So I'm about to pull the trigger on a 15" Retina MacBook Pro and I'm contemplating one aspect of the setup. I'm going to hold onto this computer for a while... I'm talking about 5 to 6 years and maybe more. I have an 08 MacBook now that's still going strong and the only reason I'm replacing it is because the battery just does not, regardless of replacement, have to oomph I need and the age is really starting to show performance wise (and I'm still on Snow Leopard). That said, I'm getting the base model retina with the 256GB SSD and do plan on getting the 16GB of RAM as a BTO option but I'm curious whether or not the add the 100 dollar upgrade to the 2.6Ghz Intel i7 up from the 2.3Ghz chip. I assume that, since this will be my machine for many years to come, I might as well add the processor, but if the lower clock rate is going to help out with battery life and general wear and tear (lower thermal output and heat on the system), it might be worth it. I don't do a huge amount of heavy work (other than music production with reaper and mixing and such) so my main interest in the retina is to have a machine that will be supported and continue to be fast well into the future so as to ensure my investment goes the furthest it can. Any thoughts on what I should consider with regards to the i7 upgrades?
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.
Last Considerations Before Pulling the Trigger
- Thread starter Krauser
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
if you've waited this long, then what's a few more months for hashwell?
a much better performer and better expected battery life.
The thing is I have the cash now and want to upgrade my computer over winter break for school. Plus, I'm pretty dang confident people are blowing Haswell out of proportion. Yeah, it will be an upgrade, but I'd have to wait 6 months for what should be a modest speed increase for integrated graphics and some more power efficiency. When Haswell drops, people will just say "if you've waited this long, why not wait for X chips from Intel?" and the cycle continues. I just want a good machine... plus I'm doing the interest free financing on it and already did the card app from Apple so I have like 30 days to make the call anywho
I'm pretty comfortable with the decision. If you keep waiting for tech, you'll wait forever I guess...EDIT: Plus, I haven't updated from SL for performance reasons and I REALLY don't want to compromise my machine which churns along alright. That said, I've been missing out for a while on iCloud integration for my iPhone and the general connectivity of ML with iOS and have been losing out on TONS of features simply because I've left my machine on SL for performance reasons so I think I'm just going to go for it.
I don't think it's worth it, if you put the two machines side by side I'd be willing to bet you couldn't tell the different in day to day tasks.
I agree with your theory on not waiting though, you can always wait for the next one and then the next, etc, etc.. Meanwhile you are sitting there with a dead battery not getting work done. My wife is in need a of a new computer, I get frustrated using her aging iMac I can imagine what it's like for her on a day to day basis.
I agree with your theory on not waiting though, you can always wait for the next one and then the next, etc, etc.. Meanwhile you are sitting there with a dead battery not getting work done. My wife is in need a of a new computer, I get frustrated using her aging iMac I can imagine what it's like for her on a day to day basis.
Its only 100$ on a 2k+ computer so might as well and not second guess yourself?
I am picking up the 15r next week and only considering upgrading the ram, which is already a huge purchase for me.. if i had the cash i would max it out CPU/ram wise
I am picking up the 15r next week and only considering upgrading the ram, which is already a huge purchase for me.. if i had the cash i would max it out CPU/ram wise
Your computer will be obsolete in 3-4 years anyway, no matter what CPU you take. A realistic usable life of a computer is 3 years, after that it becomes a antiquity. Wanting to keep a computer for 6 years is like wearing the same pair of socks for several years - it can be done, but at the end you will walk with your toes showing
Your computer will be obsolete in 3-4 years anyway, no matter what CPU you take. A realistic usable life of a computer is 3 years, after that it becomes a antiquity. Wanting to keep a computer for 6 years is like wearing the same pair of socks for several years - it can be done, but at the end you will walk with your toes showing
Not true at all. Tell me which computers from 3-4 years ago are obsolete? I still have my 2007 c2d 2.4/4gb/250gb dell and it works like a charm, far from obsolete.
The fastest and most expensive core 2 duo is slower than an entry-level CPU of today. Of course it still works. But it is much slower than a machine bough today for the same money.
Ultimately, one pays increasingly higher premium for only small increases in processing speed. The fastest Clarksfield quad core of 2010 which used to cost over $1000 is slower than an entry-level Ivy Bridge Quad-Code of 2012 that costs 1/3 of that, and only marginally faster than a modern dual-core ULV CPU. I am not a fan of 'future-roofing' at all, because it does not matter how much money you invest in the machine right now - three years later it won't be any better than a entry level machine of that time.
I prefer to getting a mid-range machine every two years, while selling the old one. This way, I always have modern technology (with warranty!). I can usually sell a computer for 70%-80% of its original price after 2 years, which means that I effectively pay at most 200 euro per year for owing a new machine with warranty (+ a long term deposit). Compare it to OP here who wants to spend over 2500 euro on a machine he doesn't need right now (from his own words, the tasks he is intending the machine for don't justify an expensive fast CPU). After six years, the machine will be slower than a contemporary netbook, he will be hard pressed to sell it at all; in addition, if something should fail during after the warranty has expired he has to carry out an expensive repair on what is essentially an obsolete machine. I fail to see even one positive aspect (financially or otherwise) of this approach.
I agree with every aspect of what you wrote, but again, using the word obsolete is unnecessary in this case. Perhaps you use your machine to do a lot of processor intensive tasks but I do not. A core 2 duo or a core 2 quad, or haswell will not make a difference for my tasks. Assuming that everybody needs the greatest and the best isnt true. OP is clearly happy with using his machine long term and therefore it does not make it obsolete
.
Your computer will be obsolete in 3-4 years anyway, no matter what CPU you take. A realistic usable life of a computer is 3 years, after that it becomes a antiquity. Wanting to keep a computer for 6 years is like wearing the same pair of socks for several years - it can be done, but at the end you will walk with your toes showing
I think this statement only applies to people who are using serious computing power such as photo/video editing or gaming. I upgraded to my macbook air from my 5 year old laptop simply because I needed to save on weight in my bag.
So I took everything into consideration and just went with the 2.6 i7 instead. I understand the whole "sell it after 2 years and get another one" thing but for some reason, I never took that approach. I know it makes a lot of sense, but I just enjoy hanging on to my computers for some reason. I still have my old 3" thick Dells for some reason haha but yeah. Also, I probably didn't "need" it but I went with it anyway because, hey, a large part of the retina is simply wanting it rather than needing it after all
EDIT: Plus, I'd say "obsolete" is a relative term. Technically everything goes "obsolete" after a couple months anyway. I pretty much got the 2.6 over the 2.3 because I went with 2.0 instead of the 2.4 with the one I have now, and the little bump would've made a little difference in the file exports and processing I do on it now anyway. Like I said, I took everything into consideration and while I agree with the whole "sell it after a year or two and get another one", I generally hold on to my machines. Call me lazy or weird or impractical, but I don't want to kid myself into thinking I'm going to sell my machine after a year or two either haha thanks for all the considerations and comments guys! Looking forward to my machine!
EDIT: Plus, I'd say "obsolete" is a relative term. Technically everything goes "obsolete" after a couple months anyway. I pretty much got the 2.6 over the 2.3 because I went with 2.0 instead of the 2.4 with the one I have now, and the little bump would've made a little difference in the file exports and processing I do on it now anyway. Like I said, I took everything into consideration and while I agree with the whole "sell it after a year or two and get another one", I generally hold on to my machines. Call me lazy or weird or impractical, but I don't want to kid myself into thinking I'm going to sell my machine after a year or two either haha thanks for all the considerations and comments guys! Looking forward to my machine!
Last edited:
I agree that this term might have been too strong here. I guess what I mean is that technology advances very quickly and cutting edge of today is nothing more than entry-level of tomorrow. Of course, this does not change the fact that computers are just too fast. Processing powers of today are way higher than an average user realistically needs for everyday tasks. The only reason machines are getting 'slower' is because programmers are getting lazier
This is true. Also, I forgot to point this out when I mentioned my computer, but a big reason I sprang for the retina model was the dedicated graphics. I couldn't bring myself to buy the 13" model knowing it was an 1800 dollar machine driven by an HD4000. It's not like it's a bad graphics option, but the 15" made more sense economically.I agree that this term might have been too strong here. I guess what I mean is that technology advances very quickly and cutting edge of today is nothing more than entry-level of tomorrow. Of course, this does not change the fact that computers are just too fast. Processing powers of today are way higher than an average user realistically needs for everyday tasks. The only reason machines are getting 'slower' is because programmers are getting lazier
Also, even if the processors are faster than any of us need, if the developers aren't optimizing the apps that we're using, the point is kind of moot. It doesn't really matter if it's faster than we can ever use if the applications that we interact with the processor with are lazily coded and need all the power anyway
Via Geekbench:
rMBP 2.3ghz - 11083
rMBP 2.6ghz - 12023
rMBP 2.7ghz - 13335
If you do a processor intensive task, and we're talking 100% of CPU, the 2.3 will finish ~10% slower than the 2.6. More than likely, you wont be doing such tasks. Get the 2.3.