Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Buying Tips and Advice

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 4, 2012, 06:12 PM   #26
lali
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonjumper View Post
Thanks, at least I could archive projects on SDXC cards and have easy access to them without filling up the SSD.
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 by lali; Oct 4, 2012 at 06:23 PM.
lali is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 4, 2012, 06:17 PM   #27
Dark Void
macrumors 68000
 
Dark Void's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlimes13 View Post
It's about 8.1% faster (CPU Benchmarks). $250 is about 8-12% of the cost, depending on configuration. I'd say no unless you do a lot of video rendering or benchmarks.
That's kind of irrelevant as hardware specs do not equal the entire cost of the computer. It's not worth it, IMO.
__________________
`
MacBook Pro 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo 8GB 1067 MHz 256GB SSD NVIDIA GeForce 320M
Desktop 3.4 GHz Intel Core i5-3570K 8GB 1600 MHz 2TB 7200 RPM HDD AMD Radeon HD 7700 1GB
Dark Void is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2012, 01:36 AM   #28
benpatient
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Santabean2000 View Post
It's not a great idea to keep vid files on your primary drive; we could assume TB or USB3 external.

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...
__________________
Home Office: Mac Pro 8x2.8 10GB 2TB GTX 650 Ti Boost 2GB
Work:15" Retina MacBook Pro 2.0 8GB 512GB
benpatient is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2012, 06:22 AM   #29
AdrianK
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by dhartung02 View Post
If it takes 60 minutes to encode a video on the 2.3 it will take about 53 minutes on the 2.6. Hardly worth the costs of the upgrade unless you need the disk space.
Encode speed is directly proportional to clock speed? I wouldn't have thought so judging by the geekbench numbers posted by paulrbeers.
__________________
Desktop: i3 4130 - OS X 10.9 & Windows 8
Notebook: i5 3317U - Xubuntu 14.04
AdrianK is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2012, 08:09 AM   #30
brentsg
macrumors 68020
 
brentsg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdrianK View Post
Encode speed is directly proportional to clock speed? I wouldn't have thought so judging by the geekbench numbers posted by paulrbeers.
Encode is pure CPU...
brentsg is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2012, 08:19 AM   #31
noteple
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
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
noteple is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2012, 08:43 AM   #32
Elmoman
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
well kind of

If you really want to pay a little bit more you can get a higher starter SSD volume and a .1 GHz more ... But really I'm not sure its the wisest idea .
Elmoman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2012, 10:06 AM   #33
DLary
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
My Dad always told me "when it comes to cars, boats, planes, (and computers)" always buy the biggest engine available. You'll never wish you had gotten the smaller one".
DLary is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 5, 2012, 12:43 PM   #34
MacSignal
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2010
Preferred alternatives to the CPU bump:

1. AC
2. save it for the next computer purchase
3. RAM
4. HD

With most computer related purchases and especially Apple, I think buying/ selling sooner works better than trying to future-proof. Good luck!
__________________
MacSignal
MacSignal is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2012, 07:33 AM   #35
Santabean2000
macrumors 65816
 
Santabean2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by benpatient View Post
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...
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.
Santabean2000 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2012, 02:31 PM   #36
brentsg
macrumors 68020
 
brentsg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Santabean2000 View Post
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.
The whole SSD wearing out thing has been vastly overblown.
brentsg is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2012, 04:03 PM   #37
Jon P D
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
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.
Jon P D is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2012, 09:46 AM   #38
benpatient
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
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.
__________________
Home Office: Mac Pro 8x2.8 10GB 2TB GTX 650 Ti Boost 2GB
Work:15" Retina MacBook Pro 2.0 8GB 512GB
benpatient is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2012, 10:02 AM   #39
Jon P D
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
thanks, exactly what I needed to know

I guess i can justify paying 150 dollars or so for the speed boost of upgrading to 2.6 but another 500 dollars for 3% or so more, not worth it.
Jon P D is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2012, 09:51 PM   #40
spaceballl
macrumors 68020
 
spaceballl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Silicon Valley
Quote:
Originally Posted by benpatient View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Travel Blog: Cloud Commuting | Technology Blog: Not Quite Mainstream | Cashback: BigCrumbs
spaceballl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 15, 2012, 02:21 PM   #41
rkaneknight
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
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.
rkaneknight is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Apple Hardware > Buying Tips and Advice

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Retina i5 vs i7 Air real world difference! jomirrivera MacBook Air 25 Aug 11, 2013 09:40 AM
i7 3.0 Ghz vs i5 2.5 Ghz on Retina MBP? More heat? Less battery? maccuser MacBook Pro 8 Feb 22, 2013 05:17 PM
Macbook Pro 2,6 ghz or Macbook Pro Retina Display 2,3 ghz Charlaux MacBook Pro 16 Jan 20, 2013 01:43 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:54 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC