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

2.6GHz MBP or 2.3GHz MBP(Retina) for Architectural Renderings?

F

farhat2tube

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 12, 2012
27
0
Malaysia
I will be a new mac user very soon but after the launch of the new MBPs, i am confused of either getting the newly updated MBP 15" 2.6Ghz quad-core i7/8GB memory/750GB HDD or the new baseline MBP Retina with 2.3Ghz/8GB/256GB SSD.

Although i would love the higher 2.6Ghz with optical drive, for the same price i could get the latest hardware w/retina..

I've heard that the SSD would compensate the lower processor, but i still need to know which is better for fast architectural renderings with Artlantis, Maxwell Render, and using ArchiCAD, AutoCAD, Sketchup and with Photoshop.

I am student and submission requirements are usually in Print and CDs, although the MBP Retina is optical-less, i could get the USB-CD, IF the MBP Retina is your choice since im confused on which to get at the moment.

I am currently using a 2009 Dell XPS 1640 with the spec:
-Intel Core 2 Duo P8700 2.53Ghz
-4GB Ram
-500GB HDD Storage
-Windows 7 Home Premium

and rendering with artlantis would occasionally crash, currently rendering an image with Artlantis (1046x768 size) and it is still going after 2hrs.

(I am sick and tired of my Windows crashing, freezing and affecting my work flow, thus im migrating to Mac. Im not a completely new user, had an iBook and used Mac in college)

Please help, I need to order one before next week!
 
Pretty difficult in your case. The retina display is probably good for small presentations, vector based images (EPS, PS, AI and various CAD-formats). However, the "standard" (non-retina) MBP is much better, if you do not need a retina display. See also:
https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=15012627#post15012627

The Early-2011 and Late-2011 high resolution (non-retina) displays are already pretty good, if we compare them to MBP displays from 2009 and 2007. So i assume the Mid-2012 non-retina displays are also very good.
 
I'd go the retina 2.6 if you can swing it.
Renderings are basically cpu dependant, so the best cpu you can afford will be the quickest. The jump to the 2.7 however is too much money for too little gain imho.

Being able to draft at 1920 x 1200 with tool palettes taking up less room is the reason I'm getting the retina.

Btw, I'm an arch student as well, mostly use rhino, cinema 4d and vray to render though. No experience with archicad, my drafting is done in vectorworks.
 
take the retina, as it has Nvidia Graphics with 1GB (the classic one has only 512MB), which rendering software can use. As I would suggest using an external display in architectural context. Then take max Ram available.

Retina in general is not really necessary, as long you don't have eagle eyes, which makes it possible working on a 15" on a 1920x1200and more resolution...

Interesting in the future will be, how Autodesk (as announced at WWDC keynote) will take advantage of the new Retina display....

As I'm also getting a new Macbook in the next few weeks, I'm getting the 2,3ghz model with 16gb RAM as it offers the most for the money (I think), with student discount in switzerland it will cost me 2000euros... Its okay, I think.. And use it with my Dell 24" Display at office, and without at home...

Im an architecture-student too (doing my diploma thesis) btw

Good luck :D
 
jgz said:
take the retina, as it has Nvidia Graphics with 1GB (the classic one has only 512MB), which rendering software can use.
Click to expand...

I believe pretty much all rendering software (apart from some od ones like the blender render, from memory) only use cpu for rendering.

Gpu power will help DISPLAYING 2d and 3d imagery, but it is all down to the cpu to actually crank the render out. Gpu does not impact render time.
 
Mr. Retrofire said:
My new 15" Ivy Bridge non-retina MBP has a different opinion:


;-)
Click to expand...


argh didnt see that, thx for correction :D


ecnal said:
I believe pretty much all rendering software (apart from some od ones like the blender render, from memory) only use cpu for rendering.

Gpu power will help DISPLAYING 2d and 3d imagery, but it is all down to the cpu to actually crank the render out. Gpu does not impact render time.
Click to expand...

nevertheless it will bring benefits then, using such programs, doesnt it?
 
As an architecture student myself, I'm selling my 17" 2010 for the retina MBP.

It's great that you can use 1920 x 1200, which is the current resolution of my Mac, so you still get a lot of workspace and higher resolution. Also, having Flash storage will make things a lot faster because as you know, renders take a while so every aspect that could be sped up, Apple have sped it up :)

ArchiCAD 16 also works with the retina display, though EDU licenses aren't shipping for another month or two. Not sure when AutoCAD are shipping there next release.
 
jgz said:
argh didnt see that, thx for correction :D




nevertheless it will bring benefits then, using such programs, doesnt it?
Click to expand...

Yes, but personally the most frustrated I get with my current comp is waiting for renders- so cpu is top of the list for me, as the other stuff is fine anyway.
 
such a difficult decision! Id love more opinions as i am only able to fork out the maximum student discount price for the top line updated MBP & Base MBP-retina.

Could you just focus on the two options, i dont think i can afford to fork out more for RAM upgrades by apple just yet, ill be using alot of cash for printing this week aswell for my end semester exhibition!

I love the retina display and how i can see more while working with it, plus if i do choose the updated MBP, i think i dont mind adding a lil more for the Hi-res anti glare option.

Pls help me decide, with reasons! I cannot afford to change computers after this for ahwhile, maybe upgrades in a years time...
 
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