Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2.3GHz or 2.6GHz

P

Phazonite

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 12, 2012
2
0
Hey guys!

I've never used a Mac in my whole life and I just got kinda interested in the MacBook Pro Retina 2.6GHz, but then I noticed that It's 713,82$ more expensive, and that's alot of money for something that isn't that much better (?), I know that it's 216GB more memory but I won't need that much i guess, If I whould then I will just buy extra memory for it :)

I'm gonna be using it MOSTLY for music production, I'm not gonna play games at all at it, basically. I whould be very happy to get some fast responds on my question which is: is those .3 GHz really worth the money for a computer you're mainly gonna use music for?

Thanks! :)

-Phazonite
 
You don't need it... If you had the money without thinking "it's too much for too little", I would have said "Go for it!", but that's not the case. You should be more than fine with the 2.3 GHz version.
 
Agreed. Work out if you need the extra disk space, and if you do you may as well go for the 2.6. If not just stick with the base. If you're not sure you need a faster processor, you don't.
 
go the 2.3 its plenty.

also 8GB of ram will be fine for a few years. As for the SSD, there will be upgrade options in the next few months, so I am sure you will be able to upgrade this.

for people wanting 16GB of ram, they have to get the 2.6 as the 2.3 cannot be configured to 16GB. if 16GB was available in the 2.3, I would but that without even thinking twice.
 
The performance gains in real world applications can be described as negligible. If the additional onboard storage is necessary than there is your justification. I ordered the base 2.3 and plan to use a usb 3 hdd enclosure. According to reviews the write read over usb on a 7200 rpm drive is 100/150 mb/s, respectively. My currency system has 320 gb and I'm only using 90 gb.

----------
MH01 said:
go the 2.3 its plenty.

also 8GB of ram will be fine for a few years. As for the SSD, there will be upgrade options in the next few months, so I am sure you will be able to upgrade this.

for people wanting 16GB of ram, they have to get the 2.6 as the 2.3 cannot be configured to 16GB. if 16GB was available in the 2.3, I would but that without even thinking twice.
Click to expand...

Actually the 2.3 is configuration to 16g of ram. Hop onto the Apple store and configured its. Costs 200 more.
 
As the others stated, you'll not really notice the bump in performance going from 2.3 to 2.6 so I'd recommend sticking with the 2.3 and saving your money
 
Phazonite said:
Hey guys!

I've never used a Mac in my whole life and I just got kinda interested in the MacBook Pro Retina 2.6GHz, but then I noticed that It's 713,82$ more expensive, and that's alot of money for something that isn't that much better (?), I know that it's 216GB more memory but I won't need that much i guess, If I whould then I will just buy extra memory for it :)

I'm gonna be using it MOSTLY for music production, I'm not gonna play games at all at it, basically. I whould be very happy to get some fast responds on my question which is: is those .3 GHz really worth the money for a computer you're mainly gonna use music for?

Thanks! :)

-Phazonite
Click to expand...

What music production apps are retina friendly or even committed to an update? No way would I want to do editing on blurry waveforms.
 
I suggest you also have to consider the storage. If you are fine with 256GB in the machine and will use external drives to house the rest...fine.

For the wife and I we can shoot too many photos on a trip for a 256GB SSD to house. So the choice would be external drive (want to avoid them) or larger SSD. Larger SSD means 2.6 or 2.7 processor.

So consider how much storage you need in the field...and back home.
 
Phazonite said:
Hey guys!

I've never used a Mac in my whole life and I just got kinda interested in the MacBook Pro Retina 2.6GHz, but then I noticed that It's 713,82$ more expensive, and that's alot of money for something that isn't that much better (?), I know that it's 216GB more memory but I won't need that much i guess, If I whould then I will just buy extra memory for it :)

I'm gonna be using it MOSTLY for music production, I'm not gonna play games at all at it, basically. I whould be very happy to get some fast responds on my question which is: is those .3 GHz really worth the money for a computer you're mainly gonna use music for?

Thanks! :)

-Phazonite
Click to expand...

It's not really a Mac question, it's a processor question, and generally if you need to ask you'll be fine with the base. (Also on a quad-core that's 1.2GHz)
 
Phazonite said:
Hey guys!

I've never used a Mac in my whole life and I just got kinda interested in the MacBook Pro Retina 2.6GHz, but then I noticed that It's 713,82$ more expensive, and that's alot of money for something that isn't that much better (?), I know that it's 216GB more memory but I won't need that much i guess, If I whould then I will just buy extra memory for it :)

I'm gonna be using it MOSTLY for music production, I'm not gonna play games at all at it, basically. I whould be very happy to get some fast responds on my question which is: is those .3 GHz really worth the money for a computer you're mainly gonna use music for?

Thanks! :)

-Phazonite
Click to expand...

I factor that made me decide to go for the 2.6 was because of the extra storage. It depends if you think you can live with only 256gb. The difference between 2.3 and 2.6 is so small I don't see there being much of a difference.
 
MH01 said:
for people wanting 16GB of ram, they have to get the 2.6 as the 2.3 cannot be configured to 16GB. if 16GB was available in the 2.3, I would but that without even thinking twice.
Click to expand...


Thats not true, either the 2.3 or 2.6 rMBP can be upgraded to 16gb ram at time of purchase from the online Apple Store.
 
Thanks for all your opinions! I think I'm going for the 2.3, the money I'll save on it will go to a soundcard and some other stuff, I can also say that I'm gonna use the recording program ''Mixcraft'' for my production :)
 
stevelam said:
What music production apps are retina friendly or even committed to an update? No way would I want to do editing on blurry waveforms.
Click to expand...

While it is true that no DAW software has announced an update for the Retina displays, have you used a waveform audio editor on the MBPr? If so, which one(s)? And at which Retina resolutions?

At the scaled 1440x900 and 1680x1050 resolutions, Waveforms in Audacity do have some blurriness compared to my 1920x1200 external monitor, but have approximately the same appearance at the 1920x1200 scaled Retina resolution. At the waveform sample level, any differences are even further marginalized. I found similar results in Soundtrack Pro/Logic Pro's wave editor. As these are my primary editing tools, I have not yet tried other software (Cubase, ProTools, Audition, etc.) with the Retina, so I can't speak for its quality in other environments.

I have also not received any reports from my colleagues who use other editing software, as I am the only person who presently has a MBPr among my producer/editor buddies.
 
MH01 said:
go the 2.3 its plenty.

also 8GB of ram will be fine for a few years. As for the SSD, there will be upgrade options in the next few months, so I am sure you will be able to upgrade this.

for people wanting 16GB of ram, they have to get the 2.6 as the 2.3 cannot be configured to 16GB. if 16GB was available in the 2.3, I would but that without even thinking twice.
Click to expand...

the base model can be customized on apples website for 16gb of ram for 200 dollars more, wtf are u talking about?
 
MH01 said:
go the 2.3 its plenty.

also 8GB of ram will be fine for a few years. As for the SSD, there will be upgrade options in the next few months, so I am sure you will be able to upgrade this.

for people wanting 16GB of ram, they have to get the 2.6 as the 2.3 cannot be configured to 16GB. if 16GB was available in the 2.3, I would but that without even thinking twice.
Click to expand...

i have the 2.3 with 16gb on order. yes you can.
 
So many threads on this subject...

Again, the difference between 2.3 GHz and 2.6 GHz is practically unnoticeable. The difference between these and 2.7 is slightly more noticeable because of the increased L3 cache, but still pretty unnoticeable.

Upgrading your processor from 2.3 GHz to 2.6 GHz is ridiculous. The 2.6 GHz is more of a minor perk for people who already needed 512 GB of SSD anyways.
 
sofianito said:
Is there any technical reason Apple doesn't offer the 2.3Ghz with 512Gb?
Click to expand...

No they just need to differentiate a high end model; previously with the MBP the high end had larger storage, faster CPU and more graphics memory, with the Retina they can only offer larger SSD & CPU speed bump, typically the base model has far fewer options than the high end option.

The MBP base does offer several options; ram, HDD/SSD, display with the Retina Apple have little room for manoeuvre as those needing space will opt for 512 & 2.6, if 512 was an option on the 2.3 few if any would buy the 2.6 as the performance difference is negligible...
 
Phazonite said:
Hey guys!

I've never used a Mac in my whole life and I just got kinda interested in the MacBook Pro Retina 2.6GHz, but then I noticed that It's 713,82$ more expensive, and that's alot of money for something that isn't that much better (?), I know that it's 216GB more memory but I won't need that much i guess, If I whould then I will just buy extra memory for it :)

I'm gonna be using it MOSTLY for music production, I'm not gonna play games at all at it, basically. I whould be very happy to get some fast responds on my question which is: is those .3 GHz really worth the money for a computer you're mainly gonna use music for?

Thanks! :)

-Phazonite
Click to expand...

Hey! I also do music production. I keep most of my uncompressed tracks on separate drives, so I don't need the 512GBs. What I did do was get the 16GB RAM upgrade, since the RAM is not user upgradable at all. I'm basically future-proofing.
The difference between 2.3 and 2.6, really, it's unnoticeable. Just get the base model, and get the RAM upgrade if possible.
 
A performance increase of 9.92% average is all your going to get with the 2.7, which makes for little or any noticeable difference in day to day use. Those "pegging" their CPU`s; working with video, audio, imagery for a living are the ones who will see a benefit, as in general time for them is money.

My own base 2.3 benchmarks with Geek Test over 11K consistently (32bit), 8% slower than the 2.7 :apple:

http://browser.primatelabs.com/mac-benchmarks

The main attraction of the 2.6 & 2.7 is the additional storage for those on the move preferring non external solutions. The 2.3 base may well be the champion for battery life which is also a very strong consideration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back