First time purchase, Macbook Pro Retina Display

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Guardi, Aug 7, 2012.

  1. Guardi macrumors newbie

    Aug 7, 2012
    Hello Everyone :)

    I'm new to the forums however have been reading up in this section quite a bit over the last few days.

    I will be buying my first Mac :D

    I'm not sure which MacBook Pro with Retina Display configuration to go for and need some expert help :)

    1) 2.3GHz - 16GB RAM - 256GB SSD

    2) 2.3GHz - 16GB RAM - 512GB SSD

    3) 2.6GHz - 16GB RAM - 256GB SSD

    4) 2.6GHz - 16GB RAM - 512GB SSD

    I will be using the computer for general browsing, some photoshop + web dev, watching videos, basic video editing, office work, server admin and running windows in VM.

    I have a Ubuntu Server with 4TB of storage for storing my media.

    Wanted to make sure I choose the right options so I can future proof for the next three years +

    I'm really excited! :D
  2. swamyg1 macrumors regular

    Dec 11, 2007
    I work with the exact same tasks as you, I went for the 2.3/16/256. I have a main desktop I use so I dont need the hd space. I work with big files and virtual machines do 16gb was a no brainer.

    I figure its only worth paying for CPU upgrades if you gain 15 to 20%. Everyone says you won't notice te CPU bump so don't bother.

    Just recieved my machine today, love it. Its screaming fast and the screen is awesome.
  3. Guardi thread starter macrumors newbie

    Aug 7, 2012
    Thanks for replying.

    Ah, so going from 2.3 to 2.6 would only result in a ~15% increase in performance, interesting.

    I had a look at a demo unit at an Apple reseller and the screen is gorgeous.

    I was wondering if taking the HDD size to 512GB might be worth the additional cost though.
  4. swamyg1 macrumors regular

    Dec 11, 2007
    The bump to 2.6 is 10% at best. I would only consider upgrading if it was 15% or more. Plus, some people were saying the 2.6 uses more battery, I don't have any proof of this... Battery is important to me so it just gave me another reason to go with the base.

    I was considering cancelling my base, but after a lot of research I figured it wasn't worth it in the end. Totally happy with the base.
  5. mduser63 macrumors 68040


    Nov 9, 2004
    Salt Lake City, UT
    I went with the 2.3/16/256 and am 100% satisfied with it. 80-90% of my time is spent in Xcode. I often have multiple projects open, and Xcode likes a lot of memory, so the extra RAM is appreciated. As for the CPU, this machine builds a (fairly large) Xcode project significantly faster than my mid-2010 2.93 GHz Core i7 iMac. The 2.6 GHz CPU undoubtedly offers a performance boost, but I doubt its enough to be worth the extra money for the majority of users.
  6. gbkrip macrumors member

    Aug 17, 2011
    If you're expecting an HDD in there, you will be pleasantly surprised when you realize that it's a SSD. :)

    As for the question itself, I think it depends on your storage situation. If you have another way of handling storing your media and 256GB is enough for everything else, then there is no reason to get more storage in my opinion.
  7. TLewis, Aug 7, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 7, 2012

    TLewis macrumors 65816

    Sep 19, 2007
    left coast, US
    If you can afford it, go for the 512GB. Money is the only limiting factor, there. :(

    Also, if you install netatalk 2.2 or later, you can do time machine backups to your Ubuntu server. Being able to do wireless automatic time machine backups is nothing short of amazing (and not having to use an Apple server is even better). You'll want to limit the volume size using the "volsizelimit" option though, as time machine works by completely filling up the volume.

    Edit: however, even with time machine, you'll probably still want to periodically create bootable backups of your hard disk, on a usb drive (make sure you have a recovery procedure for the hidden recovery HD partition). If anything happens to your system, it'll make recovery a lot easier.

    Edit 2: on the other hand, hourly time machine backups will eat your battery. My wireless backups take 20-30+ minutes, and doing this hourly eats the battery.

Share This Page