Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

New config? 2.8GHz Quad-core for 15" rMBP

sarakn

sarakn

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Feb 8, 2013
765
46
I've been stalking Apple's and MacInsider's site for a few months and don't recall seeing this option on 15" rMBPs. I don't even think this option was available 2 days ago.

If I'm not mistaken and this is a new addition, what would be the point of adding a new product 2 days before the launch of the new models?

Just wondering...
 
I think this has been available since the spec bump earlier this year.

Mid 2012 models had 2.3, 2.6, and 2.7Ghz options.

Early 2013 models have 2.4, 2.7, and 2.8Ghz options.
 
Stetrain said:
I think this has been available since the spec bump earlier this year.

Mid 2012 models had 2.3, 2.6, and 2.7Ghz options.

Early 2013 models have 2.4, 2.7, and 2.8Ghz options.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Assuming the new models are 2.7, 2.8, do you think it's worth it to go with 2.8mhz?

Also, I was under the impression that you could not upgrade the ssd on these machines until yesterday. Apparently, I would have to get as much ram upfront and can upgrade ssd later.

Does it make sense to get 16Gb ram and 256gb ssd and then buy the max ssd from OWC? Ultimately, I'd like to get either 768 or 1B if that's available soon and if I can get the base SSD now, I can put the difference towards the replacement.
 
I think 16gb RAM is a **** load. Are you running the country from your MAC or something? :D
 
Philuk84 said:
I think 16gb RAM is a **** load. Are you running the country from your MAC or something? :D
Click to expand...

Really? One VM can use 3-5 GB, a few hundred tabs in Safari can use 4-5 etc. The MacPro has an option for 64GB. Someone who needs that must be running the EU, right? :)
 
Is it weird that there exists a 2.9 GHZ 13" MacBook Pro with Retina, but not a 2.9 15"?
 
Philuk84 said:
If you're running the EU you'll need 128!
Click to expand...

If you're running Greece, you won't need more than 64megs.

----------
Philuk84 said:
I think 16gb RAM is a **** load. Are you running the country from your MAC or something? :D
Click to expand...

haha... that's what I thought when I installed 8Gb on my windows laptop. Now, it's barely enough. I know, I know, windows vs mac... comparing apples to dog poo. :p

I'm the type to have multiple windows upon windows - I have 3 firefox sessions up with 10+ tabs each. Right now, FF is using 750Megs! and I've shut down 2 sessions and the only session going only has 7 tabs.

I hope the new world of Mac is a lot faster.

*this laptop is like a old wounded dog that needs to be put down.
 
I'll be playing BF3, using Adobe Audition, tabs open, music on and I'm using 5.5.

8 just seems to be more than enough for anything I've ever needed.

But you do work in IT so I'm sure your needs are more extravagant than mine. :)
 
Philuk84 said:
I'll be playing BF3, using Adobe Audition, tabs open, music on and I'm using 5.5.

8 just seems to be more than enough for anything I've ever needed.

But you do work in IT so I'm sure your needs are more extravagant than mine. :)
Click to expand...

That's my concern - I'll need to run parallels or bootcamp and anything to make this run like a beast is welcome.
 
For most people the very top spec CPU is never worth it, unless you need it to get some other feature. Unless your workload is entirely CPU bound (most aren't) and isn't held up by disk, memory bandwidth memory size or GPU, you won't even see anywhere near the 10% difference in clock speed in terms of improved performance.

Spent up big on RAM instead.

And yes, 16GB is easily consumed if you work with VMs. You can get by with 8 for a couple of VMs max. If you are trying to say, simulate a LAB network with multiple servers, a couple of clients and a router simulator like GNS3, then you can use a lot more :)


I was surprised at the difference going from 8 to 16 made in my MBP even when not running VMs though. Nowhere near as big as the jump from 4-8, but there's a bit of a difference. I didn't expect anything unless under heavy load.
 
RAM is great because it let's me work with more things at the same time.

I do a lot of photography editing and I can never get enough RAM.


As for CPU power… if you need it usually you know. If time is real money, then $250 is nothing. In the grand scheme of things, it really isn't much.
 
To add to the CPU discussion, in some cases, as in mine, the fastest 13” dual-core MBP is actually faster than the fastest 15" quad-core. If the programs you will be running/writing can only take advantage of one core, you should be looking at single-core turbo clock rates, which are higher on the dual-core i7. Benchmarks I've seen online confirm this.
 
Last I checked a couple months ago, it was less money to order as big as SSD as apple offers. The 768 is $$$$ third party and an expensive upgrade, if you can even find them. Its not the same situation as years ago. The only advantage with buying small and upgrading is you end up with an extra SSD portable drive... for what its worth.

As far 2.8 vs 2.7, if you use apps that take advantage of cache the larger cache in the 2.8 may be worth it. There was a good post maybe a month ago with real world comparisons.... comes down to subjectives, how much is 4-5% worth to you?

Personally I just go with the max performance, that way there is no thinking necessary. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back