Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

About to purchase MBP, advice plz

jimtron

macrumors member
Original poster
Jul 27, 2008
87
4
This refurb looks good at Apple online store: 2018, 2.9GHz, 15", 32gb, 4TB, Vega 20: $4379.

Or new, at B&H: 2019, 2.4GHz, 15", 32gb, 2TB, Vega 20: $4149.

I'll be doing video editing, Photoshop/Lightroom, and 360°/VR stuff. Seems like 4TB would be really nice. Otherwise a bit of a tossup; second one is a newer model, brand new, and cheaper; first one has faster clock, bigger hard drive.

I realize no one can make this decision for me, but curious if anyone has any thoughts, or other places to buy that might have a better deal. Definitely leaning toward the refurb at the moment.



Links:


https://www.apple.com/shop/product/...15f6243c0a1d04da732da15df2a6954ad09600c3744a6


https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1481337-REG/apple_z0ww_mv91_30_bh_15_4_macbook_pro_with.html
 

Jac Robinson

macrumors newbie
May 10, 2019
27
15
Well, one is an 8 core and the other is a 6 core processor. So, keep that in mind. More storage sounds preferable to me. But like you said, its your call.
 
Comment

jimtron

macrumors member
Original poster
Jul 27, 2008
87
4
"Well, one is an 8 core and the other is a 6 core processor. So, keep that in mind. More storage sounds preferable to me. But like you said, its your call."

Ah, good point, missed that. So the '19 is 8-core, but slower processor. Yeah, still leaning toward the '18, unless anyone thinks the '19 is clearly a much better deal...
 
Comment

bcaslis

macrumors 68020
Mar 11, 2008
2,174
200
19 is faster despite the slower clock, has better cooling, and has the revised keyboard. Unless you really need 4TB SSD, it would be no contest for me. I would go with the 19 (which I did).
 
Comment

Lunder89

macrumors 6502
Oct 16, 2014
392
128
Denmark
I would also go the 2019 version. The base clock might be lower, but when you have two cores to pick up the slack, it will make a difference.
Think of this way: 2.9 GHz x 6 cores = 17.4 GHz - 2.4 GHz x 8 cores = 19.2 GHz
 
Comment

leman

macrumors G4
Oct 14, 2008
11,991
6,871
Is there a reason why you need such a large SSD? For your kind of work, it might be a better idea to have an external thunderbolt SSD for your projects. Also, hand down the 2019 i9, they are better in every regard. You don't need the 2.4Ghz CPU, the 2.3Ghz one is basically just as good. Also, clocks are misleading, the 2.3Ghz CPU is actually 4.8Ghz, so don't worry too much about it.
 
Comment

Lunder89

macrumors 6502
Oct 16, 2014
392
128
Denmark
[QUOTE="leman, post: 27570116, member: 237161"...Also, clocks are misleading, the 2.3Ghz CPU is actually 4.8Ghz, so don't worry too much about it.[/QUOTE]

Okay, let me just correct you there. The 2.3 (or 2.4) clock is the BASE clock. That is the actual clock of the processor. IF the is a need for it, and the thermals can handle it, there is a turbo clock, which can then reach 4.8 or 5.0 GHz.
BUT the thermals on the MacBook Pro, will not allow the CPU to get there very often or very long. So that is NOT the speed to expect.

Also when the system is put under load, not all cores will reach that speed. Thermals aside, all cores could likely reach 4. 5 or 6, and ONE core would reach the 4.8 GHz.
But since we can't put thermals aside, under longer loads it won't get much faster than its BASE clock. I haven't seen the latest reviews of the 15" yet. But the first i9 MacBook Pros did not fare well, if you remember, they couldn't even stay at their base clock.
 
Comment

leman

macrumors G4
Oct 14, 2008
11,991
6,871
Okay, let me just correct you there.

The real story unfortunately is much more complex. I was trying to give a simplified account and point out that the base clock is not the definitive measure of expected performance.

At any rate, the simpel fact is that the current-gen 2.3Ghz i9 will significantly outperform any last-year Mac in virtually every scenario.

The 2.3 (or 2.4) clock is the BASE clock.
That is the actual clock of the processor.

Not really. The way Intel defines the base clock is the minimal/guaranteed clock the CPU is expected to run at when running "a complex" (whatever that means) workload that utilises all the CPU cores, while drawing its TDP of power, in a system that is designed to accommodate the CPU's thermals.

What this all means that there will be very few real-life situations when you will see the CPU actually running at its base clock. As you correctly point out, it will depend on workload, the thermal environment, and other factors.

So that is NOT the speed to expect.

It is very much the speed to expect for short-term burst workload that do not involve massively parallel work. Which is the reason why new 15W CPUs outperform older 45W or even 90W CPUs in most general computing tasks.

But since we can't put thermals aside, under longer loads it won't get much faster than its BASE clock.

Depends on the workload. If your work is heavily multithreaded and your thermal environment is good, than you are right, the performance will probably stabilise around 20-30% over the base clock at some point. If your work is not heavily multithreaded, the clocks will be higher.

But the first i9 MacBook Pros did not fare well, if you remember, they couldn't even stay at their base clock.

All independent tests I've seen (including the tests I've done myself) show that the 2018 i9 is more than able to sustain its base clock. You are probably referring again to the bug present in the power management firmware of the MBP when it was first launched. This bug would result in machine erratically throttling under high load. Apple released a patch that has fully fixed this behaviour two weeks after it was released.
 
Comment

xb2003

macrumors 6502
Jan 18, 2016
381
168
MO
Yeah, go with the 2019. Everything I've seen points towards improved thermals (which was a major issue for the 2018) and it has that newer keyboard, which may or may not fix the problem but probably won't hurt it.

The only other thing I'd be asking myself is if I really needed that internal storage. I mean, sure it's nice to not carry an external hard drive, but Apple charges a pretty penny for that privilege. And on top of that, it's way more convenient to store projects on an external drive if you switch between a desktop and a laptop a lot.
 
Comment

Jac Robinson

macrumors newbie
May 10, 2019
27
15
Consider what defines an upgrade for you. I would definitely get the one with extra storage as that would be more useful to me. The other replies in this thread have focused on speed mostly. If more storage is highly beneficial to what you do, it may be the faster/more comfortable option.



Yeah, go with the 2019. Everything I've seen points towards improved thermals (which was a major issue for the 2018) and it has that newer keyboard, which may or may not fix the problem but probably won't hurt it.

The only other thing I'd be asking myself is if I really needed that internal storage. I mean, sure it's nice to not carry an external hard drive, but Apple charges a pretty penny for that privilege. And on top of that, it's way more convenient to store projects on an external drive if you switch between a desktop and a laptop a lot.

The desktop argument is a good one. By way of comparison, I think the price for more storage in this context isn’t that bad.
 
Comment

Fishrrman

macrumors Core
Feb 20, 2009
20,431
7,246
If you're going to spend that much money (I honestly can't understand why anyone would spend $4,000 on a LAPTOP), you'd do better to wait until this coming October, when the new 16" MacBook Pro models are introduced -- with the NEW keyboard that will hopefully be a big improvement over the existing one.
 
Comment

Howard2k

macrumors 68030
Mar 10, 2016
2,906
2,160
Yeah, go with the 2019. Everything I've seen points towards improved thermals (which was a major issue for the 2018) and it has that newer keyboard, which may or may not fix the problem but probably won't hurt it.

The only other thing I'd be asking myself is if I really needed that internal storage. I mean, sure it's nice to not carry an external hard drive, but Apple charges a pretty penny for that privilege. And on top of that, it's way more convenient to store projects on an external drive if you switch between a desktop and a laptop a lot.

Seconded.

I use 256GB of local storage and keep my files local while actively working on them, but then move them to NAS when ready so they're still always accessible, but just a bit slower. And for many file types, that doesn't really matter. I don't need to keep all my movies and songs locally, I just open them off the NAS and it works great. It's also far cheaper than Apple's absurd SSD pricing.
 
Comment

jimtron

macrumors member
Original poster
Jul 27, 2008
87
4
Thanks for the responses folks! Regarding the storage, I do use external drives, but it seems like it's still easy to have internal drive accumulate stuff pretty fast, and I know it helps performance to have the hard drive not too full. I do a lot of photo and video work while traveling, and have small external drives, but capacious internal storage would be nice for me.

That said, I'm now leaning toward the 2019.

Any ideas for a better price than B&H?
 
Last edited:
Comment

jimtron

macrumors member
Original poster
Jul 27, 2008
87
4
(I honestly can't understand why anyone would spend $4,000 on a LAPTOP)

I do video, photography, and VR work professionally. I need a portable computer, and would rather not own two computers. So I use a MBP, at the office with an external display.
 
Comment

ghanwani

macrumors 68020
Dec 8, 2008
2,161
1,701
Thanks for the responses folks! Regarding the storage, I do use external drives, but it seems like it's still easy to have internal drive accumulate stuff pretty fast, and I know it helps performance to have the hard drive not too full. I do a lot of photo and video work while traveling, and have small external drives, but capacious internal storage would be nice for me.

That said, I'm now leaning toward the 2019.

Any ideas for a better price than B&H?

Check Apple Insider's price guide. I think you can save $100.
 
Comment

Neilfau

macrumors member
Jan 29, 2012
32
1
UK
Any idea what prices will be like, for 15 or 16" MBP, 32gb ram, 2tb hard drive?

I’m in the same boat as you & I was just about to buy a 2019 15” with 8 core, 32gb ram, 1TB hdd & Vega 20 but I’m now leaning on waiting 2 months for the new 16.4”. If I’m spending this kind of money on a laptop then I want the best possible resale value for when I sell in 4-5 years time and I believe with all the keyboard issues the 16.4” will much more desirable even though performance wise I don’t expect it to be much faster than the current 2019 15”.

As for price.... the higher end 15” starts at $2799, rumours are the 16.4” will start at around $3000, so expect the base 16.4” to be similar to the high end 15”. I would expect the base 16.4” therefore to have 8 cores i9 (possibly xeon), 16gb ram, 512gb hdd etc, so you’re looking at $200 premium for the screen size and the new keyboard. One thing to also take into consideration is that I think a few people have calculated that a 16.4” screen will not fit the current 15” chassis even if there are zero bezels, so expect it to be slightly bigger and probably slightly thicker to accommodate the new keyboard.
 
Comment

jardinager

macrumors 6502
Apr 24, 2015
268
545
NC
If you're going to spend that much money (I honestly can't understand why anyone would spend $4,000 on a LAPTOP), you'd do better to wait until this coming October, when the new 16" MacBook Pro models are introduced -- with the NEW keyboard that will hopefully be a big improvement over the existing one.

nope. That’s just an opinion based on rumors and your own personal dislike and paranoia of a keyboard. The time for getting bang for your buck is now. And, if you can’t or won’t spend 4K on a laptop, then you are not going to be in the market for the new revision.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.