Exchange Retina 2.3Ghz for Retina 2.6Ghz?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by No-Me, Jul 20, 2012.

  1. No-Me macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    #1
    Hi,

    I was unfortunate enough to receive my first 15" Retina with a couple of dead pixels, that one was replaced for a new one. That one has somekind of serious heat problem and will also be replaced.

    For the inconvenience Apple has given me two options:
    1. I get a little bit of money back
    2. I upgrade to the 2.6Ghz version which I can get at a discounted rate.

    I can keep using the first one with the dead pixels (that they have not picked up yet) until the new one arrives. I would love to have the 512SSD, actually that would make my life a bit easyer. If I could have the 2.3 with a 512SSD it would be quite obvious I would go for that, but unfortunately that's not an option so I have a few questions.

    How is the 2.6 compared to the 2.3:
    - with the battery?
    - heatwise?

    :)
     
  2. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #2
    No difference.
     
  3. mdapple macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    #3
    battery life is about two hours shorter based on engadget, but ymmv. If the discount is enough it may be worth it.
     
  4. playsontheleft macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2012
    #4
    Really? I can't see 0.3GHz making that great a difference...
     
  5. SurferMan macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 14, 2010
    Location:
    South FL
    #5
    wow, that can't be right can it? Fluke? I figure worst case just a slight difference, but not 2 hours.... sucks if true.
     
  6. Auzburner macrumors 65816

    Auzburner

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2008
    Location:
    Syracuse, NY - USA
    #6
    It's not true. There is another discussion down the page a bit regarding Engadget's review.

    Read through the comments and make your own determination. My 2.7 gets at least 7.5 hours. It's simply not true in my first hand experience.
     
  7. striker33 macrumors 65816

    striker33

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    #7
    lol engadget.

    You may want to use a reputable site for future references ;)

    Anyway, how much discount would you get? If its a significant amount, go for it, if not, then just get some money back. The 0.3GHz difference is nothing for 99% of users, so the additional money for the extra 256GB of storage just isnt worth it in most cases, and is just a marketing ploy from Apple to force people into buying the higher end model for more storage.
     
  8. No-Me thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    #8
    Around €200, or a €100 cashback on the 2.3Ghz/16GB I have now.

    The storage is the only reason I'm considering it, the Ghz don't bother me, but can imagine it getting slightly hotter.
     
  9. striker33 macrumors 65816

    striker33

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    #9
    Personally I'd get the cashback and use it on an external USB3.0 or thunderbolt drive.
     
  10. Newbie MacUser macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2012
    #10
    How about asking them for 2TB Time Capsule b/c of the hard drive limitation with SSDs? I have one and its great! NO lag whatsoever?

    ----------

    To really maximize thunderbolt and USB 3.0 to the fullest you would need a External SSD drive b/c of the write speed limitation on 7200RPM Externals
     
  11. striker33 macrumors 65816

    striker33

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2010
    #11
    I'd love to know how you'd get a time capsule to work whilst on a train etc, and where you could get one for 100 euros for that matter ;)

    Yes.
     
  12. terraphantm macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    #12
    Yeah, but a USB3.0 7200RPM drive will still be faster than a USB2.0 version of the same drive. A normal HDD should be sufficient for most people (realistically, an SSD is mostly useful for the OS, programs, and frequently accessed files... for things like movies and music, a standard HDD is the way to go.. and those kind of files are usually what necessitate mass amounts of storage too).

    Now with that said, if you're using the external drive as a "scratch" drive for rendering movies or whatever, then an SSD is absolutely the way to go.
     
  13. No-Me thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    #13
    I work a lot with aperture for work and I right now I have a USB3 drive with my huge library (on the SSD I got out of my old MBP), but it's always a bit of a hassle, that's why I'm doubting :)

    The other thing I could do is go for the cashback and wait for OWC to release a new drive that I can pop in, but if I look at their prices for the MacBook air SSD upgrades it wouldn't be cheaper.
     
  14. jcpb macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2012
    #14
    Apple's advertised battery numbers assume you don't use the dGPU at all. With the dGPU on, it's max minus 2 hours, give or take.
     
  15. Slivortal macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2012
    #15
    If you plan on upgrading the SSD, you might as well do it from the start. When OWC releases HD upgrades, they're probably not going to be much less expensive.

    Not to mention that the 2.6 GHz is probably not as big of a detriment as Engadget's singular testing purports.
     
  16. Woodcrest64, Jul 20, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2012

    Woodcrest64 macrumors 65816

    Woodcrest64

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    #16
    0.3Ghz is nothing when you can overclock a PC or Hackintosh from 3.4ghz to 5ghz with the latest i7 :D

    Some people feel their 2.6 or 2.7Ghz will be more future proof than the 2.3ghz model but the truth is by the time Core-i series becomes the bare minimum for softwware the difference in 0.xx Ghz is not going to help. You're going to need a new machine by that point ;)

    As others have mentioned the real benefit to getting the more expensive model is for the additional storage. I have too many photos and videos to even fit on the 768GB SSD. However the 256gb SSD is MORE than enough for all my applications. Everything else is stored externally. You can stick with the 256gb model then down the road upgrade it if you're comfortable with that.

    If you have deep pockets it shouldn't matter how much you spend as long as you're happy with your purchase :D
     
  17. PM Harold Saxon macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Location:
    Perth, West Australia
    #17
    2. You upgrade to the 2.6GHz version at the discounted rate. 512GB makes all the difference in the world. 256GB is too small.
     
  18. Woodcrest64 macrumors 65816

    Woodcrest64

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2006
    #18
    256GB is too small for some but not everyone. It really depends on the user and their applications and the content they have. 768GB is too small for me if I wanted all my videos and pictures on there but 256GB is a lot considering the only apps I have installed are lightroom, photoshop, itunes, fcpx, chrome and of course OSX ;)
     
  19. No-Me thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Location:
    Rotterdam
    #19
    I made up my mind, the price difference isn't that big a deal as it's a company computer. I was mainy curious if the temperature/batterylife would be different. Since the bigger SSD will make my life a lot easier I go for that, can't wait until it's in, these dead pixels are starting to annoy me ;-)
     

Share This Page