June 2012 MBP vs. Oct 2013 rMBP?

[MUrhino]

I just sold my 2009 MBP and after looking at the refurb store I'm wondering what performance differences exist between the latest and greatest rMBP maxed out with 16 GB RAM and a 512 SSD vs. a 2012 MBP with 16 GB RAM and my own Crucial M4 512 GB SSD. The 2012 only has 512 MB RAM on the GT650 compared to the 2013's 2 GB on the GT 750. The 2012 refurb is $1449 and the Oct '13 retina is $2199. Aside from the screen, graphics card, and AC WIFI, the internals (processing power/speed) seem to be on par. Wondering what the extra $800 is buying me aside from the aforementioned screen, HDMI, etc.

The larger question is are these two machines fairly equal aside from the new form factor? Benchmarks are pretty close but there's no way to know as they don't test the old machines with user replaced SSDs.

If I get the 2012 machine it'll be almost two years old in June...not the exact machine, but the tech...although it seems tech hasn't improved a whole heck of a lot since then. Thoughts?

Cheers!

Edit: forgot to mention, both are 2.3 GHz Quad Core i7s.

 

[disasterdrone]

I just sold my 2009 MBP and after looking at the refurb store I'm wondering what performance differences exist between the latest and greatest rMBP maxed out with 16 GB RAM and a 512 SSD vs. a 2012 MBP with 16 GB RAM and my own Crucial M4 512 GB SSD. The 2012 only has 512 MB RAM on the GT650 compared to the 2013's 2 GB on the GT 750. The 2012 refurb is $1449 and the Oct '13 retina is $2199. Aside from the screen, graphics card, and AC WIFI, the internals (processing power/speed) seem to be on par. Wondering what the extra $800 is buying me aside from the aforementioned screen, HDMI, etc.

The larger question is are these two machines fairly equal aside from the new form factor? Benchmarks are pretty close but there's no way to know as they don't test the old machines with user replaced SSDs.

If I get the 2012 machine it'll be almost two years old in June...not the exact machine, but the tech...although it seems tech hasn't improved a whole heck of a lot since then. Thoughts?

Cheers!

Edit: forgot to mention, both are 2.3 GHz Quad Core i7s.

The issue is do you want to be able to upgrade the storage and ram in the future. If not, the retina is a better buy, if you do, the classic is the hands down winner.

 

[Cmd-the-World]

... The larger question is are these two machines fairly equal aside from the new form factor? Benchmarks are pretty close but there's no way to know as they don't test the old machines with user replaced SSDs. ...

Benchmarks

Benchmarking apps like Geekbench do not take into consideration the Hard drive. Geekbench really tests out the performance of the CPU and the RAM. Changing the hard drive and doing the test again with an SSD would not give you a better score. There are even arguments that apps like Geekbench does not stress the computer long enough to see the effects of thermal throttling kick in.

If you are planning of doing long encodes there is a thread here on the effects of thermal throttling. It seems like the 2013 rMCP does not suffer a lot from Thermal throttling so it can sustain its max speed longer.

CPU

The 2.3GHz rMBP is comparable to the 2.7GHz 2012 model having an advantage close to approx. of 10%. Therefore there is some increase in CPU performance between the 2012 2.3GHz cMBP and the 2013 2.3GHz rMBP. Is it big enough to justify the prize difference on its own? That is up to you to decide.

Graphics Card

Don't forget that the Intel Iris Pro GPU comes with the rMBP as well and it got a serious upgrade. There is a strong case that the Iris Pro GPU is faster than the GT 750 for non-gaming needs. There are people custom ordering the base 15" rMBP to the same spec level as the top rMBP just not to have the GT 750. I don't know your needs but that is immeshing to consider. You could use just the Integrated GF by using a 3rd party app.

SSD

Don't forget the rMBP uses the new PCI-E SSDs which is faster than the M4. I jumped from a Mac Mini with an M4 to the rMBP and I still noticed a speed increase in data transfer rates.


I would recommend the rMBP the only problem is that you can't upgrade the storage right now (but I assume 3rd Party options will be soon available) and you can't add a secondary drive just for storage. The choice is up to you. You know what your needs are.

 

[MUrhino]

The issue is do you want to be able to upgrade the storage and ram in the future. If not, the retina is a better buy, if you do, the classic is the hands down winner.

Well that's part of my decision making process. If I got the refurb non-retina I would immediately swap out the hard disk with my own SSD (either route I take I have an extra 512 drive after I get an enclosure for more backups or whatever). I'd probably upgrade to at least 8 GB RAM if not 16 right away ($199 from OWC for 16). So...yeah I'd be upgrading, but all at once in the beginning, so including the 16 GB RAM it's a $600 difference b/w machines. I can't put more than 16 GB RAM in, and 512 internal storage seems adequate enough for the foreseeable future.

 

[disasterdrone]

Well that's part of my decision making process. If I got the refurb non-retina I would immediately swap out the hard disk with my own SSD (either route I take I have an extra 512 drive after I get an enclosure for more backups or whatever). I'd probably upgrade to at least 8 GB RAM if not 16 right away ($199 from OWC for 16). So...yeah I'd be upgrading, but all at once in the beginning, so including the 16 GB RAM it's a $600 difference b/w machines. I can't put more than 16 GB RAM in, and 512 internal storage seems adequate enough for the foreseeable future.

If that's adequate for you then you should probably get the retina.

 

[Commy1]

You seem to know your tech and your needs, I suppose it comes down to money. Whichever is more affordable. Oh and whether or not you care about the Retina.
HD porn <3

 

[MUrhino]

Graphics Card

Don't forget that the Intel Iris Pro GPU comes with the rMBP as well and it got a serious upgrade. There is a strong case that the Iris Pro GPU is faster than the GT 750 for non-gaming needs. There are people custom ordering the base 15" rMBP to the same spec level as the top rMBP just not to have the GT 750. I don't know your needs but that is immeshing to consider. You could use just the Integrated GF by using a 3rd party app.

SSD

Don't forget the rMBP uses the new PCI-E SSDs which is faster than the M4. I jumped from a Mac Mini with an M4 to the rMBP and I still noticed a speed increase in data transfer rates.

Can you explain the logic in ordering a system without the GPU when you could just use a software app to switch b/w the two? I have a 24" LED second display if that matters.

 

[Cmd-the-World]

Can you explain the logic in ordering a system without the GPU when you could just use a software app to switch b/w the two? I have a 24" LED second display if that matters.

I am not sure myself but what I think is that they don't want to stay messing around with software to disable the Gfx and if you plan on using an external monitor you must use the GT 750. The Thunderbolt Ports are hard wired with the GT 750 so if you disable it you can't connect an external display. I just tried it and when I disabled the GT 750 I couldn't get the Thunderbolt display to function.

 

[maflynn]

My opinion is the rMBP as the screen trumps the disk upgrade ability. Most people do not upgrade their storage and infact buy a new computer every 3 years. Since you sold your 2009 machine I'm assuming its conceivable that you'll be doing the same for this new purchase.

I'd buy the newer technology for you to enjoy and then later you'll be able to recoup more of your money when you go to sell it.

 

[SarcasticJoe]

Don't forget that the Intel Iris Pro GPU comes with the rMBP as well and it got a serious upgrade. There is a strong case that the Iris Pro GPU is faster than the GT 750 for non-gaming needs. There are people custom ordering the base 15" rMBP to the same spec level as the top rMBP just not to have the GT 750. I don't know your needs but that is immeshing to consider. You could use just the Integrated GF by using a 3rd party app.

What the hell are you talking about? The GTX 650 and 750 are both much faster than the Iris Pro. According to the PassMark GPU benchmark listing the 650M is about 30% faster and the 750M is about 55% faster. Sure, it's not completely crap like the X3100 and GMA 950 of yesteryear, but the reason why people are buying machines without the 750M is that it's only available as part of a ($600) optional upgrade that also comes with a faster CPU and an SSD twice as big.

 

[funkysmurf]

The larger question is are these two machines fairly equal aside from the new form factor? Benchmarks are pretty close but there's no way to know as they don't test the old machines with user replaced SSDs.

If I get the 2012 machine it'll be almost two years old in June...not the exact machine, but the tech...although it seems tech hasn't improved a whole heck of a lot since then. Thoughts?

As mentioned previously, synthetic benchmarks don't tell the whole story, but I think you're right in saying that the tech hasn't improved all that much.

I found screenshot of a benchmark of my 17" MBP, which I upgraded with 16Gb of RAM and a 256Gb SSD:

For reference, my current late 2013 rMBP (2.3GHz/16Gb/512Gb), gets around 12200 in the same benchmark.

You didn't mention if you had a chance to compare a retina display to a standard one. To me, that alone would probably be enough to spend the extra $800.

Edit: keep in mind that back then we were able to run the 64bit benchmark in trial mode. The current version only allows a 32bit run in trial. 64bit scores are always higher.

 

[Cmd-the-World]

What the hell are you talking about? The GTX 650 and 750 are both much faster than the Iris Pro. According to the PassMark GPU benchmark listing the 650M is about 30% faster and the 750M is about 55% faster. Sure, it's not completely crap like the X3100 and GMA 950 of yesteryear, but the reason why people are buying machines without the 750M is that it's only available as part of a ($600) optional upgrade that also comes with a faster CPU and an SSD twice as big.

There are OpenCL test that show that the Iris Pro beats the GT 750. Like I said these tests are aimed at computation purposes and not gaming.

Edit: Here is the thread https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1658931/

I am saying there are people order the base 15" and paying the $600 different in BTO machines to match the specs of the top model. They are BTO the lower cost machine with 512GB SSD, with the 2.3GHz CPU and with the 16GB of RAM. The difference is that the BTO machine doesn't have the Nvidia card. There a few people that actually done that. They didn't save any money cos the cost of the laptop is the same. The only difference is that it doesn't have the Nvidia Gfx card. It doesn't mean I support them or anything but there are people that are doing that. Personally I got mine with the Discreet Gfx card but everyone has a different opinion

----------

...
I found screenshot of a benchmark of my 17" MBP, which I upgraded with 16Gb of RAM and a 256Gb SSD:

For reference, my current late 2013 rMBP (2.3GHz/16Gb/512Gb), gets around 12200 in the same benchmark.

...

Edit: keep in mind that back then we were able to run the 64bit benchmark in trial mode. The current version only allows a 32bit run in trial. 64bit scores are always higher.

Another thing to keep in mind Geekbench has launched Version 3 that as far as I know can't be compared with Version 2 scores. So when comparing scores make sure you are seeing scores from the same version.

 

[SarcasticJoe]

There are OpenCL test that show that the Iris Pro beats the GT 750. Like I said these tests are aimed at computation purposes and not gaming.

General compute tasks are not particularly good GPU benchmarking tools as the program itself can cause quite a lot of variance by choosing to use OpenCL with one GPU and then something else or even just run on CPU exclusively with another. A good example of this is when they tried benchmarking the new Mac Pro with Adobe's After Effects (if I recall right) and found that it was running faster on the previous Mac Pro because on the newer machines it would run only on the CPU.

The reason why people use games is that they just force the GPU into being the primary computational unit and measure it's performance pretty well. Also, the machine with the dedicated GPU does still come with the Iris Pro, so you can use that whenever you want. Besides, I'm mainly interested in CUDA as despite AMD's suggestions to the contrary, OpenCL hasn't exactly gotten much traction in the Academic world. Instead CUDA rules supreme when it comes to GPGPU work in that field.

As for the Built-To-Order options (or optional extras as us regular people call them) you talked about, the fact that you can order a 15" rMBP with the extra RAM, bigger SSD and faster CPU, but not the dedicated GPU doesn't make it OK that you HAVE to get them as well if you want the dedicated GPU. It's the same kind of BS that you HAD to get the high res screen to get the antiglare option before the retina-machines showed up.

So if my current early 2011 machine kicks the bucket or gets stolen, my insurance will probably only cover the cheapest 15" rMBP or a second hand early 2013 machine and I'll still go with the older machine.

 

[brdeveloper]

General compute tasks are not particularly good GPU benchmarking tools as the program itself can cause quite a lot of variance by choosing to use OpenCL with one GPU and then something else or even just run on CPU exclusively with another. A good example of this is when they tried benchmarking the new Mac Pro with Adobe's After Effects (if I recall right) and found that it was running faster on the previous Mac Pro because on the newer machines it would run only on the CPU.

The reason why people use games is that they just force the GPU into being the primary computational unit and measure it's performance pretty well. Also, the machine with the dedicated GPU does still come with the Iris Pro, so you can use that whenever you want. Besides, I'm mainly interested in CUDA as despite AMD's suggestions to the contrary, OpenCL hasn't exactly gotten much traction in the Academic world. Instead CUDA rules supreme when it comes to GPGPU work in that field.

As for the Built-To-Order options (or optional extras as us regular people call them) you talked about, the fact that you can order a 15" rMBP with the extra RAM, bigger SSD and faster CPU, but not the dedicated GPU doesn't make it OK that you HAVE to get them as well if you want the dedicated GPU. It's the same kind of BS that you HAD to get the high res screen to get the antiglare option before the retina-machines showed up.

So if my current early 2011 machine kicks the bucket or gets stolen, my insurance will probably only cover the cheapest 15" rMBP or a second hand early 2013 machine and I'll still go with the older machine.

I bought my rMBP with the 650M for CUDA too, but at the time (at least in the previous month), CUDA didn't work in Mavericks, but don't know if there are updates. OpenCL is more portable, but CUDA SDK comes with a lot of useful tools.

 

[SarcasticJoe]

I bought my rMBP with the 650M for CUDA too, but at the time (at least in the previous month), CUDA didn't work in Mavericks, but don't know if there are updates. OpenCL is more portable, but CUDA SDK comes with a lot of useful tools.

According to this they fixed it two months ago:
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/forum_thread.php?id=8733

However rather than starting off doing it on my personal machine (as a pair of training wheels so to speak), I decided to start off on the cluster machine (which hosts quite a few desktop cards) that I have access to.

 

[brdeveloper]

According to this they fixed it two months ago:
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/dev/forum_thread.php?id=8733

However rather than starting off doing it on my personal machine (as a pair of training wheels so to speak), I decided to start off on the cluster machine (which hosts quite a few desktop cards) that I have access to.

It seems that they solved for newer Macs (like 4xx M Series, but not 9400m or 320M). My rMBP is on service for display replacement and now I have only my white macbook (9400m), so it doesn't work with cuda.

 

[GoEagles997]

Doesn't make much sense to just to buy a machine to put your own SSD in it, the SSD you would put in would be SATA III based I imagine, not PCI-E based, which is faster.

Also, some of the refurbished machine from Feb 2013 actually have 1GB RAM with the GT 650M card if that makes any difference for you.

If I had to do it over again, I would get the $1,700 rMBP from Late 2013 that is refurbished, or the $2,200 if you NEED a dedicated video card. That comes with double the RAM, double the SSD, a 2.3GHZ processor and a 2GB 750M video card.