Is the 2.3Ghz enough?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Windows&Apple, Oct 31, 2013.

?

2.3Ghz or 2.6Ghz for the high-end MacBook Pro

Poll closed Nov 5, 2013.
  1. 2.3Ghz

    58 vote(s)
    68.2%
  2. 2.6Ghz

    18 vote(s)
    21.2%
  3. 13" MacBook Pro (Comment below)

    9 vote(s)
    10.6%
  1. Windows&Apple, Oct 31, 2013
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2013

    Windows&Apple macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    #1
    I'm considering buying a 15 inch MBP and I'm wondering if the 2.3Ghz is fine for 3D animating, Adobe suite (video, photo, web) and logic pro?

    Also, would the 13 inch be able to handle that? I'll be running everything except a few thing on Windows.

    I'll be doing the following:

    - 3Ds Max + Maya
    - Programming (C++/Javascript)
    - Adobe Suite (Photo, Video, Web)
    - Logic Pro
    - Windows 7 (or 8.1)
    - Accounting software (Sage 50 - On Windows)
    - Gaming (On windows, I would love if this got atleast 60FPS on modern games like BF3 and such)

    I'll need the following out of the machine:

    - Atleast 5 years of solild work out of it with little to no issues
    - Atleast 8 hours of battery life, some say the 2.6Ghz gets less than advertised and I'm not a fan of that.

    I will also be building a custom PC with the broadwell chip next year, my budget for that is around $2,000 and I feel that will get me a very respectable machine. I only say this because it might impact your decision on recommending the 2.6 over the 2.3.
     
  2. fs454 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles / Boston
    #2



    Absolutely. You may shave like, a second and a half off your render time with the 2.6.

    The 13" is a different story as you're losing two cores, I'd stick with the 15" for your needs.
     
  3. Windows&Apple thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    #3
    Good to hear, and what about gaming? Would the 2.6 make a difference?
     
  4. Darthmnkyrpm macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2012
    #4
    It will definitely make a difference, though I'm not sure how big. The main thing that would make a difference, especially for gaming, is the ram and the graphics card. As long as you get the 15" 2.3ghz MBP, you should be fine because it has 16gb or ram and the Nividia graphics card.
     
  5. Windows&Apple thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    #5
    So that's two for the 2.3Ghz, that's good. We're getting somewhere :)
     
  6. simon48 macrumors 65816

    simon48

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    #6
    The CPU boost won't help gaming much at all, almost all games will be GPU bound.
     
  7. johnnylarue macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2013
    #7
    I'm still tortured over the 2.3GHz vs 2.6GHz issue myself. $180 is significant to me on its own, yet taken within the context of a $2500 machine, it's very easy to feel like, "might as well...!" and avoid any potential absurd, OCD buyers' remorse.
     
  8. Driz macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2013
    #8
    Get the 2.3. Currently getting 13:41 at half brightness, too good to pass up!
     
  9. Atomic Walrus macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    #9
    For a little perspective, when we talk gaming you'd need something like a desktop-class GTX 680 to see the CPU ever become the limiting factor considering how these benchmark. And even then, only in some games (Skyrim, maybe BF3/4).

    So I mean... maybe if you're trying to prepare for running a GTX 780 eGPU on TB2, but that bandwidth is going to limit you before the CPU in that case too. Also doesn't exist yet. ;)
     
  10. Windows&Apple thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    #10
    I'm in the same boat, only thing holding me back is my FedEx and UPS experiences of the past, and how my Sennheiser RS160 headphones came in a box that looked like it was stepped on. Headphones were fine, but I'm never going to order something online unless I really have no other option.

    ----------

    Well, I have a plan for a custom built broadwell PC next year; so I can hold off for a bit on Skyrim at max settings :)
     
  11. simon48 macrumors 65816

    simon48

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    #11
    All right I'll breakout by standard questions for you. :p

    How long do you plan on keeping it?

    And what are you going to be doing on it?
     
  12. Windows&Apple thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    #12
    • 3Ds Max + Maya
    • Programming (C++/Javascript)
    • Adobe Suite (Photo, Video, Web)
    • Logic Pro
    • Windows 7 (or 8.1)
    • Accounting software (Sage 50 - On Windows)
    • Gaming (On windows, I would love if this got atleast 60FPS on modern games like BF3 and such)

    And I usually keep my laptops and desktops for about 4-5 years before upgrading.
     
  13. Atomic Walrus macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    #13
    The 4-5 years changes it for me. If you're set on upgrading this year and keeping it for 4 years... you're already spending $2400 (assuming this is the dGPU model or else we should be talking about that first for gaming and 3D)... Probably just bump the CPU up too.

    The battery impact shouldn't be too significant (it's going to be about 1:1 until you reach full load, adding 8% performance and draining 8% more power). Also it sounds like your usage isn't really the kind of stuff you could run on battery either way.

    I already voted, but yeah... changing my answer based on the details. I generally recommend against BTO CPU upgrades when the user plans to resell down the line because you won't get that back (used buyers are generally not looking for BTO tweaks like that), but as a long-term keeper machine just go for it. There will be eGPU options down the line and when that happens maybe you'll care about that extra 8%.
     
  14. Windows&Apple thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    #14
    Alright, I understand where you're coming from and I feel kinda bad for adding important information in the middle of the tread (I'll edit my original post to include this information.)

    I will be building a custom PC with the broadwell chip next year, my budget for that is around $2,000 and I feel that will get me a very respectable machine. I only say this because it might impact your decision on recommending the 2.6 over the 2.3.

    ----------

    And since most of my work (minus logic pro) will be done on Windows, the desktop will continue where my laptop left off :) So next year around this time, my laptop will mainly be a note taking machine, with a little bit of the above mentioned on the side.
     
  15. johnnylarue macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2013
    #15
    Ha! Okay, let's try it:

    4-5 years.

    -Music/audio production (Logic/Digital Performer)
    -Photo processing/editing
    -Occasional video editing
    -Occasional gaming
    -Everyday "computer stuff"

    Bear in mind the following two crucial facts:

    1. I am largely unimpressed by Haswell, and somewhat 'forced' into this purchase due to the fact that my MBP 17 was stolen two months ago. I've never bought a used Mac, but I am considering doing so and upgrading sooner when a more 'meaningful' upgrade comes around.

    2. I have a friend who can get me the 15% Apple Store Folks discount, which might not be the case the next time I need to upgrade. In other words, I don't really want to take this deal for granted, and yet...

    Thanks for indulging me! ;)
     
  16. simon48 macrumors 65816

    simon48

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    #16
    I was technically asking johnnylarue, but I think I'm still staying with 2.3GHz for you.
     
  17. Windows&Apple thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    #17
    Lol your needs are basically mine. I would rather spend $2500 on an actual redesigned MacBook Pro and with some better specs, but then again, I'll probably say the same thing next year and the year after that. Tech get's outdated so quickly, you might as well get what's out now than wait for what's coming.
     
  18. simon48 macrumors 65816

    simon48

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    #18
    It would do a little for you, but not a lot.
     
  19. johnnylarue macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2013
    #19
    Totally hear you... it's just that, well, not all "product refreshes" are created equal. The promise of IGZO displays and significantly better GPUs and CPUs next year are eating away at me.

    Yet, as I just mentioned to Walrus, it didn't really bug me all that much when I saw my Arrandale MBP essentially get left in the dust by the Sandy Bridge machines that followed a year later, so this is likely just a case of me feeling the usual trepidation about dropping $2500 on... well, anything that isn't a collectible analogue synthesizer with a stable resale value, basically.

    ----------

    I think honestly the main thing it would do for me is keep me from regretting that I didn't buy the fastest available processor--from a purely idealistic standpoint, anyway.
     
  20. Windows&Apple thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    #20
    Well, when I was thinking about exactly that, I considered the base 13" Pro and then hopefully upgrading my desktop quicker, but I know that won't happen and I know that won't change my budget, so I might aswell get the big boy and buy another in 2018.

    ----------

    http://secure.newegg.ca/Shopping/ShoppingCart.aspx?submit=ChangeItem

    That's the desktop (give or take a few parts and fans) I'll be purchasing next year, replace the GPU's with 870's and the CPU with the 5770k or whatever the code name is and there's my computer.

    ----------

    The motherboard has 1 HDMI port, so ignore that one, add $100 for one with 3 HDMI's! :D
     
  21. johnnylarue macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2013
    #21
    Yeah, that oughtta see you through, alright!

    I'm strictly a one-laptop operation, hence my inclination to 'go big or go home'. I guess I just wish the 'big' was a little 'bigger' in this case.

    [Insert gratuitous 'that's what SHE said' joke here.]
     
  22. Windows&Apple thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    #22
    Lol, so it's pretty much the 2.3Ghz here? A few 2.6's but I'm not sure the $180 is worth the 300Mhz (per core) increase.
     
  23. cheesyappleuser macrumors 6502a

    cheesyappleuser

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2011
    Location:
    Portugal
    #23
    All things considered even the "base" 2GHz will do, specially when you consider the 13", which is really underspec'd.
     
  24. Starfyre macrumors 68020

    Starfyre

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2010
    #24
    2.3GHz is enough, but if the cost is too much for you, then skip out on 2.6. Though the extra boost and upgrade in the Iris Pro may be useful for doing 3D with the integrated card. Compile times should also increase.

    You could leave it to chance. Order a 2.6, see if the screen is yellow. If it is, then return and get a 2.3. If not, then keep.
     
  25. Windows&Apple thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2013
    #25
    I wouldn't be worried about the clock speed on the Iris Pro, I'm pretty sure it's 1.3Ghz on both 2.3 and 2.6. The only difference would be the 300Mhz per core, which I don't feel is worth the $180 increase, plus the head and battery would suffer with the faster processor.

    But than again, I'm still spending $2730 with Apple care, and the 2.6 is $2888. Doesn't seem all that different. :(

    And do the 2.6Ghz models have a lot of yellow screens? Why did you mention that?
     

Share This Page