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

Which configuration of the 16" MBP should I order?

David1986H

David1986H

macrumors 6502
Original poster
May 12, 2020
495
380
Cheshire, UK
I'm looking at ordering the current MBP 16" and wondering which is the best configuration.

2.3ghz 8 core i9, 32gb ram, 5500M with 8gb and 1TB SSD storage
or
2.4ghz 8 core i9, 32gb ram, 5500M with 8gb and 512gb SSD storage.

They both come to the same price point and I'm not one for having loads of data on my SSD, so the 512gb will be fine for me.
Will I see the difference between the 2.3 and the 2.4ghz if very little? Will the cooling system handle the 2.4ghz on mid to heavy load use for a couple hours at a time?

Thanks
 
What's your workflow? Having tried several 16" configurations I've found that there's negligible difference between the 2.3 and 2.4. The cooling system will handle both CPUs just fine, but if you're pushing the GPU hard then the CPU will cap out around 3.4 turbo.

If you only need 512 GB SSD, you might be able to get away with the base configuration and save around $1000.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sau93
littlepud said:
What's your workflow? Having tried several 16" configurations I've found that there's negligible difference between the 2.3 and 2.4. The cooling system will handle both CPUs just fine, but if you're pushing the GPU hard then the CPU will cap out around 3.4 turbo.

If you only need 512 GB SSD, you might be able to get away with the base configuration and save around $1000.
Click to expand...

Mainly i do photo editing and small video editing here and there. When I'm done the projects get moved on which is why 512gb is fine. I need 32gb of ram because iv found in the past 16gb wasn't enough, plus in my spare time i have quite a few tabs open and watch live streams at the same time. After upgrading to 32gb ram i might as well spec it out for a few hundred pound more, apart from the storage.
 
Don't bother with the 2.4 .... I went from at 2.4/32G/2TB/8GB VRAM to a 2.3/64GB/2TB/8GB VRAM, and I've noticed zero difference in CPU. In fact on a good day even the GeekBench scores are really close.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nikster0029
I'm thinking of buying MBP 16" too, however some points make me worry:
- popping sound (I hope that it can be fixed in the future with updated software)
- Coil whining (software problem?)
- Washed out screen after unlock (software problem?)

The product seems to be raw in contrast with my mid-2010 MBP. So many people are returning 16'' back, so it's like going against the flow when buying it.

What do you think?

Regarding your question - difference is little between 2,3 and 2,4 Ghz. There is a scope to save up.
 
On a good day the 2.3 is about 60 points behind the 2.4 in single, and 30 points in multi

MrGimper's Profile - Geekbench Browser 2020-05-30 01-32-21.png
 
Bluntly... order the best spec you can afford, simply because you can't change it once you've bought it. Especially the disc/SSD.

As for your conundrum; you'll always notice the lack of disc/SSD space, you'll never even notice a 4% uptick in CPU

I'd almost recommend going for the 64Gb RAM option as that means masses of cache and space for applications to grow into. For me that was the single most important thing for my upgrade -- I can run lots of applications concurrently whereas the older (2015, full spec) MBP would get the fans whirring.
 
I went for the 2.4 configuration. I'd rather have the extra 5% power instead of the 1TB that I will never use. I know I probably won't notice the extra 5% but I know that I got the best cpu that I could at the time.
 
Being in your shoes I would select option with bigger storage (1T) - you won't regret it.
Your needs evolve, information is growing exponentially these days.
You will notice lack of storage earlier than lack of CPU power
 
ive had the 5500m and the 5300m units, what to keep in mind is this, the i9 is a battery eater.

I found that the i7 5300m runs cooler, and longer getting roughly an extra hour to hour and a half battery life, also is quieter under full load.

Im debating what I should keep currently, but im learning towards the 5300m i7 because of this over the i9 5500m
 
I went for the 2.3. I really did not see much reason for the 2.4 for my workload.

Cooling does not matter that much. The system spin the fans faster and will throttle the clock speed to maintain temps.
 
Alexander William said:
ive had the 5500m and the 5300m units, what to keep in mind is this, the i9 is a battery eater.

I found that the i7 5300m runs cooler, and longer getting roughly an extra hour to hour and a half battery life, also is quieter under full load.

Im debating what I should keep currently, but im learning towards the 5300m i7 because of this over the i9 5500m
Click to expand...

That's what I did though I went with 16gb as it is only a on the go Xcode machine and nothing else.
iMac at home is doing the heavy lifting.
If it would be my only machine I would go 32GB and 2.3 i9 for faster compiler times.
If you don't use the mac for anything heavy the base version is super nice. Just a for a test I run xcode compiler, logic with 22 tracks playing and 10 tabs on chrome with youtube playing without single hickup. For day to day tasks it is overkill anyway.

**I don't connect it to external monitor so dunno how's performance when that happens.
 
Last edited:
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