you might consider a "nifty minidrive" with a micro sd card. looks really neat. sorry am on mobile or I would have fetched you a link
with the memory card inserted it fits flush to the mbp body
Last edited:
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2.6 GHz vs 2.7 GHz Retina Macbook Pro Real World Difference
- Thread starter dpnguye2
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
you might consider a "nifty minidrive" with a micro sd card. looks really neat. sorry am on mobile or I would have fetched you a link
with the memory card inserted it fits flush to the mbp body
That's kind of irrelevant as hardware specs do not equal the entire cost of the computer. It's not worth it, IMO.
who said anything about "keep"?
and we are talking about a speed increase that is a fraction of the cost of the cheapest TB hard drive.
also, why would you rely on an external drive's ability to maintain a connection if you are doing long renders? we aways render on the local HDD and then transfer to external for storage. you might as well be working with live files over a wifi connection to a remote server...
Encode speed is directly proportional to clock speed? I wouldn't have thought so judging by the geekbench numbers posted by paulrbeers.
You will never settle this issue.
It will pop up over and over.
A year from now it will be "I'm glad I bought it" or "I wish I had".
Its so close you can only notice a difference when you are looking for a difference and you have something to compare it to.
If you want the fastest one its gonna cost ya $250
It will pop up over and over.
A year from now it will be "I'm glad I bought it" or "I wish I had".
Its so close you can only notice a difference when you are looking for a difference and you have something to compare it to.
If you want the fastest one its gonna cost ya $250
The original poster was talking about a machine to last 5 years. Massive write and render ops is a sure way to burn an expensive SSD in a real hurry. A cheap USB3 external (or RAID0) would clearly be a good option for the obvious non-pro setup s/he is looking for.
Does anyone know the real world difference between 2.3 and 2.6 Ghz?
A staff member at the Apple store told me it was the same as going from 2.6 to 2.7
I didn't understand this because simple math says boosting it by 3 times as much doesn't make sense...but then again i am an idiot and am probably using simple math in the wrong place.
A staff member at the Apple store told me it was the same as going from 2.6 to 2.7
I didn't understand this because simple math says boosting it by 3 times as much doesn't make sense...but then again i am an idiot and am probably using simple math in the wrong place.
It's more of a percentage thing. Going from 2.6 to 2.7 is just a 3% increase in speed. The most improvement you could ever get is 3%. And that's just in theory. Going from 2.3 to 2.6 is about 13%. Anything that is primarily CPU-limited will be about 13% faster on the 2.6. 3% is margin of error. 13% is 3 hours of a 24 hour video encoding or 3D rendering task.
Because the drive is an SSD, that will be more often than you might otherwise think. Traditionally, disk access was the #1 slow-down for a computer. Current SSDs don't change that, but they go a LONG way in correcting the problem. Not so much in sustained transfer speeds, which are obviously better (but only 3-6x faster, not 100x faster or more), but it is the random seek and physical disk operations that are basically no longer even relevant statistics that make the biggest difference. It used to take measurable time to look up a file on disk and spin the platters and align the heads to go and retrieve that stuff.
Most of your time was spent waiting on one of two things: The user, or the hard drive.
Because the drive is an SSD, that will be more often than you might otherwise think. Traditionally, disk access was the #1 slow-down for a computer. Current SSDs don't change that, but they go a LONG way in correcting the problem. Not so much in sustained transfer speeds, which are obviously better (but only 3-6x faster, not 100x faster or more), but it is the random seek and physical disk operations that are basically no longer even relevant statistics that make the biggest difference. It used to take measurable time to look up a file on disk and spin the platters and align the heads to go and retrieve that stuff.
Most of your time was spent waiting on one of two things: The user, or the hard drive.
This is inaccurate. It's not just a "percentage thing." The 2.7ghz i7 also increases the L3 cache from 6MB to 8MB. Is that going to drastically increase performance? Nope. But... it's more than a percentage increase in clock speed.
Anyone reading this. I would suggest spending the $250 difference on a OWC data doubler, OWC external drive bay for your DVD and a Samsung 830 256Gb SSD drive. Boot up on my early 2009 macbook is less than 20 seconds and shutdown is around 7 seconds. Not to mention any program you install on the 256Gb drive runs SOOOOO much faster.