Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

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

apyrenum

apyrenum

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 22, 2015
6
10
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! :)
 
8 will be fine for your current workflow so that's a choice based in future changes
 
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.
 
Mr.C said:
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.
Click to expand...

In 3-4 years it won't be overkill.
 
Gav2k said:
8 will be fine for your current workflow so that's a choice based in future changes
Click to expand...

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.
 
oldmacs said:
In 3-4 years it won't be overkill.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mr.C said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Taz Mangus said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
oldmacs said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samuelsan2001
newellj said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
oldmacs said:
In 4 or so years, 8GB of ram will be what 2/4 GB is today.
Click to expand...


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.
 
simonsi said:

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
oldmacs said:
OS X Mavericks uses more ram than OS X Lion
Click to expand...


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...
 
simonsi said:

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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
apyrenum said:
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! :)
Click to expand...

No, but it is worth buying the 2.9 to get the 512 GB of storage ;)

oldmacs said:
In 3-4 years it won't be overkill.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samuelsan2001
oldmacs said:
Ram compression wasn't in Lion. The point is that despite Mavericks having RAM compression, it still uses more than Lion.
Click to expand...


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...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samuelsan2001
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Samuelsan2001
oldmacs said:
In 3-4 years it won't be overkill.
Click to expand...
simonsi said:

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...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: oldmacs
oldmacs said:
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.
Click to expand...

I sure would not make a bet like that.
 
Taz Mangus said:
I sure would not make a bet like that.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: richpjr and oldmacs
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back