Getting the most out of 2016 15" without maxing it?

[Uplift]

What is the best 2016 15'' MBP to buy without maxing it out? The prices are too high - more than I am willing to spend so I need to get best out of it for the money.

I original ordered the base 2.6GHz/16GB/256/450 at £2349 but after hearing the GPU is no better than previous gen I re-ordered with 2.6GHz/16GB/256/460 at £2529.

I read too much Macrumors lol and now worried about:

- 256GB SSD ---> Slower than 512GB SSD and potentially regarded as tiny in a few years which could impact resale value.

- CPU ---> base has much smaller cache and lacks other features. From this thread:

From intel spec sheet I see that the difference between those 3 is mainly (without comparing the actual frequencies) L3 cache being 6MB on the lower end and 8MB on the higher ones. (+ the higher ends support few more intel technologies like Intel® TSX-NI, Intel® vPro Technology, Intel® Stable Image Platform Program (SIPP), Trusted Execution Technology).

I'm now back to square one I'm not sure which way to better utilise the money... Where is best area to boost? The options are..

Base with boosted GPU
Base with boosted SSD
Base with boosted CPU
or the higher end model: 2.7GHz/16GB/512/455

I suspect the higher end model, it offers the bigger SSD and small upgrades across the board, but it just leaves more questions...

How is the 455 compared to the 450?
How is the 2.7GHz compared to the 2.6GHz?

Would I see better improvements maxing out one area such as CPU or GPU rather than going for the bigger model with model with small upgrades across each area.

Thoughts?

 

[vipergts2207]

What do you plan on using it for?

 

[dapork]

I'm no techy like some of the people here, but I have been researching for a while to make the right decision like you. It seems that upgrading the GPU to the 460 is worth it because it'll be a decent difference for a relatively small amount of money. Personally I'm going to order the 512GB option because 256 is just very small, and the laptop I have now is always full. Ideally I'd like 1TB. I know that I'd be more comfortable with it, but I can't afford it. The price for the 1TB is huge. As far as the CPU goes, most people seem to agree that it'll hardly make a difference.

That's why I plan on getting the lower end 15" (2.6GHz), with fully upgraded GPU and 512GB. Obviously, if you have the money why not max out everything. But if you're trying to get bang for buck, most people say just to go with the GPU upgrade.

 

[Uplift]

What do you plan on using it for?

Ahh forgot that part.

It is mainly my work machine for Web Development and design, usually PHPStorm (JetBrains IDE) which is only cpu intensive when it's indexing. Photoshop, Affinity Designer and a few smaller tools that come with the job.. Maybe Chrome with lots of tabs is the only other demanding task.

I occasionally play WOW, had no issues on my old Intel HD5000 (I think thats what was in the 2012 rMBP base) so anything would be an improvement here.

Rarely use Logic Pro X, but that should be included as well.

 

[urbZZ]

Ahh forgot that part.

It is mainly my work machine for Web Development and design, usually PHPStorm (JetBrains IDE) which is only cpu intensive when it's indexing. Photoshop, Affinity Designer and a few smaller tools that come with the job.. Maybe Chrome with lots of tabs is the only other demanding task.

I occasionally play WOW, had no issues on my old Intel HD5000 (I think thats what was in the 2012 rMBP base) so anything would be an improvement here.

Rarely use Logic Pro X, but that should be included as well.

CPU: No Upgrade, isnt worth it. Its 10% between 2.5 and 2.9. No one will notice.
GPU: If WoW ran well on your old one, then the 450 is more than suffient.

My advice: Safe the money from the above and invest in a larger SDD! Thats what I did

 

[vipergts2207]

If the price of the higher-end model is one of your options, I'd do the lower-end model, and upgrade the SSD to 512GB and upgrade the GPU to the 460. They're both the same price and the trade off is a GPU that's quite a bit better for a CPU that's only marginally worse.

 

[Uplift]

If the price of the higher-end model is one of your options, I'd do the lower-end model, and upgrade the SSD to 512GB and upgrade the GPU to the 460. They're both the same price and the trade off is a GPU that's quite a bit better for a CPU that's only marginally worse.

It's pushing the limits of what I wanted to pay but can be done. seems like the best option

2.6/16GB/512/460 it's an extra £10 compared to the higher end model.

 

[karbim]

The best compromise for money is: 2.6/512/450 (only storage for a decent size).
The best compromise for enjoyment is: 2.7 (cache)/512 (decent)/460 (light gaming).

I went for: 2.9/1TB/460. I would have been happy with 2.7/512/460. But I'm going to keep it 5 years, just like what I've done with my MBP 2011 (512 SSD/16GB RAM/6750M GPU).

 

[dapork]

The best compromise for money is: 2.6/512/450 (only storage for a decent size).
The best compromise for enjoyment is: 2.7 (cache)/512 (decent)/460 (light gaming).

I went for: 2.9/1TB/460. I would have been happy with 2.7/512/460. But I'm going to keep it 5 years, just like what I've done with my MBP 2011 (512 SSD/16GB RAM/6750M GPU).

How important is the 2.7 over 2.6 in terms of "enjoyment"?

 

[karbim]

You get to go from 6 MB of L3 cache which I already had in my 2011 laptop (and it's great) to 8 MB. L3 cache is very helpful (and fast) for the CPU to reduce context switching with slower RAM. So it reduces the time the CPU needs to load data from the RAM, and it's a 33% increase. You also get some extra features, that may or may not be useful today but could be in a couple years with VMWare Fusion for example if you have any use of it. However, the jump from 2.7 to 2.9 is purely for the show. I'll have absolutely 0 gain for real life use case, but I don't care, I wanted to jump from my 2.2 Ghz to 2.9 Ghz, it feels more meaningful.
Damn marketing trap!

 

[monkeydax]

You get to go from 6 MB of L3 cache which I already had in my 2011 laptop (and it's great) to 8 MB. L3 cache is very helpful (and fast) for the CPU to reduce context switching with slower RAM. So it reduces the time the CPU needs to load data from the RAM, and it's a 33% increase. You also get some extra features, that may or may not be useful today but could be in a couple years with VMWare Fusion for example if you have any use of it. However, the jump from 2.7 to 2.9 is purely for the show. I'll have absolutely 0 gain for real life use case, but I don't care, I wanted to jump from my 2.2 Ghz to 2.9 Ghz, it feels more meaningful.
Damn marketing trap!

So you would say the 2.6GHz to 2.7GHz is still relatively more discernible?

 

[Make Apple Great Again]

What is the best 2016 15'' MBP to buy without maxing it out? The prices are too high - more than I am willing to spend so I need to get best out of it for the money.

I original ordered the base 2.6GHz/16GB/256/450 at £2349 but after hearing the GPU is no better than previous gen I re-ordered with 2.6GHz/16GB/256/460 at £2529.

I read too much Macrumors lol and now worried about:

- 256GB SSD ---> Slower than 512GB SSD and potentially regarded as tiny in a few years which could impact resale value.

- CPU ---> base has much smaller cache and lacks other features. From this thread:



I'm now back to square one I'm not sure which way to better utilise the money... Where is best area to boost? The options are..

Base with boosted GPU
Base with boosted SSD
Base with boosted CPU
or the higher end model: 2.7GHz/16GB/512/455

I suspect the higher end model, it offers the bigger SSD and small upgrades across the board, but it just leaves more questions...

How is the 455 compared to the 450?
How is the 2.7GHz compared to the 2.6GHz?

Would I see better improvements maxing out one area such as CPU or GPU rather than going for the bigger model with model with small upgrades across each area.

Thoughts?

I was in the same boat as you, and did the same homework you did.

I went with the 2.7 15 inch, 512GB, and 460 Pro, and felt that was the best bang for your buck when it came to the MBP.

Like you said, the 2.7 gives you an extra boost in L3 memory which is nice, a little bit of an extra bump in clock speed, and supports better tech. The 512 GB is perfect imo, if you need more space, the transfer speeds between USB-C are very fast and it won't be much of an inconvenience to store your data on external drives going forward. Then the graphics card, the big difference is that the 460 gives you an extra 2GB of ram(4 total), as opposed to the 450 and 455.... which IMO will help with the longevity of the machine and provide a better experience overall. The 460 gives you 1.8 TFLOPS, the 455 gives you 1.3 TFLOPS, and the 450 gives you 1 TFLOP. For a $200 price difference (between the 450 and 460), it seems like a no brainer.

 

[karbim]

I would say it won't make any different in gaming, but it would make a difference with data / AI programs for example.

So I'd say: 2.6/512/460 would be the wiser choice. It will run fine in video edition and play games more or less as fast as the 2.7 Ghz in real life normal users won't notice a difference between the two.

 

[WhiteWhaleHolyGrail]

I got the 2.7ghz stock spec. I think for most it's the perfect balance. Think of the incremental upgrades for the CPU/GPU beyond this model - will you actually notice them? Probably not, but you will certainly notice the 460's graphic issues that lots of people are reporting here.

 

[dapork]

I would say it won't make any different in gaming, but it would make a difference with data / AI programs for example.

So I'd say: 2.6/512/460 would be the wiser choice. It will run fine in video edition and play games more or less as fast as the 2.7 Ghz in real life normal users won't notice a difference between the two.

Sounds good, that's exactly what I've been planning to get.

 

[CasablancaDR]

I got the 2.7ghz stock spec. I think for most it's the perfect balance. Think of the incremental upgrades for the CPU/GPU beyond this model - will you actually notice them? Probably not, but you will certainly notice the 460's graphic issues that lots of people are reporting here.

I can assure you that I will notice the GPU upgrade. And that's because my workflow needs GPU power.

To get the most of a MacBook Pro - without maxing it - is actually pretty simple : analyse your needs. And then adapt the machine to them.

 

[WhiteWhaleHolyGrail]

I can assure you that I will notice the GPU upgrade. And that's because my workflow needs GPU power.

To get the most of a MacBook Pro - without maxing it - is actually pretty simple : analyse your needs. And then adapt the machine to them.

I did say 'for most' and my post was aimed at the thread starter's dilemma.

 

[Make Apple Great Again]

I would say it won't make any different in gaming, but it would make a difference with data / AI programs for example.

So I'd say: 2.6/512/460 would be the wiser choice. It will run fine in video edition and play games more or less as fast as the 2.7 Ghz in real life normal users won't notice a difference between the two.

I generally agree, but I would say getting the bump in L3 cache is definitely worth the extra $100 going from the 2.6 to 2.7... most users won't see a difference between the 2.7 and 2.9 IMO... but the extra L3 is absolutely worth it for the $100 bump from the 2.6... and you also get a small bump in clock speed and better support that will help with the longevity of the machine. IMO that's the best way to get the most out of the machine without maxing it to the 2.9 version (Which is a $300 bump from the 2.6).

 

[monkeydax]

I generally agree, but I would say getting the bump in L3 cache is definitely worth the extra $100 going from the 2.6 to 2.7... most users won't see a difference between the 2.7 and 2.9 IMO... but the extra L3 is absolutely worth it for the $100 bump from the 2.6... and you also get a small bump in clock speed and better support that will help with the longevity of the machine. IMO that's the best way to get the most out of the machine without maxing it to the 2.9 version (Which is a $300 bump from the 2.6).

But we can't get the 0.1GHz bump unless we get the high end model.

 

[Make Apple Great Again]

But we can't get the 0.1GHz bump unless we get the high end model.

Yes it is about $100 bump going from the 2.6 to 2.7... (Assuming you get 512 GB, which is the general consensus for the 15' I would say).

 

[koyoot]

2.6 GHz/16 GB RAM/512 GB SSD/Radeon Pro 460 is always the best performance/price ratio.

 

[ccozmo]

Honestly 2.6 vs 2.7 vs 2.9 CPU is not going to affect you much unless you use super intensive CPU applications, which even then will not make alot of difference.

GPU are not the best, so I would think go 460.

Storage I think min is 512GB.. 256 is just too small

So TLDR is - 2.7, 512, 460

 

[Make Apple Great Again]

Honestly 2.6 vs 2.7 vs 2.9 CPU is not going to affect you much unless you use super intensive CPU applications, which even then will not make alot of difference.

GPU are not the best, so I would think go 460.

Storage I think min is 512GB.. 256 is just too small

So TLDR is - 2.7, 512, 460

Agreed, I think 2.7/512/460 gives you the best balance of everything you need in terms of performance, longevity of the machine and resale value.

Obviously not everyone can afford to get those specs, but if you can afford to spend $3k on a MBP, a few hundred added on top of it to ensure an optimal experience is worth it IMO.

 

[Uplift]

Thanks for the suggestions, just cancelled my order and re-ordered with 2.6/512/460

It is a little more than I wanted to pay but for a small difference I'll probably benefit from it in the future if I am wanting to hold on to it for a few years and get the best resale value.