So would I.
And as pointed out, compression uses the CPU cycles and both the CPU and swapping to/from an SSD will affect battery life.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is it worth to add the 2.9GHz processor for +100$?
- Thread starter apyrenum
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So would I.
And as pointed out, compression uses the CPU cycles and both the CPU and swapping to/from an SSD will affect battery life.
When I bought my MBP 2012 "13 a month ago it had 4GB of ram.
1GB of that total went to the videocard. So I had 3GB left for the rest of the system.
When I started to play LOTRO (Lord Of The Rings Online) the game used around 2,6GB of ram leaving less then 400MB for the system. It was swapping like mad and the CPU temp went to 95 celsius degrees and the MBP was running hot!
After removing the 2x2GB of ram and swapped it for 2x8GB and put in a 256GB ssd it was running way much faster and way cooler. If I play now LOTRO the temperature stays under 85 degrees.
The ssd helps allot to, but more ram also.
Just my 2 cents..
1GB of that total went to the videocard. So I had 3GB left for the rest of the system.
When I started to play LOTRO (Lord Of The Rings Online) the game used around 2,6GB of ram leaving less then 400MB for the system. It was swapping like mad and the CPU temp went to 95 celsius degrees and the MBP was running hot!
After removing the 2x2GB of ram and swapped it for 2x8GB and put in a 256GB ssd it was running way much faster and way cooler. If I play now LOTRO the temperature stays under 85 degrees.
The ssd helps allot to, but more ram also.
Just my 2 cents..
Last edited:
For music production, you're going to need all the help you can get. Upgrade the ram and processor.
Regardless of what anyone says, this all comes down to the specifics of what you are trying to get done on this Mac.
Simply stated, it's obvious the extra ram and cpu power would help. It's up to YOU to decide if it's worth the money.
Common sense would dictate that you get the best computer specs for whatever it is you intend to do. If you can't afford, or don't want to spend the extra money required for those specs, that are required for the type of work you will be doing, then it makes it pointless to get the computer, if you can't do the work.
If you're serious about music, paying extra for the specs is nothing but a good investment. It's better to be safe than sorry. Don't make it about what you or anybody else thinks you SHOULD or SHOULDN'T pay. Make it about what you CAN pay, for what is necessary for what you NEED.
Regardless of what anyone says, this all comes down to the specifics of what you are trying to get done on this Mac.
Simply stated, it's obvious the extra ram and cpu power would help. It's up to YOU to decide if it's worth the money.
Common sense would dictate that you get the best computer specs for whatever it is you intend to do. If you can't afford, or don't want to spend the extra money required for those specs, that are required for the type of work you will be doing, then it makes it pointless to get the computer, if you can't do the work.
If you're serious about music, paying extra for the specs is nothing but a good investment. It's better to be safe than sorry. Don't make it about what you or anybody else thinks you SHOULD or SHOULDN'T pay. Make it about what you CAN pay, for what is necessary for what you NEED.
Last edited:
The processor upgrade isn't going to make much difference on the 13' machine, really.
if you need more CPU, you should definitely go for a 15" machine. Upgrading CPU on the 13 is very expensive for very minimal improvement.
You're talking 10% performance improvement, tops on apps that are 100% CPU bound. For things that aren't sitting there 100% CPU bound for sustained periods you will not even see 10%.
vs. say a 160-180% improvement by stepping to a base model 15" machine (assuming the workload is multi-threaded).
What I'm saying is that if the 13" base model's CPU is insufficient for your needs, chances are the top spec 13" CPU will be as well.
It most certainly will not be a night and day difference.
RAM, yes - that will make a difference if needed.
if you need more CPU, you should definitely go for a 15" machine. Upgrading CPU on the 13 is very expensive for very minimal improvement.
You're talking 10% performance improvement, tops on apps that are 100% CPU bound. For things that aren't sitting there 100% CPU bound for sustained periods you will not even see 10%.
vs. say a 160-180% improvement by stepping to a base model 15" machine (assuming the workload is multi-threaded).
What I'm saying is that if the 13" base model's CPU is insufficient for your needs, chances are the top spec 13" CPU will be as well.
It most certainly will not be a night and day difference.
RAM, yes - that will make a difference if needed.
Oh just one more thing on RAM (and the people deluded into believing tiny amounts will be enough forever) - look up intel Xpoint
RAM-like storage (between SSD and RAM in speed - closer to RAM) of hundreds of GB in your laptop or PHONE is on the horizon.
There will be new applications we can barely imagine in the coming decade due to the vastly less restrictive fast memory capacities that will be available in the next couple of years.
Again - if the tech is there people will find ways to use it. Sure, some of that will just be useless bloat, but some new breakthrough killer applications will emerge as well, you can count on it.
edit:
http://www.cnet.com/au/news/intel-a...thats-1000-times-faster-than-existing-drives/
RAM-like storage (between SSD and RAM in speed - closer to RAM) of hundreds of GB in your laptop or PHONE is on the horizon.
There will be new applications we can barely imagine in the coming decade due to the vastly less restrictive fast memory capacities that will be available in the next couple of years.
Again - if the tech is there people will find ways to use it. Sure, some of that will just be useless bloat, but some new breakthrough killer applications will emerge as well, you can count on it.
edit:
http://www.cnet.com/au/news/intel-a...thats-1000-times-faster-than-existing-drives/
Last edited:
And even more programmers who are going to abuse that vast amount of memory, because they can't code right. But he, nobody will notice it then
And even more programmers who are going to abuse that vast amount of memory, because they can't code right. But he, nobody will notice it then
Yup.
But one of the first things you get taught in computer science is this:
Programmer time is expensive
Machine time is cheap (and gets cheaper as time passes)
Throwing hardware resources at the problem is often cheaper than continuing to throw programmer time at the problem.
This is why no one writes applications in assembly language any more, and the only way we have applications that can do as much as they do today. Trying to write something like say, an entire modern operating system (like OS X or Windows or even a Linux distribution) in assembler would take longer than computers have been around.
This is true, but in this case the OP lists his music/photo use as occasional.
The point about skipping the 13" upgrade and going straight to a quad core 15" if you really need horsepower is right on target.
I disagree with newellji, this is NOT true. I would rather have a 15 quad, over a 13" as well, but OP do not be deceived, the 13 inch rMBP is incredibly capable. I use mine as my full time music production machine. Depending on what you need, you will have to strategize on what is more important than other things. I need mine to be mobile, and have 1TB space because I do not want to rely on a back up, for my libraries. If I could have dealt with less space, I would have opted for the 15, and still may get one, but only because I want to. I have yet to need it. It's all about what you can afford, weighed against what you need. Want is usually out of the picture for professionals. If you're a moderate user, want can be factored in.
Now, with a thirteen inch, depending on what plugins you will use, you have to be diligent to conserve CPU. There are some tricks to this. You can send effects to the bus, you can freeze tracks, you can use effects and instruments that are native if you don't need to... This is even assuming you write scores or do anything that requires a lot of tracks, or plugins. Also, DO NOT surf the web or do a bunch of needless things while composing.
With all of this stated, the 13, specked out, is phenomenally capable. I know this by experience. Just balance out what YOU NEED, with what you CAN AFFORD. You'll be fine.
I don't think anyone is saying the 13" is incapable, or there are tricks you can do as you say to work around the lesser CPU.
But if you are doing high end music for a job, then you're going to have a much easier time of it with a quad core CPU, and that's just not available in the 13" form factor. And upgrading from 2.5 or 2.7 to 2.9 is just not going to make much difference. The only significant available CPU upgrade is if you step to the 15" machine.
The 15" will give you more time to focus on what you're trying to do than juggle resources. resource juggling is dead time. How much that time is worth to you, and whether or not it justifies the 15" machine (especially when traded off against battery life and form factor" is up to you.
Sure, but nobody is offering that informations either.
It's like saying, "Man, if you want any kind of deliciousness, you're gonna want that chocolate ice cream!"... It's an indication that vanilla isn't going to be desirable to the OP. I'm just here to say, "hey, vanilla is delicious too, and if you can't afford chocolate ice cream, you can put chocolate syrup on the vanilla scoop". The rest is a given.
Consider this:
If all 15" Pros have 16 GB of RAM what happens to the inventory and possible combinations? It's halved - assuming equal popularity between configurations.
Apple strives for simplicity for the user and their business.
I agree that memory requirements will grow but honestly for the typical and moderately technical user 8 GB is way more than enough.
But 16 GB standard does sound nice! It's way more than Windows machines and RAM does make your computer faster after all