Retina Macbook Pro Tips

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by gmsdrummer23, Aug 16, 2012.

  1. gmsdrummer23 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    #1
    Hey all,

    I've been reading the boards for the past fews days and have pretty much made my decision to go with a 2.6ghz, 16gb memory, 512gb storage rMBP.

    I'm going to be using it a lot for Photoshop, Lightroom, Illustrator, InDesign and within the coming school year video editing and web design.

    Is 2.6ghz the best option for this or should I upgrade even further to the 2.7?

    -Chris
     
  2. ixodes macrumors 601

    ixodes

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Location:
    Pacific Coast, USA
    #2
    I'd stay away from the 2.7, it's largely there to increase the already robust profit Apple makes per unit. Oh sure there's always going to be someone that could use it for resource intense work. But by your description of use, it's a waste of money.
     
  3. Lord Appleseed macrumors 6502a

    Lord Appleseed

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2010
    Location:
    Apple Manor
    #3
    Based on the tasks you described you might benefit from a 2.7, but don't expect it to work much faster than a 2.6. The difference is at best marginal.

    If you can afford the upgrade then go for it. Otherwise the 2.6 will provide you with what you need too.
     
  4. iAppl3Fan macrumors 6502a

    iAppl3Fan

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    #4
    You're in school. Don't bother with the 2.7 upgrade.
     
  5. gnagy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    #5
    Unless you have more money than you know what to do with, don't get the 2.7Ghz.

    I can't imagine a use case that would require a 2.7Ghz. Chances are if the 2.6Ghz isn't fast enough, the 2.7Ghz will not be good enough either.

    I have some video games that don't run well at the native resolution, and having the 2.7GHz wouldn't help. It's just too many pixels for the video card.

    Next year's model will likely be significantly faster. I won't be shocked if the cheapest 2013 retina MBP will outperform today's most expensive model. When those are released next year, the difference between 2.6 and 2.7 will seem even more minor. You'll have a one year old laptop, and both of them will seem equally slow.
     
  6. stevelam macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2010
    #6
    i hope you realize that absolutely none of those applications are retina optimized and will look terrible for a long time to come.
     
  7. Orlandoech macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #7
    2.3/16/512 is sufficient enough.

    these things are beasts.
     
  8. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #8
    You really want to know what is unfair and total BS? The price for bulk CPU of the 2.3GHz and 2.6GHz models is the same, $378/CPU at 1000 bulk units.

    Yet Apple charges you $100 for the 2.6GHz if you want to upgrade your CPU on the low-end model. Total BS. If anything, that should be a $50 upgrade at most.
     
  9. Blue Sun macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #9
    Kind of off-topic, but I just compared the rMBP with the cMBP at the Apple store. Before tonight I was tempted to just stick with the cMBP, but after the side-by-side comparison, the retina display is the only way to go.

    I also noticed that all MBPs with the Intel HD 4000 and ML were lagging heavily even with simple things like Mission Control (13" and 15" cMBPs and rMBP).

    I think the rMBP GUI lag everyone seems to whine about is due solely to bad drivers, and I expect this to be rectified within the next couple of updates.
     
  10. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #10
    Unless you need the 512gb of storage, I think the base model will be plenty fast for your needs. I'd up either model to 16gb of ram however.

    The speed difference in real world usage between the low end 2.3 and the high end 2.7 is not all that great and you'll not notice a few percentage points of performance.
     
  11. IGregory macrumors 6502a

    IGregory

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    #11
    You are not recognizing that Apple is a business and businesses have expenses and shareholder dividends as a consideration. Of course parts are marked up, where do you think its profits come. Its not uncommon for businesses to mark up a product by 40 to 50 percent. You really don't think just because Apple buys a product at bulk rate, it will pass the savings on to the customer. Not going to happen. This is capitalism my friend. That's how it works.
     
  12. chrisfromalbany macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #12
    unless there certain applications, virtual machines, or other uses for 16 not sure worth the money. I think the 256 SSD space limit is more often going to get hit before the 16 gig limit for average user. Unless you good at deleting things but I'm not.
     
  13. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #13
    The issue is that it looks like we'll be able to upgrade the 256GB SSD to something larger, like how people can with the MBA. The memory is soldered onto the logic board and there is no upgrade possible.

    While I agree that the need for so much ram today is not great, future versions of OSX and other apps may place greater demands on the ram that 16gb would be worthwhile.

    Additionally the memory upgrade is only a couple of hundred dollars, the upgrade to the 512gb SSD is thousands. I think the lack of future upgrade, possible need in the future and relatively low cost for the extra ram makes it a no brainer.
     
  14. chrisfromalbany macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #14
    you mean $500 right? I DL movies and music so for me this is a no brainer.
     
  15. Orlandoech macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #15
    I agree, but I can delete lol.
     
  16. chrisfromalbany macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #16
    who said anything about can't delete.. I just want to belong the time that I actually don't have to. :D
     
  17. Orlandoech macrumors 68040

    Orlandoech

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2011
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    #17
    lol. Im a neat/organized freak and always delete if I don't need or "think" I need lol. Ive regretted it a few times :\
     

Share This Page