MBP 2016 16gb vs MBP 2017 8gb

[Seekingshred]

I need some help from people maybe know about these 2 models which one to choose given I'm doing video editing.

Not sure if Kaby will win over skylake which has more ram? or I'm wrong?

 

[AFEPPL]

Take the 16GB is my experience, but I'm by no means a professional.

 

[Patcell]

I am not a professional either, by any stretch... but for video editing I would tend to go with the 2016 16GB option. Unless you really want hardware accelerated HEVC encode for your exports. Kaby Lake will give you that. Aside from this, however, Kaby Lake is more or less a refinement of Skylake. Not a huge uplift in performance.

 

[Sterkenburg]

Unless getting Kaby Lake's 4K HEVC hardware decoding is an important factor, I'd go with 16GB RAM. Maybe it would help if you could be a bit more specific about your intended usage and the kind of video editing you'd be doing.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Yep as the others said if 4K HEVC coding is important to you then the 2017 is the way to go, but you'll probably want the dGPU 16gb and bigger screen on the 15 inch then anyway to be honest.

 

[DarkSel]

The 2016 models support 4K HEVC at 8 bits. You wouldn't be losing out on 4K if you went with the 2016 models.

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

Get the 2016, if you needed 10bit HEVC you wouldn't be here asking. And it's a long time away from being necessary for anything. Nice to have by all means, but it's like having an 8K TV at this point (Nothing to put on it...).

 

[Seekingshred]

Get the 2016, if you needed 10bit HEVC you wouldn't be here asking. And it's a long time away from being necessary for anything. Nice to have by all means, but it's like having an 8K TV at this point (Nothing to put on it...).

True what you saying, my videos come from 4K black hero, nikon D750 and just bought the Sony A7 which I think you H.265 is available - but don't have any answers if 2016 mbp would be able to pull this out? Of course it would be better to go with the 15'' but that's £600 more expensive so...
[doublepost=1500625093][/doublepost]

Unless getting Kaby Lake's 4K HEVC hardware decoding is an important factor, I'd go with 16GB RAM. Maybe it would help if you could be a bit more specific about your intended usage and the kind of video editing you'd be doing.

Hero 4k black, d750 Nikon, Sony A7, but also won't stay maybe too long with these models so I need to make sure 2016 is powerful to process these and maybe future models...

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

True what you saying, my videos come from 4K black hero, nikon D750 and just bought the Sony A7 which I think you H.265 is available - but don't have any answers if 2016 mbp would be able to pull this out? Of course it would be better to go with the 15'' but that's £600 more expensive so...
[doublepost=1500625093][/doublepost]

Hero 4k black, d750 Nikon, Sony A7, but also won't stay maybe too long with these models so I need to make sure 2016 is powerful to process these and maybe future models...

The 2017 may be a better option for you then if you're really concerned about future things. I'd say in 3-4 years 10bit will be more of a thing, but which time you'll probably be upgrading anyway?

Otherwise the 10bit side of KL largely affects battery consumption. Both are capable of encoding/decoding, there's some question over the efficiency of playback but everything I've seen relates to 4K 10Bit 60Hz.

Which A7? A7S is h.264, A7SII does h.264 too. Obviously standard A7 is a stills camera capable of 1080p. Could be wrong, have they had a patch to enable h.265?

Anyway, if cost is a concern. Why not just get a 2016 and see if it works for you? If you could wait for High Sierra you'll be best off but you could probably make a fair assumption based on the Beta.

 

[Seekingshred]

The 2017 may be a better option for you then if you're really concerned about future things. I'd say in 3-4 years 10bit will be more of a thing, but which time you'll probably be upgrading anyway?

Otherwise the 10bit side of KL largely affects battery consumption. Both are capable of encoding/decoding, there's some question over the efficiency of playback but everything I've seen relates to 4K 10Bit 60Hz.

Which A7? A7S is h.264, A7SII does h.264 too. Obviously standard A7 is a stills camera capable of 1080p. Could be wrong, have they had a patch to enable h.265?

Anyway, if cost is a concern. Why not just get a 2016 and see if it works for you? If you could wait for High Sierra you'll be best off but you could probably make a fair assumption based on the Beta.

I thiught

The 2017 may be a better option for you then if you're really concerned about future things. I'd say in 3-4 years 10bit will be more of a thing, but which time you'll probably be upgrading anyway?

Otherwise the 10bit side of KL largely affects battery consumption. Both are capable of encoding/decoding, there's some question over the efficiency of playback but everything I've seen relates to 4K 10Bit 60Hz.

Which A7? A7S is h.264, A7SII does h.264 too. Obviously standard A7 is a stills camera capable of 1080p. Could be wrong, have they had a patch to enable h.265?

Anyway, if cost is a concern. Why not just get a 2016 and see if it works for you? If you could wait for High Sierra you'll be best off but you could probably make a fair assumption based on the Beta.

I thought something would change in the refurbished store if I'd wait a month but not really!

So would u think 2016 would not lose out in 4k editing? i saw some youtube reviews and I'm hesitant since 2017 model seems really dedicated to 4k.. I wish I had someone with 2016 model to tell me if I'd be able to edit videos from my 4k gopro or not!!

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

I thiught


I thought something would change in the refurbished store if I'd wait a month but not really!

So would u think 2016 would not lose out in 4k editing? i saw some youtube reviews and I'm hesitant since 2017 model seems really dedicated to 4k.. I wish I had someone with 2016 model to tell me if I'd be able to edit videos from my 4k gopro or not!!

Of course it can edit 4K videos, they're both high end laptops! The only difference is the dedicated hardware encoding for 4K 10bit (Specifically 10bit, Skylake has 8bit). And again only hardware, both are more than capable of software encoding/decoding.

Basically the way to think about it, is the 2017 is more efficient with 10bit, and will use less power (Saving battery life, but who edits 10bit on battery that much?). We're waiting for High Sierra which has some changes to the way MacOS handles these files at the moment, which should bring it all in-line.

If you're a professional editor working on large scale projects which are demanding 10bit HDR content, then the 2017 is worthwhile. If you're like everyone else, then the 2016 is more than adequate. As I mentioned earlier 10bit is very niche at the moment and won't become saturated till at least another 3-4 years, and will likely take 5-6 before becoming standard. The 2016 can work with these files, but the question is really over real-time playback (Say you for some reason wanted to watch 4K 10bit films on a screen that is neither 10bit or 4K; obviously different for editors...).

So I'd get the 2016 today and look to upgrade in 3-4 years time. If you specifically wanted the 10bit side you're paying a lot for something you're not going to make use of for some time, by which time the prices of that technology will be mainstream and cheaper.

Check if your recording equipment can even record at 4K 10bit too.

 

[Rkuda]

All 2017 15” MBPs come with 16GB standard so I assume this means you are looking at the 13” models?

Honestly if the main purpose of the machine is video editing, especially 4K you shouldn’t be looking at the 13”.

The lack of a dGPU in the 13” is probably the biggest thing that will hobble it, followed closely by the dual core cpu instead of quad core in the 15”.

 

[asoksevil]

I just bought a new 2017 MacBook Pro No Touch Bar with 16 GB and I am starting to regret it. A lot of people here say that 16 GB should be good to future proof yourself but I felt that I would never use more than the 8 GB because 8 GB is plenty. It's enough for a Virtual Machine (something that I will never use) and I can use a casual Photoshop, light gaming (Blizzard titles) and for college work (management).

In fact, I will most likely return this one and get the 8 GB one with 256 GB SSD instead of 16 GB an 128 GB SSD. Storage seems to be more useful.

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

I just bought a new 2017 MacBook Pro No Touch Bar with 16 GB and I am starting to regret it. A lot of people here say that 16 GB should be good to future proof yourself but I felt that I would never use more than the 8 GB because 8 GB is plenty. It's enough for a Virtual Machine (something that I will never use) and I can use a casual Photoshop, light gaming (Blizzard titles) and for college work (management).

In fact, I will most likely return this one and get the 8 GB one with 256 GB SSD instead of 16 GB an 128 GB SSD. Storage seems to be more useful.

I do try tell people this. There's a long standing attitude towards RAM that's not grounded in current technology, it's a hang up on how things used to be.

If you intend to use the computer for professional purposes (It'll earn you money), get 16GB as you can never have enough and cost wise it's not much assuming you're making money from it. Same for the SSD, get the biggest you can afford beyond double what you currently use (Using 120GB, get 256GB, if you can afford 512GB then get that).

If it's a personal computer or hobby use, 8GB is usually enough. Some apps may become slow on rare occasions, but you can wait an extra 5 minutes for a render.

Having less RAM does not mean you cannot use certain applications, or even have multiple applications open at the same time. It purely affects the scope of a particular app you're using. And yes if you VM then there is never going to be enough RAM, you need to VM efficiently when using a laptop (As all devs know), and you need a desktop with stacks of RAM to do serious stuff. That's always been the case and always will.

 

[Seekingshred]

I agree with you mac smell I've purchased though with exactly the same logic my late 2013 back then with 8gb ram and kaboom when i recorded 4k and tried to playback and edit - forget it!! So i think I'm not doing the same mistake twice

 

[New_Mac_Smell]

I agree with you mac smell I've purchased though with exactly the same logic my late 2013 back then with 8gb ram and kaboom when i recorded 4k and tried to playback and edit - forget it!! So i think I'm not doing the same mistake twice

Then get the 2017. Honestly the only difference is a few hundred dollars, at the end of the day if you're worried something won't work then get thing you know will; if it'll save you a headache in deciding.

As a reference, any 13" with 8GB RAM is going to struggle with 4K, you really want the 15" for 4K content. The 13" is a portable computer, not a powerhouse after all.

So a 13" with 16GB RAM 'might' be able to handle it fine, but I'd argue you'd still not quite be okay with it, and whether it had 8GB or 16GB wouldn't make a difference as the RAM isn't really the limitation there, it's the CPU.

If you absolutely want to edit 4K and you absolutely know this'll be an issue, then get either 15". No problem. If you grab a 13" it'll possibly still have an issue, so you'd be better getting the cheaper one.

 

[Seekingshred]

What machine are u using mac smell? If you own a 15 have u seen 13 editing or just playing back 4k? Anyone?

 

[Jamalogo10]

All 2017 15” MBPs come with 16GB standard so I assume this means you are looking at the 13” models?

Honestly if the main purpose of the machine is video editing, especially 4K you shouldn’t be looking at the 13”.

The lack of a dGPU in the 13” is probably the biggest thing that will hobble it, followed closely by the dual core cpu instead of quad core in the 15”.

I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong. Editing in 4k is a medial task for even the base MBP in 2017.

 

[Seekingshred]

I'm sorry but you couldn't be more wrong. Editing in 4k is a medial task for even the base MBP in 2017.

I think you either misread what he was saying or you have not worked on a base mbp. For 13'' 4k is indeed very heavy for a 8gb base model otherwise trust me this thread would not make sense... I just want to see if smone has hands on experience with a base model cause I haven't seen any editing till now

 

[Jamalogo10]

I think you either misread what he was saying or you have not worked on a base mbp. For 13'' 4k is indeed very heavy for a 8gb base model otherwise trust me this thread would not make sense... I just want to see if smone has hands on experience with a base model cause I haven't seen any editing till now

It doesn't matter how much ram you have, FCP will claim all of it regardless. It's more dependent upon how much the program is actively using. It does not take 8 GB to run successfully. I've messed around with a base mbp and I own a 2017 nTB, so yes I have. Hope this helps...

Here's proof from YouTube:

Here's another one for the nonbelievers:

There are literally hundreds of videos stating what I have stated many times. YOU CAN EDIT 4K FOOTAGE WITH NO PROBLEMS ON A NEW MACBOOK PRO IN FCP.

 

[Seekingshred]

You own a 2017 Ntb i7 16gb ram which is pumped compared to the base model I'm talking about.

Interesting video the first one - if you go to apple they will even say to you that the ntb 8gb will struggle. Can I ask you, what media player are you using apart the FCP for editing? I suppose if you throw an 4k mkv file to VLC is never going to play it correct?

 

[Seekingshred]

You own a 2017 Ntb i7 16gb ram which is pumped compared to the base model I'm talking about.

Interesting video the first one - if you go to apple they will even say to you that the ntb 8gb will struggle. Can I ask you, what media player are you using apart the FCP for editing? I suppose if you throw an 4k mkv file to VLC is never going to play it correct?

vlc!
[doublepost=1503067933][/doublepost]same file thrown in to a 2015 15" MacBook Pro plays smoothly af. Long f* story short