Return 2013 15" dGPU for 13" i7 MBA

[NocturnalJazz]

Thinking about returning my
15" rMBP 2.3/16/512
for a
13" MBA 1.7/8/512


I use my mac for composing/arranging music which uses multi-channel midi files.

Everything else is just the basic web browse, light audio editing, docs, and the such.

Thoughts?

 

[nateo200]

Thinking about returning my
15" rMBP 2.3/16/512
for a
13" MBA 1.7/8/512


I use my mac for composing/arranging music which uses multi-channel midi files.

Everything else is just the basic web browse, light audio editing, docs, and the such.

Thoughts?

For light work as you described you should be fine with an Air...BUT 15" rMBP is the bomb...I'm a little biased though Multichannel audio and light audio editing can get heavy the longer it is so just be realistic about what you consider "light". I might even reccomend you go to a 13" rMBP just because you have the option of 16GB's of RAM and the processor is just that bit more powerful.

 

[RichardC300]

I'd say return it for a 512 GB i5 13" rMBP. It's only barely heavier and thicker than the MBA but a lot faster and very similar battery life.

Or up it to an i7 if you really want it.

 

[hachiman]

I was hoping Apple put retina in the MBA, so I waited for this rMBP update. I am glad I did. The footprint of the 13 rMBP is smaller than the MBA. Even though the MBA is tapered, they both basically have the same thickness. The weight difference don't matter much to me because it is always sitting on a table somewhere. I went from a mid-2009 15" MBP to this 13" rMBP, 8GB RAM 512GB SSD. I love the lighter weight of the 13".

But as both MBP and MBA evolves, the lines are blurring. Both have the same SSD performance, thinner designs, fast ac wifi, longer batteries, with a few exceptions like the display.

 

[NocturnalJazz]

I'd say return it for a 512 GB i5 13" rMBP. It's only barely heavier and thicker than the MBA but a lot faster and very similar battery life.

Or up it to an i7 if you really want it.

I ended up going with this config.

2.6/8/512


Comparing it to my 15 2.3/16/512 sitting next to me.

 

[Kyleptrsn1]

As someone who uses Logic routinely, light audio processing can kill your processor. The data is processed on demand with your CPU, so your processor's going to do all the work.

A 1.7GHZ dual core CPU will not preform anywhere near as well as a similar quad core CPU. Logic is able to take advantage of every core you give it and the more you have the better it will be. My old Dual core i5 could only handle 30 or so tracks with out freezing to load, my i7 quad core will load everything I've ever thrown at it.

 

[NocturnalJazz]

As someone who uses Logic routinely, light audio processing can kill your processor. The data is processed on demand with your CPU, so your processor's going to do all the work.

A 1.7GHZ dual core CPU will not preform anywhere near as well as a similar quad core CPU. Logic is able to take advantage of every core you give it and the more you have the better it will be. My old Dual core i5 could only handle 30 or so tracks with out freezing to load, my i7 quad core will load everything I've ever thrown at it.

Hi,

Thank you for your comment. I primarily compose/arranging in Finale 2012 and Sibelius. The files are typically large as they have numerous parts for a full marching band arrangement. Sound fonts are typically used in these. As far as recoding, I record less and less year and spend more time just engraving.

Would you still go with the quad in my case or go with the dual core?

OPTIONS:
15" Quad Core 2.3/16gb/512gb
13" Dual Core 2.6/8gb/512gb


I appreciate your advice.

 

[Kyleptrsn1]

If you have the money, I would recommend the 15". Though, I've never used the programs your using, I know that when I write drum parts using software it would kill my old laptop (15" dual core i5 from 2010). This seemingly simple task is no problem at all on my rmbp.