Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Shermy, Mar 11, 2017.
This is a poll to help me choose the right MacBook Pro as my main computer for the next 5 years.
What will you use it for?
The performance difference between the two dual core processors are that noticeable in real world usage. I recommend putting the money towards the storage.
Average use I guess. Web browsing, Photoshop, light video editing in FCPX, and Netflix.
Probably won't matter. Since you'll be backing up your SSD on something, there won't be much reason to be clogging it with stuff you aren't using. You can keep that stuff on an external drive.
Are funds limited?
Do you need a lot of storage?
The 16GB RAM is IMO a bigger upgrade than either, in many cases.
The jump from 512GB to 1,000 GB isn't a very good value...you are paying almost a dollar per GB!!! Is using an external hard drive or a NAS setup practical for your needs? If so, how fast a speeds will you need?
Funds are indeed limited. I have enough for either configuration. The 16GB of RAM is in both options, so that's is a must have. I will be using an external HDD or SSD for backups and whatnot...and I'm not a professional videographer, so speed is not of the utmost importance...it is however, nice.
Storage. As above the jump between the two processors isn't noticeable in every day use. If it were dual vs quad core then maybe.
The 2.7/512 GB option, plus a Synology DS216 + two HGST 2TB 7k4 UltraStars to run in a RAID 1 would be my vote. I know I cheated on the options
It would cost like $50-ish more than the 1TB upgrade, but you'd have your own personal cloud that you could use wired or over your local WiFi network when at home, with solid data integrity & uncompromising security on one of the most reliable storage mediums manufactured.
Storage for every day basic use.
How much storage do you need? For me I have a VM and my main computer that both total around 200gb. A 1TB drive has a value of 0 dollars for me...for you it might have some value > 0. For CPU, lets say I compile software (as a developer) 10 times a day and it takes a 2.7 100seconds. The 3.1 is around 5-10% faster which saves me about 5-10 seconds per 100 seconds of compile time. So I save about a minute or two a day with the upgraded processor. Worth it? Nope....but its value is > 0 and might be worth the money to you.
Get neither upgrade and spend the extra bucks on a nice bag or dock or some LAN storage as Zap indicated.
For what you say you are using your computer for it is not likely you would notice the difference for either the SSD nor the CPU upgrade. There would very likely only be a noticeable difference in performance for work that requires continual pushing of the CPU or processes requiring long SSD writes. Save your money or research the Synergy NAS that ZapNZs suggested to see if it would simplify your life for backups and sharing with other devices.
Storage but unless you know you'll need that 1tb SSD then neither save some cash.
If I had to choose, I'd go for the storage. Ymmv
If you are putting the question like that, then it probably mean that you don't need 1TB. I'm quite certain that you don't need the faster CPU. Why not stay with the 2.7/16/512 option?
Storage. The difference in processor speed probably won't be that noticeable, but if you're doing video editing and Photoshop work (particularly since Photoshop defaults to using the onboard drive as its scratch disk and you may not feel like dragging around an external for the purpose), it's always better to err on the side of having more space than you need. Especially if you plan on using the system for 5+ years.
Going with the 1TB SSD will obvious give you room to grow, and will also likely command a higher resale value in a few years.. but do you really need it? For the amount that 1TB drive costs you can get a really nice external solution, a good monitor.. an iPad..
I voted for storage. but you should consider following. Best value for money
Would buying a 2015 15" be a bad move in 2017? Seeing as how they have a fourth generation Intel CPU?
Not a big difference in the Kaby Lake CPU that is likely to be in any 2017 MBP.
... it's not about performance at all. It's about on-chip TB3 support.
When Apple uses Kaby Lake, they no longer have to license and support their custom TB3 chip.
One less driver to support.
This is what bugs me the most. In the past Apple had to support Broadcom and Intel for the on-board components,
today the shift all responsibility to third-parties.
That is the greatest issue I have with TB.
Not at all. It's a very capable computer and a solid design, and a refurbished mid-level 2015 is the better part of a $1,000 less than a mid-level 2016. Do bear in mind that the 2015 does not have quite the same external display support capability as the 2016, which may or may not be of meaning for your personal needs. But, with the money you would save on a 2015 refurb, you could purchase a TB3 dock, dual displays, and an external SSD or NAS setup.
I was told by CalDigit that you can use USB 3.1 gen 2, type C with it, by purchasing a Thunderbolt 3 dock and a [naturally bi-directional] Thunderbolt 3-->2 adapter (and they would know.) So you wouldn't be SOL if you found an accessory you like that is ONLY USB-C.