Is it worth to add the 2.9GHz processor for +100$?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by apyrenum, Aug 22, 2015.

  1. apyrenum macrumors newbie

    apyrenum

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2015
    #1
    How much more power does it give? Does it make sense to spend 100 bucks more, or is 2.7GHz enough?
    I want to use it for work, but occasionally to cut/edit videos, record music, photo editing.
    For what use cases are the 2.9GHz and 3.1GHz processors, anyway? And what about the SDRAM, can I upgrade that myself? I could do that with the 2011 MacBook Pro.

    Thanks for your answers! :)
     
  2. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #2
    You can't change anything in the current MacBook range
     
  3. apyrenum thread starter macrumors newbie

    apyrenum

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2015
    #3
    So should I get the 16GB SDRAM? Or is 8GB enough?
     
  4. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #4
    8 will be fine for your current workflow so that's a choice based in future changes
     
  5. oldmacs macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    #5
    16. Future proof yourself. The only reason that 2008 MacBooks (such as my spare) are still useful is that they can be upgraded past their standard 2GB of ram. (That and SSDs).
     
  6. Mr.C macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    Location:
    London, UK.
    #6
    Don't get 16GB as for use it would be overkill and a waste of money. Assuming you're referring to the new 2015 13" Retina MacBook Pro the only reason to get the 2.9Ghz option is for the 512GB SSD. That is the only reason I got it as for my needs 256GB wouldn't be enough. Unfortunately you can't get the 2.7Ghz option with a 512GB SSD.
     
  7. oldmacs macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    #7
    In 3-4 years it won't be overkill.
     
  8. Taz Mangus macrumors 68040

    Taz Mangus

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #8
    That *maybe* true. It also depends on how long someone intends to keep the computer.

    My 2009 MacBook Pro had 8GB of RAM and I never felt that it was not sufficent.
     
  9. jlc1978 macrumors 68000

    jlc1978

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    #9
    True. I personally like to max out ram since it is no longer upgradable and RAM is often a bigger bottleneck than processor speed. It all depends on usage. If 8 is enough on your current machine than 16 isn't likely to make a difference. OTOH, if you're getting a lot of page outs with 8 then 16 may be useful.

    As for processor speed, I doubt the jump will make much of a noticeable difference, based on what you said you'd be doing. Rendering can be real processor intensive so Mac Pro would make a difference but that's a whole other price point. I do some similar work on my 2015 MBP w/16GB and 2.5 i7 and don't really see much a speed difference from my 2012 rMBP.
     
  10. Mr.C macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    Location:
    London, UK.
    #10
    I very much doubt it unless ones usage changes and more resources are needed as a result. My Mac Mini has 8GB of RAM and is 4 years old. It's running Yosemite and is still going strong. I'm sure if I still have it in four years time it will still be going strong.
     
  11. richpjr macrumors 68030

    richpjr

    Joined:
    May 9, 2006
    #11
    Any time I see this usage, I would definitely recommend the extra memory

     
  12. oldmacs macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    #12
    The Mac Mini from 2011 came with 2GB of ram standard - Would that be enough today?

    8GB in 2011 would have been the equivalent of 16GB today. Ram usage is constantly on the rise so being prepared is essential.
     
  13. oldmacs macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    #13
    I can almost guarantee it, unless trends completely change. Ram usage is just going to continue to increase. SSDs have somewhat been a band-aid solution to low ram. Of course I'd love to see ram usage go down, but I just don't see it happening.
     
  14. newellj macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    Boston, MA, US
    #14
    All you're encouraging the OP to do is throw a ton of money away on a problem that the computer will never need to address.

    OS RAM management has improved immensely over the last 10 years. I still use a 2007 Dell XPS M1330 that shipped with, and still has, 4GB of RAM. It was ok on Vista, ran better on 7, ran much better on 8 and now runs as well or better on 10.

    By the time the OP runs into trouble with 8 GB of RAM - if that ever happens - it will be either because some other part of his use needs have changed and he needs other hardware updates at the same time or because the machine as a whole has become superseded on a whole range of hardware features. Gratuitously doubling the RAM on a current Macbook as "future proofing" is a waste of money. Either the buyer needs it and knows he needs it, or he's highly unlikely to need it and is just throwing money at Apple.
     
  15. oldmacs macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    #15
    No, I'm telling the OP to ensure that he isn't left with a computer that is bottlenecked by the ram. So you'e saying that a Circa 2008-2010 Mac with 2GB of ram would be perfectly usable for today? I can tell you its not. The only reason a heap of C2D macs are still good for today is that they could have their ram upgraded to 4 and 8 GBs.

    As I said, I support plenty of users on C2D Macs, and the only reason these Macs still run well for these people is that I've upgraded the ram.

    Unfortunately OS X has become more and more ram hungry. Mavericks slightly addressed the issue, but its still a problem. 8GB of ram is ok for the moment but especially with your Movie editing and Photo editing.

    In 4 or so years, 8GB of ram will be what 2/4 GB is today. Just like in 2008, where in 2004 512MB had been a good amount of ram, but by 2008, was way too little.

    Going with soldered ram that is not maxed out is terrible for long term use of your computer, or it will up the resale value of your machine. I was told when I bought my 2012 Macbook that 4GB was more than enough, I'd never need to upgrade and I said otherwise and how right I was. I now have 8GB of ram, and will go to 16 next year.
     
  16. simonsi macrumors 601

    simonsi

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2014
    Location:
    Auckland
    #16


    That ignores three factors:

    RAM compression, better memory management, SSDs

    Current machines in the future will be able to deliver much more performance from the same physical memory and if/when they DO need to swap, the swapping to an SSD will be unnoticeable to the user.
     
  17. oldmacs macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    #17
    SSDs help things, but they aren't a magic cure - Same with the new ram technologies introduced by Apple. OS X Mavericks uses more ram than OS X Lion for example. Ram usage will increase, it will happen.

    Either way, you can't upgrade the ram at all in the future, so why not do it now, as at the very least it will lift the resale value of the computer.
     
  18. simonsi macrumors 601

    simonsi

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2014
    Location:
    Auckland
    #18


    How did RAM compression work under Lion for you? Thought not.

    RAM usage will gradually increase, but it will be virtual and run much more efficiently in the same real memory. And as I said (um based on experience), swapping with and SSD, especially Apple SSDs, will be imperceptible to the user, but it was the 3rd factor I listed...

    He asked if 8GB would be enough, it likely is and won't cause him an issue. "Enough" is a technical assessment, as you have said he could just pay and max it but as he is asking...
     
  19. oldmacs macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    #19
    Ram compression wasn't in Lion. The point is that despite Mavericks having RAM compression, it still uses more than Lion.

    My experience is that SSDs help, but they don't completely solve the issue.

    Ram compression will never make a difference to the fact that requirements are going to increase.

    8GB is probably enough now but not into the future.
     
  20. throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #20
    No, but it is worth buying the 2.9 to get the 512 GB of storage ;)

    Yes, but in 3-4 year's time your applecare has expired, the CPU is ancient, Thunderbolt 5 is out and the SSD that looks big and fast today is many times slower than what is available.

    Future proofing is all well and good, but 8 GB is pretty decent today unless you have particular workloads that demand more.

    If you are running workloads that need 16 GB of RAM, chances are you're better off with a quad core which means stepping up to the 15 anyway.
     
  21. simonsi macrumors 601

    simonsi

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2014
    Location:
    Auckland
    #21


    Thats my point. New technologies are coming along, those already here will be improved, RAM compression improved further in Yosemite and will no doubt improve again. I've run 14GB of virtual memory in 8GB of real with no noticeable hit when using it...
     
  22. newellj macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2014
    Location:
    Boston, MA, US
    #22
    Throwing cash at Apple for excess RAM on the theory that it might be needed in the future is a poor use of the cash. The machine the OP buys today is more likely to need upgrading in the future due to changes in graphics needs and graphics hardware capabilities (for both internal and external displays), storage amounts and/or storage speeds. In addition, changes in USB and TB and other technologies could leave the OP with a real or perceived need to replace the machine. Tossing several hundred dollars at excess RAM only makes it harder to the OP to find the cash that will ultimately be needed to replace the machine the OP is buying today.
     
  23. throAU, Aug 23, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2015

    throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #23
    Compression costs CPU, and even with decent compression some data is not compressible. And better compression demands more CPU, which at that point is 3-4 years old...

    Yes, RAM compression is nice, but it isn't a silver bullet. SSD and the new intel Xpoint storage (in future) will help lessen the effect of paging, and maybe it isn't noticeable in your apps, but in some, it is.

    In summary to the OP:

    none of the CPU upgrades on the 13" machine make much difference. they're all basically the same CPU, even the i7 only has a bit more cache. In most day to day workloads you won't notice any difference between them.
     
  24. Taz Mangus macrumors 68040

    Taz Mangus

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2011
    #24
    I sure would not make a bet like that.
     
  25. throAU, Aug 23, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 23, 2015

    throAU macrumors 601

    throAU

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2012
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    #25
    I would.

    There are plenty of uses for more storage including RAM if the capacity is there and it is cheap enough. And this is only considering stuff we have already invented.

    Higher definition video, higher frame rate video, higher quality, higher detail polygon meshes for 3d models, increased use of containers for operating system components to protect them from each other, machine learning, the list goes on.

    Memory requirements will continue to grow.


    edit:
    the fact that 16 GB is standard on the 15" Pro should be an indication of where apple thinks RAM trends are headed.

    Apple have traditionally been real stingy with RAM in standard configurations.
     

Share This Page