Which CPU on rMBP?

[michelg1970]

I just went with my experience which is that every mac I have ever owned has felt slow because of the memory being insufficient. Rarely have I felt that the CPU speed has been the factor that made the computer feel slow. If my previous MBA had more memory than 4GB I could have easily have kept it for a few more years, and the jump to 8GB didn't feel like enough of a jump for me. And since I don't "need" the increased SSD storage (even though it would of course be nice), the memory increase felt more sensible (for me) than any other upgrade option. If I went for the 2.6 and 512 SSD I would feel compelled to purchase the memory upgrade as well, but that would end up expensive. Hence, I went with memory. I guess we'll see who was right in about 4-5 years. But until then I'm sure we'll both be extremely happy with our respective MBP:s!

I 100% agree with you. Just sold my 2012 MBP 13 inch (after I bought the rMBP) and lost $ 350 over the year. I don't keep MacBooks for more than 2 years - just sell them and buy new.

For now - I am happy with my choice. I upgraded my MBP 2012 to 16 GB but found out that a) it was never used and b) for selling it brought me nothing. Put the 16 GB in my iMac and put the stock 8 GB back in the MBP.

Like I said - for everyone the considerations are different! As long as you are happy with your choice - because you / me are the ones working with it every day.

 

[rMBP2013]

Do you mean instead of moving from 8 to 16 gb you would move to 512 gb SSD? Or you stay with 8gb and 256gb?

Thanks

Depends upon your needs. 8/256 is the sweet spot. I went with 8/512 because 512 is faster than 256 and can store twice the amount.

 

[tooobe]

Just to follow up - really happy with my choice. And the 16GB RAM is really needed, OSX fills it up, 8GB used by apps at the moment and between 2 to 5GB by file cache. And i'm not even running that many apps or demanding apps - safari, chrome, word, finder, messages, spotify and calendar. Running a VM of Windows 8 with 4GB dedicated RAM even makes the machine swap to page file (~50-80MB). I curerntly have 170GB free space on the SSD and have ~100GB of video material that I haven't decided whether to load onto the machine or keep on external drive.

load averages: 1,94 1,95 2,09
So I guess I didn't really need any more CPU

Never seen a beachball ever (unless you count the maybe 2 times a program completely crashes/freezes).

 

[john123]

And the 16GB RAM is really needed, OSX fills it up, 8GB used by apps at the moment and between 2 to 5GB by file cache. And i'm not even running that many apps or demanding apps - safari, chrome, word, finder, messages, spotify and calendar.

I think you're confusing how Mavericks manages memory with what's "needed". Nevertheless, glad you're happy with your purchase.

 

[tooobe]

I think you're confusing how Mavericks manages memory with what's "needed". Nevertheless, glad you're happy with your purchase.

I am aware that Mavericks fills up RAM as much as it can, and that it will claim used RAM if another app needs it more, if that is what you are hinting at? Trust me I've read some in depth articles about Mavericks memory management. But really don't know how you can say that when clearly it is swapping to SSD when using 4GB RAM VM? Clearly if the computer is swapping to disk - then it is needed.

I found that ars techinca did a pretty good job of explaining Mavericks memory management, would you agree? http://arstechnica.com/apple/2013/10/os-x-10-9/17/#compressed-memory

But maybe "needed" was a strong word. Of course you could use a 4GB machine, I have for a long time. Let's say 16GB is of great benefit instead. Happy(ier)?

 

[john123]

But really don't know how you can say that when clearly it is swapping to SSD when using 4GB RAM VM? Clearly if the computer is swapping to disk - then it is needed.

It really depends on how much thrashing is going on. "Paging bad" has been the mantra for over a decade, and while it's still mostly true, some paging isn't necessarily the evil thing that it used to be. I'm obviously not you, so I can't see what's going on. I've just seen too many people posting about "IT'S USING ALL MY RAM SO I MUST HAVE NEEDED ALL OF IT AND MAYBE I NEED MORE," which is why I responded to your post. So it wasn't about you, specifically, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.

Yeah, Ars's writeup was decent.

The only other thing I'll add about VMs is that (again, not saying you are or you aren't) a lot of users over-allocate memory to their VMs, and when they do, it actually negatively impacts performance. The metaphor of a box-within-a-box is apt. A good rule of thumb is to use the minimum amount of memory you can get away with on those things, plus a bit of cushion for the unexpected. Unlike most things in the electronics and computing world, more is not better.

Lastly, I do agree with you: if a person is going to choose between a faster CPU and more RAM, I'd almost always choose the latter (again, in the abstract and without knowing the specifics of how a given person uses their machine).

 

[tooobe]

It really depends on how much thrashing is going on. "Paging bad" has been the mantra for over a decade, and while it's still mostly true, some paging isn't necessarily the evil thing that it used to be. I'm obviously not you, so I can't see what's going on. I've just seen too many people posting about "IT'S USING ALL MY RAM SO I MUST HAVE NEEDED ALL OF IT AND MAYBE I NEED MORE," which is why I responded to your post. So it wasn't about you, specifically, and I'm sorry if it came across that way.

Yeah, Ars's writeup was decent.

The only other thing I'll add about VMs is that (again, not saying you are or you aren't) a lot of users over-allocate memory to their VMs, and when they do, it actually negatively impacts performance. The metaphor of a box-within-a-box is apt. A good rule of thumb is to use the minimum amount of memory you can get away with on those things, plus a bit of cushion for the unexpected. Unlike most things in the electronics and computing world, more is not better.

Yeah I agree with you that just because the machine is using all the RAM, doesn't mean it needs more somehow. Unused RAM is wasted RAM, that's why I'm happy to see OSX use as much of my 16GB as it is. I can't imagine that I will ever need more than 16GB and 8GB would probably have been fine, but OSX can certainly use more than 8GB was all I was trying to say, and the benefits are real without a doubt in my mind.

 

[john123]

Yeah I agree with you that just because the machine is using all the RAM, doesn't mean it needs more somehow. Unused RAM is wasted RAM, that's why I'm happy to see OSX use as much of my 16GB as it is. I can't imagine that I will ever need more than 16GB and 8GB would probably have been fine, but OSX can certainly use more than 8GB was all I was trying to say, and the benefits are real without a doubt in my mind.

Cool. We're on the same page. Again, congrats on the machine. Solid choice.