2.3GHz or 2.6GHz

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Phazonite, Jul 12, 2012.

  1. Phazonite macrumors newbie

    Jul 12, 2012
    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! :)

  2. Barna Biro macrumors 6502a

    Barna Biro

    Sep 25, 2011
    Zug, Switzerland
    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.
  3. tillsbury macrumors 65816

    Dec 24, 2007
    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.
  4. MH01 Suspended


    Feb 11, 2008
    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.
  5. inlinevolvo macrumors 6502

    Jul 11, 2012
    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.


    Actually the 2.3 is configuration to 16g of ram. Hop onto the Apple store and configured its. Costs 200 more.
  6. maflynn Moderator


    Staff Member

    May 3, 2009
    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
  7. stevelam macrumors 65816

    Nov 4, 2010
    What music production apps are retina friendly or even committed to an update? No way would I want to do editing on blurry waveforms.
  8. MCAsan macrumors 601


    Jul 9, 2012
    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.
  9. Interstella5555 macrumors 603


    Jun 30, 2008
    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)
  10. tomtom2234 macrumors member

    Oct 16, 2010
    New Orleans
    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.
  11. katmeef macrumors 6502

    Jul 20, 2010

    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.
  12. HighEndMac macrumors regular

    Mar 30, 2011
    When would you notice the bump in performance?
  13. Phazonite thread starter macrumors newbie

    Jul 12, 2012
    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 :)
  14. Abhorred macrumors member

    Jul 15, 2008
    Montreal, Canada
    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.
  15. iLikeTurtles! macrumors 6502

    Jun 22, 2012
    the base model can be customized on apples website for 16gb of ram for 200 dollars more, wtf are u talking about?
  16. stevelam macrumors 65816

    Nov 4, 2010
    i have the 2.3 with 16gb on order. yes you can.
  17. MH01 Suspended


    Feb 11, 2008
    yeah I got that wrong, it was infact the SSD that was stuck at 256
  18. sofianito macrumors 65816


    Jan 14, 2011
    Is there any technical reason Apple doesn't offer the 2.3Ghz with 512Gb?
  19. Slivortal macrumors 6502

    Jun 14, 2012
    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.
  20. Queen6 macrumors 603


    Dec 11, 2008
    Putting out the fire with gasoline...
    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...
  21. ACiB708 macrumors regular

    Apr 6, 2008
    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.
  22. Stetrain macrumors 68040

    Feb 6, 2009
    Mostly with CPU-bound tasks like encoding video or applying complex filters in Photoshop.
  23. Queen6 macrumors 603


    Dec 11, 2008
    Putting out the fire with gasoline...
    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:


    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.

Share This Page