPU setup in the future?  

 of  2
  RSS

aDm
 aDm
(@adm)
Active Member
Joined: 3 years ago
 

Hello,

I'm currently trying to decide whether to buy a 13" Macbook Pro (2017) with 3.1GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 or a 15" Macbook Pro (2017) with 2.8GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 to in the near future attach an TB3 eGPU to drive a [email protected]  (maybe 5K in the future) monitor and a 1080p TV (maybe 4K in the future).

Putting prices aside, could the 3.1GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 Kaby Lake CPU be a problem under-performing or throttling the eGPU capabilities and/or performance?

I'd prefer the portability that the 13" Macbook Pro offers as I don't need much GPU power on the road.

I've read multiple times that the Intel Core i7 dual-core 3,5 GHz upgrade on the 13" Macbook Pro (2017) is not worth it, is this also the case with this eGPU solution?

Thank you very much

To do: Create my signature with system and expected eGPU configuration information to give context to my posts. I have no builds.

.

ReplyQuote
Yukikaze
(@yukikaze)
Prominent Member Moderator
Joined: 3 years ago
 

Price aside, there is really zero reason to not prefer a quad-core, performance wise. If you can lug around the 15" version, I'd highly recommend you get it instead.

Want to output [email protected] out of an old system on the cheap? Read here.
Give your Node Pro a second Thunderbolt3 controller for reliable peripherals by re-using a TB3 dock (~50$).

"Always listen to experts. They'll tell you what can't be done, and why. Then do it."- Robert A. Heinlein, "Time Enough for Love."

 
2012 14" Lenovo Thinkpad T430s [3rd,2C,M] + RX 550 @ 10Gbps-TB1 (Atto Thunderlink) + Win10 [build link]  


ReplyQuote
JDug
 JDug
(@jdug)
Eminent Member
Joined: 3 years ago
 
Posted by: aDm

Hello,

I'm currently trying to decide whether to buy a 13" Macbook Pro (2017) with 3.1GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 or a 15" Macbook Pro (2017) with 2.8GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 to in the near future attach an TB3 eGPU to drive a [email protected]  (maybe 5K in the future) monitor and a 1080p TV (maybe 4K in the future).

Putting prices aside, could the 3.1GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 Kaby Lake CPU be a problem under-performing or throttling the eGPU capabilities and/or performance?

I'd prefer the portability that the 13" Macbook Pro offers as I don't need much GPU power on the road.

I've read multiple times that the Intel Core i7 dual-core 3,5 GHz upgrade on the 13" Macbook Pro (2017) is not worth it, is this also the case with this eGPU solution?

Thank you very much

For what it's worth, I got the 13 in and had it for about 10 days and exchanged it for the 15.  I loved the size and weight but battery life was absolutely terrible.  I couldn't stomach paying as much as I did for a brand new portable laptop that I was only getting 4 hours of battery life with only web browsing.

I know you were not asking about this aspect but figured I would share for what it is worth.

To do: Create my signature with system and expected eGPU configuration information to give context to my posts. I have no builds.

.

ReplyQuote
jim_survak
(@jim_survak)
Eminent Member
Joined: 3 years ago
 
Posted by: aDm

I've read multiple times that the Intel Core i7 dual-core 3,5 GHz upgrade on the 13" Macbook Pro (2017) is not worth it, is this also the case with this eGPU solution?

For eGPU work it will make a very minimal, if any, difference. Since the Core i7 is hyper-threaded you'll get some extra performance in any workload that CPU-intensive but even that will be a modest improvement.

2018 Mac mini: Core i3, 8GB RAM, Sonnet 350 (aftermarket 550w PSU)+XFX Radeon RX-480 8GB Black Edition
2012 Mac mini: Core i7, 16GB RAM, Toshiba 1TB SSD, Seagate 1TB HDD
Custom: Ryzen 7 1700, 16GB Corasir DDR4-3200MHz RAM, 2x Corsair 500GB Neutron SSD, Seagate 3TB SSD, EVGA Nvidia 980Ti
YT:


ReplyQuote
JDug
 JDug
(@jdug)
Eminent Member
Joined: 3 years ago
 
Posted by: jim_survak
Posted by: aDm

I've read multiple times that the Intel Core i7 dual-core 3,5 GHz upgrade on the 13" Macbook Pro (2017) is not worth it, is this also the case with this eGPU solution?

For eGPU work it will make a very minimal, if any, difference. Since the Core i7 is hyper-threaded you'll get some extra performance in any workload that CPU-intensive but even that will be a modest improvement.

This is not entirely accurate.  The i7 in the 13in MBP's is still only a dual core whereas the i7's in the 15in are quad-cores.  They all have "hyper threading".  Essentially the i7 in the 13in is really a bumped up clock speed i5.

To do: Create my signature with system and expected eGPU configuration information to give context to my posts. I have no builds.

.

ReplyQuote
aDm
 aDm
(@adm)
Active Member
Joined: 3 years ago
 
Posted by: JDug
Posted by: aDm

Hello,

I'm currently trying to decide whether to buy a 13" Macbook Pro (2017) with 3.1GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 or a 15" Macbook Pro (2017) with 2.8GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 to in the near future attach an TB3 eGPU to drive a [email protected]  (maybe 5K in the future) monitor and a 1080p TV (maybe 4K in the future).

Putting prices aside, could the 3.1GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 Kaby Lake CPU be a problem under-performing or throttling the eGPU capabilities and/or performance?

I'd prefer the portability that the 13" Macbook Pro offers as I don't need much GPU power on the road.

I've read multiple times that the Intel Core i7 dual-core 3,5 GHz upgrade on the 13" Macbook Pro (2017) is not worth it, is this also the case with this eGPU solution?

Thank you very much

For what it's worth, I got the 13 in and had it for about 10 days and exchanged it for the 15.  I loved the size and weight but battery life was absolutely terrible.  I couldn't stomach paying as much as I did for a brand new portable laptop that I was only getting 4 hours of battery life with only web browsing.

I know you were not asking about this aspect but figured I would share for what it is worth.

Thank you for sharing. It's actually very relevant too, but are you sure there wasn't a problem with your machine? Many people report getting 7-8 hours even doing image and video editing?!?

To do: Create my signature with system and expected eGPU configuration information to give context to my posts. I have no builds.

.

ReplyQuote
aDm
 aDm
(@adm)
Active Member
Joined: 3 years ago
 
Posted by: Yukikaze

Price aside, there is really zero reason to not prefer a quad-core, performance wise. If you can lug around the 15" version, I'd highly recommend you get it instead.

This was my feeling as a current 2013" 15" Macbook Pro user. But I got to try a 13" and the size and height really do make a difference. Nonetheless I do use it a big portion of the time in clam-shell mode on a stand simply connected to my monitor...

But if I can get the portability of the 13" with the power of an eGPU when at home with no problems from it being only a dual-core I'd take it! See my dilemma?

Thank you.

To do: Create my signature with system and expected eGPU configuration information to give context to my posts. I have no builds.

.

ReplyQuote
aDm
 aDm
(@adm)
Active Member
Joined: 3 years ago
 
Posted by: JDug
Posted by: jim_survak
Posted by: aDm

I've read multiple times that the Intel Core i7 dual-core 3,5 GHz upgrade on the 13" Macbook Pro (2017) is not worth it, is this also the case with this eGPU solution?

For eGPU work it will make a very minimal, if any, difference. Since the Core i7 is hyper-threaded you'll get some extra performance in any workload that CPU-intensive but even that will be a modest improvement.

This is not entirely accurate.  The i7 in the 13in MBP's is still only a dual core whereas the i7's in the 15in are quad-cores.  They all have "hyper threading".  Essentially the i7 in the 13in is really a bumped up clock speed i5.

This was exactly my understanding. So overall not worth the quite pricey upgrade, right?

Thanks

To do: Create my signature with system and expected eGPU configuration information to give context to my posts. I have no builds.

.

ReplyQuote
Eightarmedpet
(@eightarmedpet)
Noble Member
Joined: 3 years ago
 

I have a 13 as portability was the priority for me, battery life isn't great, maybe 6 hours, but thats doing moderate work, I imagine you could hit 8 single tasking.

eGPU is the perfect way to add power for me, 15 sounded too complicated with DSDT edits etc and even a 1050 is more powerful than the top 560.

2017 13" MacBook Pro Touch Bar
GTX1060 + AKiTiO Thunder3 + Win10
GTX1070 + Sonnet Breakaway Box + Win10
GTX1070 + Razer Core V1 + Win10
Vega 56 + Razer Core V1 + macOS + Win10
Vega 56 + Mantiz Venus + macOS + W10

---

LG 5K Ultrafine flickering issue fix

 
2017 13" MacBook Pro [7th,2C,U] + RX 560 @ 32Gbps-TB3 (AKiTiO Node Lite) + macOS 10.15.4 & Win10 [build link]  


ppm liked
ReplyQuote
aDm
 aDm
(@adm)
Active Member
Joined: 3 years ago
 
Posted by: Eightarmedpet

I have a 13 as portability was the priority for me, battery life isn't great, maybe 6 hours, but thats doing moderate work, I imagine you could hit 8 single tasking.

eGPU is the perfect way to add power for me, 15 sounded too complicated with DSDT edits etc and even a 1050 is more powerful than the top 560.

That's exactly how I'm thinking too. Just worried if only dual-core CPU will be any problem in the future.

I'm focused on image-video editing and SFX.

Thanks

To do: Create my signature with system and expected eGPU configuration information to give context to my posts. I have no builds.

.

ReplyQuote
 of  2