Need Help Configuring new MacBook Pro Retina UPDATED

Go for the Ram upgrade, You won't see much of a difference between 2.6 & 2.3 but maxing out your ram is always a good option, especially if you plan on running virtual machines.

 

the CPU upgrade will not be noticeable at all to 99.9% of people. the ram on the other hand is helpful for running multiple programs at the same time and especially helpful for things like adobe after effects ram previews. also, the only difference between the 2 cpus is only .1 ghz. they both have 6mb of l3 cache.

 

As you haven't given us your usage requirements we can't make any credible judgement. Personally, the .3 GHz would be the only thing that would impact me, since I rarely eve use over 4GB RAM, while the extra .3 would at least do something, even if not noticeable in a comparison.

 

Frankly, with that kind of usage, the rMBP is serious overkill. I would go with the RAM, though, since at least you COULD potentially hit that if you edit your photos at all.

 

Go with neither and save the money for accessories/ext hard drive/whatever. If you absolutely had to choose, then the processor upgrade will do something for you, however unnoticeable.

 

wow really? you don't need either upgrade. you aren't going to notice any performance gain at all. but since you're obviously wanting to just throw down money, get both upgrades just for the hell of it.

 

Go with the RAM.

 

The concept of future-proofing is frankly obsolete. For example, processor upgrades provide 5-10% more performance, but does it really future proof? You can't predict what advances are made, and what requirements are in the future. 5-10% is often negligible.

The fact that you haven't upgraded for so long is a testament of how long you're willing to endure using the computer vs how future-proof it is.

The most common / practical advice is to simply get the Base model, and use the money you 'save' on the next version when you're willing to upgrade.

The base model is plenty fast.

 

I agree with the RAM recommendation. I only got 8 the first time around and regretted it, but the 2.3 processor has been more than enough. You may not need 8 GB of RAM today, but you very well might in 6-12 months. If you would decide to sell it later on, the person who buys it from you would probably appreciate the extra RAM also.

I'm impressed that you made the Dell last from 2005 to 2012. You definitely deserve this new Mac. Have a great time with it!

 

"I'm concerned with future proofing the Mac down the line.I need the configurations to be up to date far as long I can."

I'm with you Robby! The main reason to buy a retina pro would appear to be the stunning display- which I've seen in action in a 'Stormfront' Store over here. Megapixel photos look simply stunning, As far as future proofing goes- can't be done- my first PC back in the 1990's was a Viglen which was guaranteed future proof, it had a hard drive of 3.2G which at the time was stellar- 12 months later it was a joke!

But if you have the money then why not max out the retina pro- its better than getting the 'If only' feeling. I plan to get the highest spec possible when I visit the USA

Not stalking you by the way, we just seem to be looking at similar threads.

 

I think it's a good move doing the upgrades now, just for the fact that as more updates come out for Mac's there's a chance that they could lag it down (that said, you could always downgrade I believe). Anyway, the bump from 2.3 to 2.6 is pretty hard to notice-- go for the RAM, it'll better in the future (although you might want to consider picking up a customizable MBP so you have more control in the future).

 

Forgot to mention that my 1st computer- the Viglen, cost over 3000 pounds sterling- approx $4500 dollars at current exchange rates and considerably more in the 90s.

 

I think this is the best advice. When the 2.3 goes obsolete, the 2.6 and 2.7 will likely be obsolete too. Big processor advances don't happen in small increments, they happen in orders of magnitude, so that 5-10% difference is not going to matter when the next gen processors are 100x faster. Regarding the RAM, if you don't know if you need 16 GB, you probably don't need 16 GB. It's that simple. Many users are doing fine with 4 GB right now, so even 8 GB is plenty, especially for your uses. That being said, if you do start editing large photos very often, the RAM could come in handy.

 

get over the idea of 'future proofing'. its silly and useless, especially in your case when you aren't even doing anything of consequence on the computer.
i mean really, do you think your 'internet surfing, watching movies, emailing etc' is going to be much improved if you have 16gb of ram instead of 8?

 

It would be easier to make a credible suggestion if you told us more about your intended use cases. Based on the way most people use their computers, the actual performance impact of the 13% increase in processor clock speed is going to a be great deal less than 13%. Most applications don't tax the processor to anything approaching the clock speed limit.

The impact of memory is different. As you start to allocate more and more memory, things zip along linearly until you hit the memory limit. At that point the OS begins to swap virtual memory with the disk, and, since the fastest SSD disks are still a great deal slower than RAM, things slow down in a hurry.

The impact of this is that, if you're doing memory intensive things, doubling the memory can have a very noticeable impact on performance. If you're planning on running VMs within MacOS, for example, two things are critical for performance: the number (not speed) of processor cores and the amount of memory that can be allocated to each VM.

Doing what I do, my vote is always for more memory as opposed to faster processors. You should give some thought to what your intended use cases are and see if your decision is the same.

That's an interesting notion. It also has a great deal to do with your use cases. In my case, I depend on my laptop to make a living. I buy a new one every 12 months or so. My annualized computer costs are typically $500-700 as I'm usually able to easily turn my old one on eBay in very good shape in the original box. That's cost effective for me. It may not be for you. If your computer is less critical to you, it would make sense to look at a longer life cycle. Still, technology is advancing rapidly. I wouldn't plan on getting seven years of use out of any computer you buy today unless you're just doing web and email with it.

 

I'm glad you were able to come to a decision that suits your use. Having spent the better part of two weeks trying to figure out the best configuration to suit me, I can relate to the difficulty of the decision. The non-upgradeability of this model really complicates the buying process, but Apple is undoubtedly laughing all the way to the bank on that one. You beat them at their own game by ordering the base model! No matter what, you'll get a great computer that will serve you for as long as you need it and will return a decent amount on the resale market when you get ready to move to the next one.

 

I'm at three releases (and 4.5 years) after I got my MBP and while 4GB of RAM isn't sufficient for what I want to do, the performance degradation isn't too bad. You'll be fine.

 

2.6 - 2.3 = 0.1

 

That's more of a CPU issue. In the name of graphics performance, Apple was pushing Core 2 Duos in the i3/i5 era and still pushing them in the i5/i7 era. Had you been able to buy a 13" Pro with an i3 or an i5 or a 15" with an i7 the performance degradation over 3-4 years would have been minor.