Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by loon3y, Dec 17, 2012.
is it worth it?
If you have to ask, most likely not ( not for you I mean ).
i mean its a better upgrade than the 15" processor upgrade that that just upgrades from 2.5 to 2.7 or was it 2.6 GHz
but i mean id like to play some of the mac games (which are older games obviously) on decent resolutions
and i am going to run parallel desktop, with probably multiple virtual machines on it.
its going to be my work computer(for ios development, windows based ERP system, sql server, sql lite)/ a lil gaming when i travel.
im wondering, are WHEN are they going to add quad core to the rMBP 13" because i might just wait till then.
but to upgrade to 512 SSD for 500 is ridiculous, but id probably would get that.
only have 16 GB left on my current MBP 13" which has 250
Maybe next year's refresh will come with some low end quad, but I wouldn't bet on it. As for the CPU speed: since you are someone who writes code, I would have expected that you already value even the tiniest speed increase, since it can lower compilation times ( sure, many would say: "what do a few seconds matter?" ... well, adding those seconds up, you'll conclude that IT MATTERS A LOT on the long run ).
That being said: If money is a problem, then don't get the upgrade. It will surely not impact gaming in a serious way... your integrated GPU will be the bottleneck, not the CPU. VMs could benefit from a slightly faster CPU, but don't expect too much... having a crapload of RAM would only allow you to open up multiple VMs, but it will surely not guarantee that you can use them all simultaneously in a decent manner ( CPU being a bottleneck eventually ).
I'm a software engineer myself and my 13" rMBP is my main machine. I do mainly Flex / Air and Java development, but from time to time, I do need to write some native extensions in C / C++ / Objective-C ( + the random mumbling around with new tools / frameworks / languages ). As for games, I have really only tried Dota 2 under bootcamp and it runs very well on almost maxed out settings at 1680x1050 ( for sure I can push it up more, but there is no need to increase heat output just to see a few leaves in more detail or bugs / butterflies, whatever ). I might be giving StarCraft 2, Diablo 3 and WoW a shot too in a future ( the HD 4000 can of course run all 3 games on Low settings decently - at least ).
PS: 13" rMBP runs significantly cooler than my late 2011 15" cMBP. Even though it gets hot while gaming, I find it a lot more bearable than the 15" cMBP. Btw, I do use the notebook 99% of the time on my lap...
I went with the 2.5 cause at the end of the day they both are dual core processors...
Off topic: the motivation behind your decision is quite weird ( but it's your decision and all that matters is that you're happy with it ). So, on the same idea: you'd go with a 1.6GHz quad core over a 2.7Ghz quad core because "at the end of the day they both are quad core processors"? Sorry, that's just not right... even if it's a dual core, CPU clock speeds can matter a lot to certain users / in certain use-cases ( not to mention different CPU architectures - I'm just assuming you are wise enough to compare similar / same architecture CPUs when getting into such discussions ). Sure, one can always find CPUs with more cores, but CPU clock speeds still shouldn't be ignored just because both CPUs have the same number of cores ( even if the clock speed difference seems insignificant to most, again, IT CAN mean a lot to others for their special use-cases / needs )...
Actually, most of today's software is still not optimized for more than 2 cores. Dual cores are completely fine as long as you're not in the category of users who actually need ( or "seriously benefit from" ) more than 2 cores. Let's also not forget that today's CPUs come with some nice features like "core virtualization"... so your dual core can actually simulate quad-core behavior if "really" needed. But these things are for a different discussion...
thanks this helped me out a lot, if i get some extra money with some of the iOS sales, id definitely get it but till then my plan would just be to get the 2.5
i really hate that we cant replace the SSD/HDD ourselves its a real bother, but i think the 512 for me is a must, i had to delete all but one virtual machine (windows xp/couple other windows 7 versions) to make space for my harddrive.
500 for basically doubling hardrive space? ridiculous, i loved it when u had an option to get the minimal HDD and just get a 512 SSD on your own.
edit: but looking at your devices you own, you went all out on each device goddamn, i envy you
If you really need 512 GB now, then yeah, it's most likely more convenient ( and even cheaper ) to get the upgrade from Apple. But, if you were to need the additional space later down the road, then you could actually buy an SSD stick and upgrade your laptop yourself. Just be aware of the fact that retina models have NO user-serviceable parts ( meaning that whatever you change, you'll void warranty... sure, you can always put original hardware back if you were to need to take it a store for repairs and what not, hoping that they don't notice it was touched ).
First SSD solutions came out slightly after the 15" rMBP was released earlier this year... soon after the 13" rMBP came out, SSDs for this model started appearing too. It's true that the offer is kinda limited at the moment and the prices are quite high... that's why I said: "if you need it later down the road" ( maybe in 1 year or so )
Check out OWC website: http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/SSD/OWC/Aura_Pro_Retina_2012
There might be other manufacturers too, but I'm really not up to date...
With absolutely no mention of intended usage, how can we know?
I'll say most likely no, 99% of people will not be needing the extra power, and if they had it, they wouldn't notice it.
Edit: and don't compare the 15's quad-core to the 13's dual, there is pretty much no comparison to be made. Without going all technical, the clock speed (AKA the GHz) doesn't matter nearly as much as it did 10 years ago when all CPUs were single core. My older MBP is a dual core 2.4GHz, the one I'm typing on is a quad-core 2.6GHz. In layman's term, with twice the cores with a bit of a bump in clock speeds, you'd expect to see roughly 2 to 2.25x the performance, right? Wrong, with the changes in architecture, this computer is a bit more than 4 times as powerful, yet the numbers don't reflect that.
See what I mean?
You get more cache memory with the upgrade which makes the upgrade worth it.