Should I buy 2.6 or 2.7...?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by JMAC1984, Feb 10, 2017.

  1. JMAC1984 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    #1
    Hey guys. My brain is hurting debating over which one to get...money is an issue...but for an extra 100$ for the 2.7, is it worth it...? Here's the MacBook I'm going to buy....

    2016 MBP 2.6/2.7ghz, 1TB, 460 GPU...

    I will be running FCPX, Motion, Compressor, Photoshop, Lightroom, possibly After Effects if Motion isn't what I'm looking for.

    I started a small business...Aerial Photography and Cinematography. I probably won't be doing super long videos...lots of photo stuff, 3-10min max 4K videos...no gaming what so ever. Nothing super intensive for long periods of time. This is a part time gig. I am also probably going to get an Samsung external SSD for a "scratch" type to run all my FCPX stuff on.

    Should I just save the 100$ and get the 2.6...? Thanks in advance.
     
  2. Mindinversion macrumors 6502

    Mindinversion

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #2
    You'd probably be fine with either. . . but by the time you get done adding the rest of the price to it what's another $100?
    I went with the 2.9 myself
     
  3. ZapNZs macrumors 68000

    ZapNZs

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2017
    #3
    I don't think there is going to be a big difference between the 2.6 and 2.7 based on a comparison - both should do great, with the 2.7 providing slightly better performance that might not be noticeable. I would argue that the $100/200 is better spend on the 460 because there is a big performance gain over the 455/450, which it looks like you are already doing.

    Screen Shot 2017-02-10 at 6.56.52 PM.png

    (Although the 2.9 might be worth consideration if money wasn't an issue...)
     
  4. JMAC1984 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    #4
    Yea I don't think my wife is going to let me spend the extra dough lol...in a perfect world I would max it out...I've also heard that 2.9 under full load will perform the same as the 2.6 but the 2.6 stays cooler....? That sound right....?
     
  5. Sanpete macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Location:
    Utah
    #5
    Someone here has that theory, but the evidence isn't in yet, and it seems doubtful to me. Besides the difference in clock speed, the 2.7 and 2.9 also have more L3 cache than the 2.6. Benchmarks tend to max out speed, so if they show the 2.6 is slower, it's probably slower at max load.

    If you're planning on having an external drive anyway, the place to save money is the 1TB internal SSD. Get the 512 instead, and if you really want the faster processor, you'll have the money for it from that switch.
     
  6. JMAC1984 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    #6
    Hm....never thought about that. That may be a good option.
     
  7. Hieveryone macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    #7
    I don't think it matters. If it were me, and I was married, I'd put the hundred towards a romantic dinner and get the 2.6 and a fun night.
     
  8. BenTrovato macrumors 68020

    BenTrovato

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2012
    Location:
    Canada
    #8
    I bought the 2.6 but had to return mine and when I reordered I got the 2.7. You know.. that extra 2mb of level 3 cache would certainly be worth it. I definitely did not notice a different between the two cpus. If I could do it again I would get the 2.6.
     
  9. SoloXis macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2016
    Location:
    SG
    #9
    Are you working with H.264 files mainly? If so, I'll highly recommend going with 2.9GHz. In general, H.264 encoding stresses the processor more, while raw video files such as ProRes and AVCHD are better handled by the GPU I heard.
     
  10. JMAC1984 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    #10
    Yea i use h.264 mainly, I have a 265 option on my drone but it stays in h.264
     
  11. caramelpolice macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2012
    #11
    Intel CPUs have hardware H.264 acceleration that makes most H.264 work stupid fast regardless of CPU speed.
     
  12. Trahearne, Feb 10, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2017

    Trahearne macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    #12
    http://www.notebookcheck.net/Skylake-for-Notebooks-Core-i7-6700HQ-and-i7-6820HK-Review.150864.0.html

    Look at the X264 benchmark. 6820HQ (2.7 Ghz w/ 8MB L3) is only 5% faster than 6700HQ (2.6 Ghz w/ 6MB L3). While this is not a transcoder which you use, it is a general indicator of how H.264 runs on CPUs. FCPX and Compressor can be accelerated by GPU, IIRC.

    If the average export time is like 15 minute (900 seconds), then the question would be if waiting for 45 more seconds matter to you, but only if the workload is not accelerated by the GPU by all means.
     
  13. ZapNZs, Feb 11, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2017

    ZapNZs macrumors 68000

    ZapNZs

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2017
    #13
    I'm not sure about the 2.6 temp specifics, but it looks like the 2.9 can hold a great speed at a very low temperature. I have a feeling that can come in handy when pushing both the CPU and GPU hard (given both make heat.)

    If it were me personally, I'd get the 512 SSD instead of the 1TB and that would cover the upgrade for both the 2.9 and the 460 IIRC. But with that said, external storage works well for me and my work would benefit more from a CPU upgrade than a SSD capacity upgrade. Ultimately, I think you will be happy with any of the three options, especially since you are already planning on the 460.
     
  14. bartvk macrumors 6502

    bartvk

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2016
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    #14
    I'm reading business, external SSD, and this made me think: have you budgeted for a good backup strategy?

    I.e. you need the following in my opinion:
    - One external harddrive for Time Machine that's big enough to include both internal and any attached external storage
    - Another one just like that, which you leave in the office (or at a friend, but not at home)
    - Plus something like BackBlaze or Crashplan, for backups in the cloud

    Do note that Apple does NOT have something like Dell's business support. With Dell, you can pay extra for Next Business Day replacement. As far as I know, Apple doesn't. If your MBP needs to be taken in, then you'll need to buy or rent another one for the time being.

    As an example: couple of weeks ago on Friday, all ports failed and my MacBook wouldn't charge anymore. Client however, expects me to be in the office on Monday. So I brought it in for repair, bought a new one, restored from Time Machine and was ready to earn money on Monday.
     
  15. Toutou macrumors 6502a

    Toutou

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Location:
    Prague, Czech Republic
    #15
    $100 for a 4% CPU clock increase and some L3 cache? That sounds like a proper waste of money. I'd get the 2.6 and save up for a new lens or something.
     
  16. mcomp112 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2017
    #16
    Depends what you're using it for. For some uses, it's more than worth the cost to upgrade the CPU clock speed.

    IMO the cost to upgrade the L3 cache by 25% (2.6 to 2.7) for less than $100 is worth it.
     
  17. Charlesje, Feb 11, 2017
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2017

    Charlesje macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    #17
    That is simply untrue. Expect the 2,9 vs the 2,6 or 2,7 to perform as fast as the clock frequency suggests. These machines don't have the issues with throttling that the previous gens had. I couldn't find any throttling issues with a 2,9 machine i tested thoroughly (allthough it has the 450 gpu). Please check the extensive notebookcheck test mentioned above for the throttling test also. And if you look online for cinebench or handbrake tests (any cpu based rendertests) you'll consistently find the same relative results (and similar difference between the different tiers) for performance under load.
    And for the people reading french or google translating, here's another good comparison (also vs the 2015 gen): http://consomac.fr/news-5803-notre-test-des-macbook-pro-avec-touch-bar.html
     
  18. JMAC1984 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    #18
    Do you think it would be better to stick with the 1TB and keep all of my project files, in work files etc, and just keep rendered and finished stuff on cloud and external...?

    Or should I just go 512 and get a 1TB External SSD to edit on "scratch disk"...and an external HDD/Cloud to keep my finished projects on....?
    --- Post Merged, Feb 11, 2017 ---
    Also, should the external drive I get for time machine be the same or more than the 512?
    --- Post Merged, Feb 11, 2017 ---
    ***I've been reading up on the time machine stuff, definitely going to get a large HD just for that. Will the time machine only back up to that hard drive when it's plugged in...? I don't want it backing up to my internal when the hard drive isn't plugged in***
     
  19. Mindinversion macrumors 6502

    Mindinversion

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2008
    #19
    Pretty much this ------^^


    I can tell you that my 2.9 hasn't gotten higher than 70c during light gaming and 53c while doing handbrake transcodes. my 2014 15" with the 750m maxed out in the 90s on handbrake.... so either I'm not putting enough pressure on the CPU, which may be the case but Handbrake really pushes the CPU, or I got a golden master blessed by the gods machine.
     
  20. JMAC1984 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    #20
    I think I am going to go with 2.9ghz, 512GB, Radeon 460...with my company discount I get it for $2,913.
    --- Post Merged, Feb 11, 2017 ---
    Then I'll do a 2 or 4 GB for my TimeMachine backup and edit all my projects on a 1TB SAMSUNG T3 SSD
     
  21. TrueBlou macrumors demi-god

    TrueBlou

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2014
    Location:
    Scotland
    #21

    Good choice, that's almost the same system I've just got and it's bloody awesome. Far more powerful than I expected it to be if I'm honest and I'm not exaggerating that.

    It'll be down to the graphics card of course but when I'm using Fusion 360 the MacBook handles even the complex models my iMac sometimes struggled with, with complete ease. Love it to bits :D
     
  22. capelesshero macrumors member

    capelesshero

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2016
    Location:
    Chino Hills, CA
    #22
    Great choice OP. But then the greatest question of all comes next. Space Gray Or Silver?
     
  23. ZapNZs macrumors 68000

    ZapNZs

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2017
    #23
    It will be a very nice setup. :)

    For your work, when you buy a 2-4 TB HDD for your TimeMachine backup, I would suggest purchasing a HDD that you could later use for a NAS setup (which can act as your own personal cloud when away from the office, and provide local connectivity when at the office in both wired and wifi flavors.) I've had a lot of success with the HGST UltraStar 7k4 line - if you purchase one 7k4 now and throw it in an inexpensive enclosure, you could use it for TimeMachine today, and your TM backup is stored on what is arguably one of the finest hard drives used.

    Later, as you begin to do higher value products, you could purchase an additional (or 3 additional) 7k4s along with a 2 or 4 bay NAS enclosure, where you would not only have your personal cloud, but could use a NAS enclosure capable of one of several RAID configs to provide even more robust backups. TimeMachine with a single disk is great, but once data reaches a certain point of value, it is arguably worth exploring more additional options, and this would give you something you could use both now and later, with fewer costs in the immediate.
     
  24. JMAC1984 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    #24
    Thanks! I will be doing the Space Gray for sure!
    --- Post Merged, Feb 11, 2017 ---
    Wow, thanks for the info! I will def be looking into it. This forum is awesome, so many knowledgeable people to help out. I appreciate the help guys.
     
  25. JMAC1984 thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017

Share This Page