Non-Retina Macbook Pro Details?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by timothyirvine, May 1, 2015.

  1. timothyirvine macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    #1
    Hey y'all,


    I am upgrading my ancient, 17" 2010 Macbook Pro. Currently it's the 2.6ghz Dual Core w. 8gb ram, 512mb Nvidea 9600 video card.

    I've done video/photo editing for a long time but honestly this guy has gotten a bit too clunky. I plan on getting a nice 1TB SSD to put into my future Macbook Pro. I use a projector or external display 90% of the time.

    I am considering buying the last round of the 13" non-retina Macbook Pro, and I have some questions.

    1) Was there any actual update made to the non-Retina Macbook Pro in the "2014 refresh?"

    2) Can one put 16GB of RAM into the non-Retina Macbook Pro (2012 and later)?

    3) I have found maxed out (2.9ghz i7, 8gb RAM) 2012/2014 non-Retina Macbook Pros on eBay for about $1000. That seems fine for me.

    4) What is the video card like on the 13" non-Retina Macbook Pro (2012 and later)?


    I know that I do not need the absolute fastest, latest, more expensive model to do my video editing (especially having used clunkers my whole life). So, to be honest, I'm not really seeing why I'd want to drop several hundred dollars more for a retina display
     
  2. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #2

    No, the latest release of the non-retina MBP was Mid-2012.
    Yes, for 2012 and earlier. There is no later release of non-retina MBP than 2012. Here are the specs on the latest non-retina MBP.
     
  3. JTToft macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Location:
    Aarhus, Denmark
    #3
    - Be a bit careful with saying that. Most 2010 models won't take 16GB, and none before 2010 will.
     
  4. snaky69 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #4
    1)No.

    2) Yes.

    3) Fine, but you're paying a hefty price for 3 year old tech.

    4) Poopy.
     
  5. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #5
    Yes, I could have worded that better, as I didn't mean back to the beginning of time. I didn't think the OP would be looking at the older models.
     
  6. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #6
    Given your use of the term "y'all", I would assume you were at least born in the US and probably still live here. It would otherwise be a rather uncommon contraction. Relative to US pricing that machine is overpriced. You also don't know its exact age, which certainly makes a difference for components like batteries. The difference between the 2.9ghz cpu and the others from the same generation is trivial. Don't base its value on that. If you're concerned with cpu power, buy a 15". Ideally avoid the ones with discrete graphics if purchasing a used machine. Of course that's more expensive, but if you want to stick to 13" models I think you could do better. That ram is probably configured 4x2. To go to 16GB you would remove both sticks. I would keep them around for testing purposes. A quick check on ram pricing turned up $120 for Crucial. If it's from 2012 with the original battery, you're likely to buy a new battery in the next year or two. Third party sites sometimes have them down to around $100. Official service from Apple runs $179 + tax for the 15" non retina. The 13" might be a little cheaper.

    Overall I don't think it's a very good value.
     
  7. T5BRICK macrumors 604

    T5BRICK

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon
    #7
    No, the current non-retina MBP is the same model they've been selling since it was released in 2012. My sister bought one about a year ago, and to be honest it was not a good buy even then.

    As previously stated, yes you can install 16GB of RAM into that MBP.

    I don't think it's worth it, considering you'll be spending another $400-500 on the SSD and RAM to get this computer where you want it to be. I'd look at Apple refurbs, you may be able to pick up a newer rMBP with the specs you want for a bit more.

    Intel HD 4000. It's good enough but that's about all I can say about it.
     
  8. timothyirvine thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    #8
    Wow!!

    Y'all answered my questions within a short amount of time, after HOURS of fruitless searching on Google. So helpful! Thanks!!! :)

    If you could indulge me, a couple further points...

    Basically, I want to be able to swap my own SSD in and out, and the Retinas make that impossible, and only go up to 768GB :( I also don't *need* intense specs - I believe that year or two old specs still can do the tasks I need (given that I'm using the same software and same media formats I used two years ago...)

    So, it seems the non-Retina could be an affordable, portable machine that fits my needs and could last me for a years, just like my current one. As you can tell by my 2010 model, I enjoy using things until they're truly ready to give up their ghost.

    I also don't *need* a retina screen, given my use of externals....


    So, if anyone could indulge me and make a recommendation for an alternative to my original choice of a used+maxed out 2012 non-retina MBP, below are my picky preferences...

    Cost: At or around $1000-$1500.
    Processor: Fast as possible, preferably w. 6MB cache (a boy can dream, right?)

    RAM: needs to at least support 16gb(if it comes w. 4 or 8 I will just upgrade myself)

    HDD: ideally SSD or can be upgraded easily (I don't feel like using Auro Pro and adapters at this point)
    Note: I already have a 1TB Samsung EVO SSD, hence wanting to be able to swap it into a laptop instead of buying another SSD.

    Screen: little consequence to me, as I use external display, don't need retina

    Battery: little consequence to me, as 99% of the time I'm plugged in

    Thank you again!!


    P.S.: Mom grew up in Virginia, I lived in Texas for a year. Y'all is just such a useful term..!
     
  9. saturnotaku macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2013
    #9
    I would suggest looking into a used or refurbished workstation laptop, such as the HP Elitebook, Dell Latitude, or Lenovo Thinkpad W-Series. All are very powerful and upgradable. Refurbished Dells have the same warranty as new and can be upgraded to longer terms as well as next-business-day on-site support.
     
  10. timothyirvine thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    #10
    Ah, unfortunately, I'm invested in ye olde Apple environment, and I prefer using Final Cut and Adobe CS on Macs.

    They trapped me!
     
  11. brdeveloper macrumors 68020

    brdeveloper

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2010
    Location:
    Brasil
    #11
    Talk only for the 17" and 15" models. The 2010 13" MBP and MB can take 16GB.

    ----------

    The SSD on your 2010 Macbook will give you another couple of years. If you want a non-retina Macbook experience, buy a Macbook Air. For $1299 you can buy a 13" Air with 256GB SSD and 8GB RAM.
     
  12. JTToft macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2010
    Location:
    Aarhus, Denmark
    #12
    - Yes, which is why I said "most". And the MacBook really isn't relevant to the question posed. :)
     
  13. Samuelsan2001 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2013
    #13
  14. Joelburman macrumors regular

    Joelburman

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2014
    Location:
    Stockholm
    #14
    You shouldn't pay more than 450 bucks for a 2012 cMBP with no upgrades to it. If it has more ram or an SSD you can smash on 100-150 bucks on the price. 1000 bucks used is a rip-off.
     
  15. yjchua95 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Location:
    GVA, KUL, MEL (current), ZQN
    #15
    The retinas have a 1TB SSD as a BTO option, but they're astronomically priced and superfast.

    A regular Samsung 850 Pro 1TB can only hit around 550MB/s, while a 1TB PCIe SSD in the current Broadwell retina MBPs can hit 1500MB/s. That said, it's only useful if you're doing I/O intensive stuff.

    It's a disgrace that Apple is still selling the non-retina cMBP with 3-year old technology. The iGPU is crap, the non-retina display is abysmal and what's the point of being upgradeable when by the time you stick in an SSD and 16GB of RAM into the non-retina, it'll cost about as much as a similarly-specced rMBP.
     
  16. timothyirvine thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 1, 2015
    #16
    OK everyone.

    So here we go, I've been swayed into having two options:

    (1) Used, cheaper, maxed out, 2012 non-retina MBP for ~$1000

    (2) Used, pricier, large-SSD rMBP for ~$1500

    IF I BUY a rMBP, what appreciable difference is there between the 13" and 15" models as far as the GPU and graphics cards/capabilites?

    Thanks again so much. I really value everyone's feedback.
     
  17. snaky69 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    #17
    1) Too expensive, it's 3 year old tech. I wouldn't pay more than 600 on it, and that's pushing it.

    All you have to remember about 13 vs 15: dual core vs quad core. If you do any kind of serious editing, the quad core in the 15's will run circles around the 13.
     

Share This Page