New Configuration Options (USA)

Best Configuration

  • 2.3/16/256

    Votes: 9 10.8%
  • 2.3/16/512

    Votes: 10 12.0%
  • 2.3/16/768

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2.6/16/256

    Votes: 22 26.5%
  • 2.6/16/512

    Votes: 18 21.7%
  • 2.6/16/768

    Votes: 3 3.6%
  • 2.7/16/256

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2.7/16/512

    Votes: 7 8.4%
  • 2.7/16/768

    Votes: 7 8.4%
  • or the 8GB of RAM, List the rest of set-up below

    Votes: 7 8.4%

  • Total voters
    83

HighEndMac

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 30, 2011
229
1
So now that you can configure the new rMBP what’s the best set-up? (For the money)
 
Last edited:

MCAsan

macrumors 601
Jul 9, 2012
4,545
415
Atlanta
The notion of best value has to be taken in the context of each users's needs and their budget. So the best value conclusions will be very personal.

As a photographer I need the 768SSD to avoid carrying a stack of external drives on multiple week-long field trips. So for me a maxed out rMBP is a no brainer. It becomes the new desktop when I am home.
 

Dangerous Theory

macrumors 68000
Jul 28, 2011
1,981
28
UK
2.3/8/256 best value for money. SSD upgrades are incredibly expensive, and RAM isn't exactly cheap either. Not even sure why there is a 2.6 to 2.7 upgrade too.
 

HighEndMac

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 30, 2011
229
1
2.3/8/256 best value for money. SSD upgrades are incredibly expensive, and RAM isn't exactly cheap either. Not even sure why there is a 2.6 to 2.7 upgrade too.
Dude i also do not know why they have a 2.7 upgrade from 2.6, I guess you really need to know computers to get it.

Does anyone know?
 

kpdillon

macrumors member
Jul 26, 2011
54
0
The new options prompted me to upgrade my order. Interestingly, I am now getting a 2.6/16/512 but I upgraded the base 2.3/8/256 instead of taking the base 2.6.16.512 and I am saving $60.

I guess you could say that extra $60 is what enticed me. Now I have to wait longer which is a bummer but I think it's the right decision. I now feel good about the 512GB hard drive.
 

HighEndMac

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 30, 2011
229
1
The new options prompted me to upgrade my order. Interestingly, I am now getting a 2.6/16/512 but I upgraded the base 2.3/8/256 instead of taking the base 2.6.16.512 and I am saving $60.

I guess you could say that extra $60 is what enticed me. Now I have to wait longer which is a bummer but I think it's the right decision. I now feel good about the 512GB hard drive.
You only saved $60 USD? For $60 more i def would get the 2.6/16/512, are you crazy?

This can't be right, only a $60 dif????

or are you talking about upgrading the 2.3 model is $60 cheaper than the base 2.6 model? that can't be right. The same computer for less money?
 

Dangerous Theory

macrumors 68000
Jul 28, 2011
1,981
28
UK
Dude i also do not know why they have a 2.7 upgrade from 2.6, I guess you really need to know computers to get it.

Does anyone know?
I just looked at the upgrade prices too and it's +£100 to go from 2.3 to 2.6 (some might say fair enough), but then +£240 to go from 2.6 to 2.7 ?! If I was a millionaire I would go for it, whatever, but in realistic circumstances I couldn't rationalise that 240 quid for an almost definitely unnoticeable change.
 

pgiguere1

macrumors 68020
May 28, 2009
2,157
1,082
Montreal, Canada
You only saved $60 USD? For $60 more i def would get the 2.6/16/512, are you crazy?

This can't be right, only a $60 dif????

or are you talking about upgrading the 2.3 model is $60 cheaper than the base 2.6 model? that can't be right. The same computer for less money?
I think he's saying that's what he chose, only it was 60$ cheaper when upgrading the base model to 2.6/16/512 than taking the pre-configured 2.6/16/512 model.

Another proof that all of this is probably just a bug.
 

HighEndMac

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 30, 2011
229
1
I think he's saying that's what he chose, only it was 60$ cheaper when upgrading the base model to 2.6/16/512 than taking the pre-configured 2.6/16/512 model.

Another proof that all of this is probably just a bug.
It must be...
 

kpdillon

macrumors member
Jul 26, 2011
54
0
I think he's saying that's what he chose, only it was 60$ cheaper when upgrading the base model to 2.6/16/512 than taking the pre-configured 2.6/16/512 model.

Another proof that all of this is probably just a bug.
Yes. This. It probably is a bug but when I compared the part numbers were different.

Z0MK vs. Z0ML
 

Queen6

macrumors 604
Same set up as i have now 2.3, 8, 256 as i will without doubt swap it out for the Haswell machine next year, and the base models aways hold the best return. If i decide to keep the 2012 Retina as a secondary and let go of my high tier Late 2011, equally I dont need the system to be overly specified.

As Apple and Intel are "shifting gears" faster with the technology rollout`s I have shifted from my old strategy of buying a High Tier 15" MBP and running it for 4 years plus to buying the base model and swapping out 12-18 months and taking advantage of the new technology sooner. If I see the hardware being pushed I simply will incrementally upgrade upgrade on next cycle.
 
Last edited:

HighEndMac

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 30, 2011
229
1
Same set up as i have now 2.3, 8, 256 as i will without doubt swap it out for the Haswell machine next year, and the base models aways hold the best return. If i decide to keep the 2012 Retina as a secondary and let go of my high tier Late 2011, equally I dont need the system to be overly specified.

As Apple and Intel are "shifting gears" faster with the technology rollout`s I have shifted from my old strategy of buying a High Tier 15" MBP and running it for 4 years plus to buying the base model and swapping out 12-18 months and taking advantage of the new technology sooner. If I see the hardware being pushed I simply will incrementally upgrade upgrade on next cycle.
Really? Didn't they say the same thing about the Ivy vs the Sandy, something better is always around the corner....
 

ixodes

macrumors 601
Jan 11, 2012
4,430
2
Pacific Coast, USA
It's all about what works best for each individual user. Buying more than you need, is just as poor of a choice, than buying less than you need.

It's all about taking the time to review ones specific usage, evaluate what Apple offers, and selecting the appropriate configuration for you.
 

leenak

macrumors 68020
Mar 10, 2011
2,412
50
For the money, 2.3/8/512 would probably meet the needs of 95% of the MBP users for the next few years. Although I would've been tempted by 2.3, I probably would've went with my same setup of 2.6/16/512.
 

Slivortal

macrumors 6502
Jun 14, 2012
399
2
Dude i also do not know why they have a 2.7 upgrade from 2.6, I guess you really need to know computers to get it.

Does anyone know?
2.7 has 8MB of L3 cache vs the 6MB on the 2.6. It may make it worth more than the 2.3 vs 2.6 depending on how badly you need the extra cache.

Not sure of raw processor prices, so I can't help you on whether Apple's actually paying that much more for it.

Really? Didn't they say the same thing about the Ivy vs the Sandy, something better is always around the corner....
People say the same things every year. Now that Intel's roadmaps show processor upgrades on a yearly basis, it's not really worth waiting unless it's just before Apple releases their new computer (in which case you shouldn't be buying anything).

Haswell really won't change THAT much.
 

beamer8912

macrumors 65816
May 30, 2009
1,137
1
As a photographer I need the 768SSD to avoid carrying a stack of external drives on multiple week-long field trips. So for me a maxed out rMBP is a no brainer. It becomes the new desktop when I am home.
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

768GB is needed over 512GB, because otherwise you'd have to carry "stacks" of external drives? Here's a usb stick that you can attach to your car keys to make up the difference for 40% of the price of the 768GB upgrade.

Otherwise, they have portable externals the size of a deck of cards that offer 4x what your $500 upgrade gets you, for 1/5 the price.

My ideal setup: 2.6/16GB/256GB + 1TB USB 3.0 External. 1256GB of HDD space, final price: $2350 (w/edu discount).
 
Last edited:

HighEndMac

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 30, 2011
229
1
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

768GB is needed over 512GB, because otherwise you'd have to carry "stacks" of external drives? Here's a usb stick that you can attach to your car keys to make up the difference for 40% of the price of the 768GB upgrade.

Otherwise, they have portable externals the size of a deck of cards that offer 4x what your $500 upgrade gets you, for 1/5 the price.

My ideal setup: 2.6/16GB/256GB + 1TB USB 3.0 External. 1256GB of HDD space, final price: $2350 (w/edu discount).
Son of a Bee Sting! Crazy USB doogle, the tech game is getting outta this world!!

I think im going 2.6/16/512
 

Queen6

macrumors 604
Really? Didn't they say the same thing about the Ivy vs the Sandy, something better is always around the corner....
Agreed, just that Haswell and for that matter Broadwell look to offer significant improvements on the "i" GPU. SDB versus IVB and Kepler has delivered a significant difference in both thermals and performance. For me at present the technology is such that I dont need to stretch to High Tier BTO, and lets be realistic it`s not as if the 2.7 Retina is going to "smoke" the base 2.3 the performance differential is simply too small to be measurable under average usage.

The High Tier BTO`s traditionally drop more in value on a percentage basis, if you absolutely need the additional performance then these systems make sense. As i said I have changed my methodology to purchasing Mac`s as buying big and keeping long is now no longer effective for me. Albeit pure speculation I believe it will be safe to say that the base Haswell Retina will be significantly more powerful, than the present 2012 maxed out BTO. Broadwell will be more again with far better thermals.

What we are experiencing now are far bigger strides and we as the user`s feel a far more tangible benefit, undoubtedly the thermal performance alone of SDB vs IVB is a big leap. Previously we were seeing incremental speed increases and not too much more. Getting a faster, cooler running machine with stronger graphics makes it far more compelling to upgrade more frequently, and a guess it`s "swings and roundabouts" the longer you keep the machine the more value you get out of it, and the sooner you sell it the greater the financial return, my own Early 2008 15" MBP 2.4 Penryn certainly owes me nothing and will be finally retired this weekend :apple:
 

MCAsan

macrumors 601
Jul 9, 2012
4,545
415
Atlanta
Quote:
Originally Posted by MCAsan
As a photographer I need the 768SSD to avoid carrying a stack of external drives on multiple week-long field trips. So for me a maxed out rMBP is a no brainer. It becomes the new desktop when I am home.

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

768GB is needed over 512GB, because otherwise you'd have to carry "stacks" of external drives? Here's a usb stick that you can attach to your car keys to make up the difference for 40% of the price of the 768GB upgrade.

Otherwise, they have portable externals the size of a deck of cards that offer 4x what your $500 upgrade gets you, for 1/5 the price.

Compared to two of those USB sticks, the extra 500GB of SSD will cost approximately $100 more. Unlike the USB sticks, the SSD will be on Apple Care for 3 years and will not run the risk of being more items to track or get lost/stolen. I do not want to carry even one 1TB USB 3 drive if I do not need to do so. For me the convenience of fewer items to handle and track on photo trips plus Apple Care is worth the extra $100....especially since I got Apple Care at B&H for $100 off retail.

As I stated at the beginning of the thread, requirements and budgets vary by individual users. The last thing I want to carry is more equipment.
 

HighEndMac

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 30, 2011
229
1
Agreed, just that Haswell and for that matter Broadwell look to offer significant improvements on the "i" GPU. SDB versus IVB and Kepler has delivered a significant difference in both thermals and performance. For me at present the technology is such that I dont need to stretch to High Tier BTO, and lets be realistic it`s not as if the 2.7 Retina is going to "smoke" the base 2.3 the performance differential is simply too small to be measurable under average usage.

The High Tier BTO`s traditionally drop more in value on a percentage basis, if you absolutely need the additional performance then these systems make sense. As i said I have changed my methodology to purchasing Mac`s as buying big and keeping long is now no longer effective for me. Albeit pure speculation I believe it will be safe to say that the base Haswell Retina will be significantly more powerful, than the present 2012 maxed out BTO. Broadwell will be more again with far better thermals.

What we are experiencing now are far bigger strides and we as the user`s feel a far more tangible benefit, undoubtedly the thermal performance alone of SDB vs IVB is a big leap. Previously we were seeing incremental speed increases and not too much more. Getting a faster, cooler running machine with stronger graphics makes it far more compelling to upgrade more frequently, and a guess it`s "swings and roundabouts" the longer you keep the machine the more value you get out of it, and the sooner you sell it the greater the financial return, my own Early 2008 15" MBP 2.4 Penryn certainly owes me nothing and will be finally retired this weekend :apple:
Nice feedback, so are you getting the rMBP?
 

Queen6

macrumors 604
2.3/8/256 best value for money. SSD upgrades are incredibly expensive, and RAM isn't exactly cheap either. Not even sure why there is a 2.6 to 2.7 upgrade too.
Retina`s
For the average user this is a tremendously strong system, it will hold up offering better value/return. The 2.6 offers realistically no performance increase, the 2.7 works for those who need it and have the applications that will take advantage of the addition cache.

Storage is the only real question and how much you are willing to compromise on the capacity of the SSD versus Apples present price. Apple`s new strategy of allowing the user to basically mix and match everything is applaudable allowing the customer to fine tune his/her requirement; 2.3 + RAM + SSD is pretty much all the average user will ever need at present.

For those going long term 16Gb RAM is a clear choice for those of us confident that we will upgrade in 12 - 24 months and are not exceeding 8Gb the base model does indeed offer the very best balance of performance versus value for money :apple: