Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

What would you recommend for a photographer/video editor

T

TylerCopey

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jun 6, 2014
2
0
Hi, So I will be heading out to college this summer and I am looking for a new mac. I currently have an old 2009 iMac desktop that is past its time but has decently gotten the job done. I am looking at the two highest end 15" retina macbook pros. I've been doing video editing and photography for about 5 years now and I generally run all sorts of intensive adobe programs photoshop, after effects, etc along with final cut pro x. I may also be doing the occasional gaming and am not to worried about that.

So with the criteria above would you recommend the 2.3GHz with the dedicated graphics card or the lower end 2.0GHz without? I would prefer not to spend the money but if I'm going to get the second best it seems better just to pay the extra for the best.

If you would like to read over the exact specs here is a link:
http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/m...ina+-+index-n@p&cp=k2-macbook pro+retina+-n@p


Thank you so much!
 
2.0GHz = $1999
2.3GHz = $2599

BUT the 2.0 has 256gb ssd & 8gb ram, whereas the 2.3 has 512gb ssd & 16gb ram as standard.

So, if you were to upgrade the 2.0 so it had the same size ssd and ram as the 2.3 then the 2.0 would cost $2499. A difference of $100!

So its just wether you would look for the 2.0 to have the same ram and ssd size, if you would want that then getting the 2.3 is a no brainer :)

Hope that made sense/ helped.
 
For the bump in RAM, CPU, and especially video card I'd go with the 2.3. Newer versions of Photoshop are putting more on the video card, and it never hurts to future proof.

If you look at a refurbished model you can probably find a 2.3 very close in price to your 2.0 with the same warranty.
 
TylerCopey said:
Hi, So I will be heading out to college this summer and I am looking for a new mac. I currently have an old 2009 iMac desktop that is past its time but has decently gotten the job done. I am looking at the two highest end 15" retina macbook pros. I've been doing video editing and photography for about 5 years now and I generally run all sorts of intensive adobe programs photoshop, after effects, etc along with final cut pro x. I may also be doing the occasional gaming and am not to worried about that.

So with the criteria above would you recommend the 2.3GHz with the dedicated graphics card or the lower end 2.0GHz without? I would prefer not to spend the money but if I'm going to get the second best it seems better just to pay the extra for the best.

If you would like to read over the exact specs here is a link:
http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/m...ina+-+index-n@p&cp=k2-macbook pro+retina+-n@p


Thank you so much!
Click to expand...

I'd go for the 2.3GHz variant, because you get double the SSD and RAM, plus a dedicated GPU.

Keep in mind that if you configure both Iris-only and Iris+750M models to both 2.3/16/512, both are priced identically, so the GT750M is a free add-on.

And you can have the best of both worlds with the 750M variant. When you want to do OpenCL tasks, just use gfxcardstatus to force the GPU into Iris Pro, and when you want to game or use CUDA-accelerated software, use gfxcardstatus to force the GPU into 750M.

Battery life is very similar to the Iris-only model, as long as you use gfxcardstatus to force the GPU into Iris-only when on battery power.

While the Iris Pro is no slouch, I'd sleep better at night knowing that I've more power under the hood should I need it one day :)
 
I have the 2.3 and want to return it for the 2.0. This 2.3 gives off so much heat from the keyboard it's unbearable at times. Also, the battery life is nowhere as good as the 2.0. I returned the 2.0 thinking I needed the 512gb space but now I'm regretting it.

Working on the 2.0 was pleasant but this 2.3 will cook your lap and fingers.

I even used gfx to force it to iris only but still manage to only get 5 hours battery and that's just with safari, iTunes, and mail.

In the 2.0 I could get 8-10 hours using the same apps and it wouldn't even get uncomfortable for my fingers as I typed
 
dimabear said:
I have the 2.3 and want to return it for the 2.0. This 2.3 gives off so much heat from the keyboard it's unbearable at times. Also, the battery life is nowhere as good as the 2.0. I returned the 2.0 thinking I needed the 512gb space but now I'm regretting it.

Working on the 2.0 was pleasant but this 2.3 will cook your lap and fingers.

I even used gfx to force it to iris only but still manage to only get 5 hours battery and that's just with safari, iTunes, and mail.

In the 2.0 I could get 8-10 hours using the same apps and it wouldn't even get uncomfortable for my fingers as I typed
Click to expand...

I think your rMBP was faulty.

I have the 2.6GHz variant and it doesn't cook my lap at all under normal usage (Photoshop, Spotify and Preview).

With only Spotify, Preview, Safari, and an iWork app, I easily get 8 hours out of my 2.6GHz model (forced into Iris Pro with gfxcardstatus).
 
just exchanged for another 2.3 15" rMBP. this one runs much cooler, which i'm very happy about. unfortunately the battery life leaves much to be desired. i'm just using safari and after a full charge, it says 7hrs battery.

hopefully it will improve in a few days. on the previous rMBP, i noticed a fresh install of mavericks significantly improved battery life.
 
dimabear said:
just exchanged for another 2.3 15" rMBP. this one runs much cooler, which i'm very happy about. unfortunately the battery life leaves much to be desired. i'm just using safari and after a full charge, it says 7hrs battery.

hopefully it will improve in a few days. on the previous rMBP, i noticed a fresh install of mavericks significantly improved battery life.
Click to expand...

Were you watching Flash videos on Safari? Flash drains battery like hell.

My 2.6/16/1TB/750M gets around 8-8.5 hours on a single charge (Safari, Preview, Pages and Spotify).
 
TylerCopey said:
I generally run all sorts of intensive adobe programs photoshop, after effects, etc along with final cut pro x. I may also be doing the occasional gaming and am not to worried about that.

So with the criteria above would you recommend the 2.3GHz with the dedicated graphics card or the lower end 2.0GHz without?
Click to expand...

Based on your usage habits, I think the higher end one will give you the best bang for you money, and you get more storage and ram to boot.
 
i dunno if I was using flash or not. I was on Facebook, bloomberg, and reading news from yahoo. i didn't watch videos, but i do see those banners at the top. maybe those are flash?

good news is i noticed the battery life has improved a bit, nothing over 8 hours but improving.

good for you!

as for the OP, i got the 2.3 b/c i wanted a 512gb hard drive b/c i shoot a lot of pics from my DSLR. my iPhoto library alone is 200GB. i figured upgrading the 2.0 from 256gb to 512gb was already $300 and so I just ponied up for the upgraded model. I could have bought a 2TB external from Costco for $120 but then i'd be tethered to an external wherever i went...or I could buy an iPhoto library software from a 3rd party to help manage multiple libraries - one on the laptop and one on the external.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back