New Configuration Options (USA)

[beamer8912]

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.

Your math is wrong. Each stick is 256GB for $200. 768-512 = 256, thus requiring only one stick. It's actually a $300 difference. If you're comparing the 256 vs 768, then the BTO price increases to $1000. You can compare that to two sticks at $200 each, total of $400. Still 40% of the BTO price.

You can get more off Applecare through the edu discount.

Again, put it on your keys. If you can't keep track of your keys, then you have a lot more to worry about then disk space.

 

[Queen6]

Nice feedback, so are you getting the rMBP?

Yes, I already have mine 2.3, 8, 256 base, very impressed dont worry about the naysayers much of the negative comments are very much blown out of proportion. I can honestly say the Retina is without any doubt the very best portable have ever used, it`s not without fault, however none are.

What`s it like? Well it make 99% of other computers you use feel like "Ancient History" the performance, the display, portability, the thermals, and yes the expandability

 

[ihakim]

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).

That same USB stick is also fake if you read the reviews. I hope no one purchased one and is out $200 because of your link.

 

[HighEndMac]

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

I think you will see a performance increase from 2.3 to 2.6 - come on guy, now the 2.6 vs the 2.7 is where your statement makes sense.

 

[ggabriele3]

I ordered mine a little while ago with 2.3/16.
I would have liked to double the SSD size, but now that i see it's $500, no thanks.

 

[HighEndMac]

That same USB stick is also fake if you read the reviews. I hope no one purchased one and is out $200 because of your link.

Good looks!

Do they even make USB 3.0 sticks with that much storage?

----------

I ordered mine a little while ago with 2.3/16.
I would have liked to double the SSD size, but now that i see it's $500, no thanks.

I wanted the 768GB SSD as well, but for $500, i dont know if its worth it...

 

[beamer8912]

That same USB stick is also fake if you read the reviews. I hope no one purchased one and is out $200 because of your link.

Sorry, provided a bad link. It can be found from other online retailers as well.

Here's engadget's review.

It's dropped in price since then. I'm sure if you don't want to shell out for the 256 (like many of us are unwilling to for the SSD), you can also find 128GB for ~$100. Or you can easily find 1TB portable external drives for $80-100.

In any case, $1000 for 768GB of data is absurd. I can understand the need for 512GB, especially if you're bootcamping and need room for several apps. But the extra $500 for another 256GB is just ridiculous considering the alternative options.

For me, it has become necessary to carry a portable drive of some sort. Not because I run out of space but because I have to share a good amount of data between several computers, some of which aren't even connected to the web (for security reasons). I think almost every single person I know who owns a computer, owns some sort of portable or external drive.

That fact, combine with the relative inexpensiveness of extra storage makes the 768GB BTO option a complete ripoff.

 

[Slivortal]

I think you will see a performance increase from 2.3 to 2.6 - come on guy, now the 2.6 vs the 2.7 is where your statement makes sense.

Not in day-to-day usage. There have been several studies that have shown that people generally don't see performance increases from general use until a processor is 50% faster than its predecessor.

Unless you're using extremely intensive applications, you probably won't see any difference between 2.3 and 2.6.

 

[HighEndMac]

Not in day-to-day usage. There have been several studies that have shown that people generally don't see performance increases from general use until a processor is 50% faster than its predecessor.

Unless you're using extremely intensive applications, you probably won't see any difference between 2.3 and 2.6.

Well it seems like you know your stuff, but still i have to think the 2.6 has a noticeable advantage over the 2.3

 

[Slivortal]

Well it seems like you know your stuff, but still i have to think the 2.6 has a noticeable advantage over the 2.3

If you're already taxing the 2.3GHz quad-core CPU, you'll see an advantage, but if you're not it's rather pointless. It's like saying that 16GB of RAM is better than 8GB of RAM - it is, but if you're not using 8GB, you're not going to notice much of a difference.

 

[HighEndMac]

If you're already taxing the 2.3GHz quad-core CPU, you'll see an advantage, but if you're not it's rather pointless. It's like saying that 16GB of RAM is better than 8GB of RAM - it is, but if you're not using 8GB, you're not going to notice much of a difference.

I view it a little differently It’s like condoms, I’d rather have one and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

Na j/k I don’t use condoms

 

[Dangerous Theory]

Not in day-to-day usage. There have been several studies that have shown that people generally don't see performance increases from general use until a processor is 50% faster than its predecessor.

Unless you're using extremely intensive applications, you probably won't see any difference between 2.3 and 2.6.

Much more importantly, in at least two tests the 2.3 has proven a longer battery life by ~2 hours. God knows why, and maybe it's a bug that can be patched, but I sure prefer a longer battery.

 

[Slivortal]

Much more importantly, in at least two tests the 2.3 has proven a longer battery life by ~2 hours. God knows why, and maybe it's a bug that can be patched, but I sure prefer a longer battery.

I'd be weary of these tests. There is no hard science to back up claims of this theory, as the 2.6GHz is 45W just like the 2.3GHz. If you need the extra processing power, any fringe reports of a battery life difference should not be an overwhelming concern.

 

[Dangerous Theory]

I'd be weary of these tests. There is no hard science to back up claims of this theory, as the 2.6GHz is 45W just like the 2.3GHz. If you need the extra processing power, any fringe reports of a battery life difference should not be an overwhelming concern.

Well both Engadget and Anandtech performed battery life tests on the two different devices several times and noticed the same significantly different results consecutively. I know it seems ridiculous, which is why I said it may be a bug (perhaps the 2.6 isn't being utilized efficiently by the OS).

 

[iamthedudeman]

Base is the best option if you plan on upgrading often. The more money you pay the less return you have.

The most I would go if upgrading often or plan to next year or even two years is the base with the 2.6. Don't buy more than what you need. Diminished returns. If you plan on keeping it than by all means get what you need.

Every option in the poll I guess has long term users in mind.

 

[macbook123]

I just wanted to point out what somebody in another thread discovered:

For educators: the 2.6/512 option and any upgrades thereof (e.g. to 16 GB of RAM) is $60 less expensive if you select the 2.3/256 option and add the upgrades, compared to if you pick the 2.6/512 option directly.

----------

Well both Engadget and Anandtech performed battery life tests on the two different devices several times and noticed the same significantly different results consecutively. I know it seems ridiculous, which is why I said it may be a bug (perhaps the 2.6 isn't being utilized efficiently by the OS).

Can you provide links to both test results? I can't find an Anandtech test showing this.

It could be a combination of the faster CPU and the larger SSD.

 

[Queen6]

I think you will see a performance increase from 2.3 to 2.6 - come on guy, now the 2.6 vs the 2.7 is where your statement makes sense.

Hardly anything, certainly nothing worth shouting about

MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3720QM 2600 MHz (4 cores)
11774

MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3615QM 2300 MHz (4 cores)
10770

My own 2.3 consistently bench marks over 11K further narrowing the margin (6%)

 

[macbook123]

Hardly anything, certainly nothing worth shouting about

MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3720QM 2600 MHz (4 cores)
11774

MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012)
Intel Core i7-3615QM 2300 MHz (4 cores)
10770

My own 2.3 consistently bench marks over 11K further narrowing the margin (6%)

I highly doubt that the 2.7 GHz offers the same 6% gain over the 2.6 GHz...

Can "Dangerous Theory" provide the link to the alleged Anandtech review confirming the claim of a worse battery life in the 2.6/512 compared to the 2.3/256?

 

[terraphantm]

Well it seems like you know your stuff, but still i have to think the 2.6 has a noticeable advantage over the 2.3

Not for most tasks. Video rendering, games, etc... sure. But general computer usage, no. But at only $100, I probably would've gotten the 2.6 either way.

 

[pgiguere1]

This should pretty much sum it up: