1.2GHz, 16GB, 256GB or the 1.3Ghz, 16GB, 256/512GB?

[deepakvrao]

DOes the processor make a huge difference? Also, is 16gb worth the extra?

Routine spreadsheets, surfing with LOTS of tabs, occasional video editing.

 

[maerz001]

No

 

[OldMike]

I would say the processor will not make a noticeable difference. I currently have the 2016 M5 8 GB / 512 GB SSD, and I really don't feel that the CPU is a problem (as long as you are aware of the limitations of a 4.5 watt fanless CPU).

I DO wish that I had 16 GB RAM, and to tell you the truth a 1TB SSD wouldn't hurt either

 

[sbuntin]

.1Ghz difference in CPU is pretty negligible. I have 8/512. I'd rather have 16, but 8 is livable. Storage capacity depends on your usage.

 

[Clix Pix]

The RAM makes more difference than the processor, in my opinion. I have the fully-maxed-out 2017 MB with i7, 512 GB SSD and 16 GB RAM. Prior to this I had the 2016 MB with m7, 512 GB SSD and 8 GB RAM. I definitely notice a difference in perkiness with the additional RAM. The newer processor probably makes some difference as well. In both cases the 512 GB SSD was important, as it gives the machine some breathing space and room for growth as I add data and files. I also regularly clear off any files and folders that I don't need to have right at hand on the machine and put them on a supplementary external SSD.

 

[Mike Boreham]

The RAM makes more difference than the processor, in my opinion. I have the fully-maxed-out 2017 MB with i7, 512 GB SSD and 16 GB RAM. Prior to this I had the 2016 MB with m7, 512 GB SSD and 8 GB RAM. I definitely notice a difference in perkiness with the additional RAM. The newer processor probably makes some difference as well. In both cases the 512 GB SSD was important, as it gives the machine some breathing space and room for growth as I add data and files. I also regularly clear off any files and folders that I don't need to have right at hand on the machine and put them on a supplementary external SSD.

I would think that the perkiness difference between the 2016 and 2017 is mostly due to the faster internal R/W storage, then the Kaby Lake processor, and lastly the extra RAM, unless you were comparing an activity where RAM was limited.

 

[Clix Pix]

Whatever.....all I noticed while just doing a few tasks is that my new 2017 maxed-out with 16 GB RAM seemed to be somewhat perkier than my 2016 maxed-out with 8 GB RAM...... Had both of them here for a few days and could compare before sending away the 2016 MB. Bottom line is: I love my 2017 MacBook even more than I loved the 2016 MacBook, and don't regret having made the change! I will say that normally I would not have done so, I usually keep my computers at least three years if not longer, so this was quite different for me, to upgrade to the next iteration of a computer when the one I had was only a year old. I really do find that having the 16 GB RAM makes a difference and I have it on the other machines in the household, too. For me, 16 GB is the current "norm" when it comes to RAM.

 

[OldMike]

I would think that the perkiness difference between the 2016 and 2017 is mostly due to the faster internal R/W storage, then the Kaby Lake processor, and lastly the extra RAM, unless you were comparing an activity where RAM was limited.

I'm not trying to argue your point, but I bet most would be surprised by how little of a perceptible difference the speed of the SSD storage makes.

Here is a test of a 960 EVO SSD drives with max throughput of 3200 MB/s read and 1500 MB/s write, compared to an 850 EVO SSD with read/write speeds of about 500 MB/s in real world terms:

Windows 8.1 Boot time:
Samsung 960 EVO ~ 15.3 seconds
Samsung 850 EVO ~ 15.5 seconds

790 MB 4K video load time:
Samsung 960 EVO ~ 6.5 seconds
Samsung 850 EVO ~ 6.5 seconds

523 MB GIMP image load time:
Samsung 960 EVO ~ 8.3 seconds
Samsung 850 EVO ~ 8.5 seconds

159 MB Project opened in Visual Studio containing source code for LLVM toolchain:
Samsung 960 EVO ~ 6.5 seconds
Samsung 850 EVO ~ 6.5 seconds

These figures are from the following article:
https://techreport.com/review/30993/samsung-960-evo-ssd-reviewed

I was pretty surprised by the results of the test. I'm sure Apple drives would do better, but even still, the actually real world performance is very close in most cases.

 

[Mike Boreham]

I'm not trying to argue your point, but I bet most would be surprised by how little of a perceptible difference the speed of the SSD storage makes.

Here is a test of a 960 EVO SSD drives with max throughput of 3200 MB/s read and 1500 MB/s write, compared to an 850 EVO SSD with read/write speeds of about 500 MB/s in real world terms:

Windows 8.1 Boot time:
Samsung 960 EVO ~ 15.3 seconds
Samsung 850 EVO ~ 15.5 seconds

790 MB 4K video load time:
Samsung 960 EVO ~ 6.5 seconds
Samsung 850 EVO ~ 6.5 seconds

523 MB GIMP image load time:
Samsung 960 EVO ~ 8.3 seconds
Samsung 850 EVO ~ 8.5 seconds

159 MB Project opened in Visual Studio containing source code for LLVM toolchain:
Samsung 960 EVO ~ 6.5 seconds
Samsung 850 EVO ~ 6.5 seconds

These figures are from the following article:
https://techreport.com/review/30993/samsung-960-evo-ssd-reviewed

I was pretty surprised by the results of the test. I'm sure Apple drives would do better, but even still, the actually real world performance is very close in most cases.

Thanks. Yes those small differences are surprising, although when talking "perkiness" it is going to be fractions of a second that make a difference to perception. I am still sceptical that RAM affects perkiness unless doing a RAM limited activity.

 

[OldMike]

Thanks. Yes those small differences are surprising, although when talking "perkiness" it is going to be fractions of a second that make a difference to perception. I am still sceptical that RAM affects perkiness unless doing a RAM limited activity.

I know for me extra RAM would be a plus. Even when I try to be careful, I am often at 6GB+ swap on my MB with 8GB RAM. I am sure I would notice a difference, especially when switching applications, if I didn't need to rely on swap as much. For example, one of the biggest hogs for me is OneNote. I use it constantly and store a ton of stuff in it. When I have many notebooks open, activity monitor reports OneNote is using 17 GB of RAM with 16.5 GB compressed. Switching between notebooks can be a little sluggish...

 

[jgbr]

Sounds like poor coding of one note to me.

Word, endnote or other apps don't even consume that much.

I also note the build times for machines are up at two weeks?!

 

[EugW]

If more RAM helps compensate for poor coding of apps in terms of memory usage, then that’s a pretty good argument for getting more RAM, cuz there are likely a lot of apps out there with poor coding.

 

[OldMike]

Sounds like poor coding of one note to me.

Word, endnote or other apps don't even consume that much.

I also note the build times for machines are up at two weeks?!

I don't think I use OneNote in a typical fashion. It really has become my second brain. I keep everything that is important to me in there. I have lots of pdfs, screen shots, presentations and files in there. I keep all the notebooks open so that I can switch back and forth without having to re-sync them. I don't blame OneNote at all for consuming large amounts of memory, when I am actually requesting for it to keep all of that information ready to go.

 

[nutmac]

Routine spreadsheets, surfing with LOTS of tabs, occasional video editing.

Do you have a Mac now? Spend a day or two do your typical workflows. Don't close the apps. Launch Activity Monitor then click the Memory tab.

Two things to pay attention:

1. Memory Used: If it's consistently exceeding 8 GB, then yes, you would benefit from 16 GB.
2. Memory Pressure: Is it frequently yellow and sometimes red? Then yes, you should get more RAM.

As for the processor, the performance gain isn't earth shattering. Typically between 10-20%, if at that. If raw processing power is what you are after, either wait for 2018 Cannonlake refresh (which probably won't happen until Q3 or Q4 given Intel's delay) or get 13" MBP.

 

[jgbr]

I have been worrying about this 8GB v 16GB problem.

I have a 16GB latest MacBook Pro and looking to the MacBook as my travel device as I am not getting on with my IPP.

Considering I run a lot more on my MBP, I notice it hanging around 6-7GB of app memory and always in the green.
Will 8GB be enough?

 

[EugW]

I have been worrying about this 8GB v 16GB problem.

I have a 16GB latest MacBook Pro and looking to the MacBook as my travel device as I am not getting on with my IPP.

Considering I run a lot more on my MBP, I notice it hanging around 6-7GB of app memory and always in the green.
Will 8GB be enough?

For now probably yes. In a few years, who knows?

But then again, for a travel device it might matter less.

Hell, for just an occasional use travel device, I could even get away with a 4 GB machine, although it'd be a pretty big compromise.

---

P.S. The same could be said for SSD storage. I personally wanted a no compromise machine so I went with 16 GB memory, but some people would wonder why I didn't upgrade to 512 GB SSD. In my case though, I KNOW I won't need 512 GB internally, because of my usage patterns. So, if I were to spend money on one of the two upgrades -- memory vs SSD -- it would be memory. YMMV.

BTW, I already have a 1 TB external USB-C SSD. It's a Samsung T5 and is shared with an iMac.

 

[OldMike]

I have to agree on the RAM vs SSD consideration. As a secondary machine, I would think that 256GB would be enough storage (especially if you use some sort of cloud storage). I personally would like a 1TB SSD, but if I had to choose between RAM and SSD, I would also pick RAM.

Right now I am feeling the RAM crunch on my 8GB MacBook. Although I like keeping some things local, I usually use network drives, cloud storage and even a connected 4TB USB3 drive. If I need to be on the go, I just need to be mindful of what I have local to my MacBook.

If I were to buy a MacBook today, I would probably go for the M3 16GB RAM / 256 SSD combination like EugW did. Seems like the best compromise on value and usability.

I just cleared a bunch of local files off of my MacBook (about 100GB) - but with APFS I have no idea of how much storage I am really using. It looks like 267GB free with 15GB purgeable. But to be honest, I can't imagine I am still using over 200GB.

 

[Clix Pix]

Quite a few years ago I learned my lesson about buying a machine with limited amount of storage. It was fine for a while until I kept adding more and more to my iTunes library and that really started to become problematic. I had already put some folders and files on the external drives I had then, but did not want to put my iTunes library anywhere than on my computer's internal drive. Eventually I sold that machine and purchased one with 512 GB and have continued to do so ever since, and also once the Samsung T series of external SSDs became available, I began using them and that has made a difference as well.

Given the choice between increasing RAM or increasing storage capacity, I would go with increasing the RAM, as the storage capacity can always and easily be supplemented by external drives, either SSD or HDD.

 

[EugW]

My iTunes library is on my NAS. I would do the same with my Photos library but Apple in its infinite wisdom designed it to be incompatible with non-Apple file systems.

But my Photos library is on my iMac so it’s moot for my MacBook. On my iMac I have a 1 TB SSD. 512 GB is not enough. When 1 TB is not enough, I will go external.

 

[Clix Pix]

I don't use Photos.....and that makes it a lot easier to store my images wherever I want, and yes, most of my images except favorites and those which are in the process of being culled/edited, etc., are stashed on my external drives. Years ago I tried setting up and using a NAS but it didn't really work out well for me; one of these days I should probably try it again since technology has evolved significantly since then.

 

[EugW]

I don't use Photos.....and that makes it a lot easier to store my images wherever I want, and yes, most of my images except favorites and those which are in the process of being culled/edited, etc., are stashed on my external drives. Years ago I tried setting up and using a NAS but it didn't really work out well for me; one of these days I should probably try it again since technology has evolved significantly since then.

The Ethernet connection is a bottleneck, but I still get 100 MB/s out of it even with small random files, since my main files drive on the NAS is actually a 1 TB SSD.

 

[Mike Boreham]

I don't use Photos.....and that makes it a lot easier to store my images wherever I want, and yes, most of my images except favorites and those which are in the process of being culled/edited, etc., are stashed on my external drives.

You can put Photos Library on external drives very easily. This the case whether it is the System Library or not, and whether it is in managed or referenced mode. On my iMac which only has 256 GB SSD my iCloud Photos Lib is on a external Samsung T5.

I agree on a portable I like to have the internal as big as possible to avoid externals. Doesn't matter on a desktop.

 

[Clix Pix]

Most of my photos are on Samsung T3s or T5s, too or on older external HDD.....as well as in my Aperture library on the computer and (processed/edited ones) on my web gallery. Years ago I found iPhotos inadequate and too hampering for the way in which I like to be able to manage my images, and when Photos replaced it, I felt the same. First step in my process is to transfer the images from the memory card reader to the computer, and then I sift through them and cull them before ever taking only the ones I actually want to work on into Aperture and dealing with them there. Once edited, they are exported back out to the desktop and are ready for sharing or for putting online or whatever I choose to do. I keep dragging my heels but I know that I need to be finding another editing program since Aperture isn't supported by Apple any longer and probably won't even work any more in another couple updates of the OS. Lo these many moons ago I used Photoshop but am not now willing to go with Adobe's subscription program and pay a monthly fee when I don't really do that much photo editing these days.

It's been so long since I tried setting up and using a NAS and I've forgotten just how I did connect it to everything.....so ethernet is still part of the picture, eh? Actually, I've been pretty happy with the system I've had going for the past couple of years and probably will just stick with it. For me, the Samsung T series of external SSDs was a real game-changer. Loving my T1s, T3s and T5s!

 

[EugW]

You can put Photos Library on external drives very easily. This the case whether it is the System Library or not, and whether it is in managed or referenced mode. On my iMac which only has 256 GB SSD my iCloud Photos Lib is on a external Samsung T5.

I agree on a portable I like to have the internal as big as possible to avoid externals. Doesn't matter on a desktop.

Yeah, external drives work fine, but this is 2018. Photos should support NAS drives as well, but it doesn't. iTunes has worked fine on NASes for just about forever, because iTunes was created with a different database design philosophy.

I've been tempted to switch to Lightroom, but so far haven't. I even have a Lightroom licence but so far have stuck with Photos, since otherwise Photos seems more consumer friendly and of course is mated well with stuff like Live Photos.

 

[deepakvrao]

Do you have a Mac now? Spend a day or two do your typical workflows. Don't close the apps. Launch Activity Monitor then click the Memory tab.

Two things to pay attention:

1. Memory Used: If it's consistently exceeding 8 GB, then yes, you would benefit from 16 GB.
2. Memory Pressure: Is it frequently yellow and sometimes red? Then yes, you should get more RAM.

As for the processor, the performance gain isn't earth shattering. Typically between 10-20%, if at that. If raw processing power is what you are after, either wait for 2018 Cannonlake refresh (which probably won't happen until Q3 or Q4 given Intel's delay) or get 13" MBP.

Hi,

This is my current usage.