Which new MBP solution is best for photo/video editing?

[m4gnus]

Hi All.

I am going to buy one of the new MBP's within the next few months.
I just came to two different solutions, but I am really unsure which of them will be best for me.

The first one is to buy the 2.0 ghz with 8 gb ram and a 256 SSD.
The other one is to buy the 2.2 ghz with 8 gb ram and a 128 SSD.

It's about the same price, and I can't afford more than what these cost (around $2800).

But my question is, if I will be better off with the 128 gb more space, or the faster CPU (and graphics I guess?).
I work with very large files, both audio, video and photo (I am studying to become a photojournalist, and we are doing a lot of multimedia).

I can easily load in 64 GB's of video footage/photos, and work in Lightroom, Photoshop and Final Cut Pro or After Effects at the same time.

Will it be a pain in the ass only having the 128 gb of space, or will it be worth it when I can have greater CPU speed?

I am really confused.

Maybe I should also say, that I never play games, I wouldn't even consider installing Windows - and I think the Adobe programs (I also use InDesign sometimes) and video software would be the hardest for my computer to run.

Thanks a lot, and best regards,
Magnus

 

[MultiMediaWill]

Hi All.

I am going to buy one of the new MBP's within the next few months.
I just came to two different solutions, but I am really unsure which of them will be best for me.

The first one is to buy the 2.0 ghz with 8 gb ram and a 256 SSD.
The other one is to buy the 2.2 ghz with 8 gb ram and a 128 SSD.

It's about the same price, and I can't afford more than what these cost (around $2800).

But my question is, if I will be better off with the 128 gb more space, or the faster CPU (and graphics I guess?).
I work with very large files, both audio, video and photo (I am studying to become a photojournalist, and we are doing a lot of multimedia).

I can easily load in 64 GB's of video footage/photos, and work in Lightroom, Photoshop and Final Cut Pro or After Effects at the same time.

Will it be a pain in the ass only having the 128 gb of space, or will it be worth it when I can have greater CPU speed?

I am really confused.

Maybe I should also say, that I never play games, I wouldn't even consider installing Windows - and I think the Adobe programs (I also use InDesign sometimes) and video software would be the hardest for my computer to run.

Thanks a lot, and best regards,
Magnus

Neither. If money is not an issue I would go with this SDD and install it in the optibay.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227515&cm_re=1tb_sdd-_-20-227-515-_-Product

 

[aznguyen316]

Considering it seems no one really complained about the 330m graphics not being enough for the uses you've said (outside of gaming as usual) then the 6490m will be fine since it's basically the same via benchmarks as the older 330m. Now you get a nice quad core and I'd get the 256GB over the 128GB any day if it was the primary and only drive.

 

[m4gnus]

MultiMediaWill: Ehm, I need a new computer, and not a new harddrive. I can't afford more than around $2800 for this computer. But thanks anyway.

aznguyen316: Ok, so I guess it doesn't matter with the graphics, as I won't need the faster one anyway. Well I'm glad.
I will be using the SSD as my only harddrive on the computer itself, but I always have external harddrives with me anyway, as I have so much RAW footage/photos and so on.

My plan is to work from the SSD, and after that put all the RAW material on an external harddrive.

 

[dallas112678]

MultiMediaWill: Ehm, I need a new computer, and not a new harddrive. I can't afford more than around $2800 for this computer. But thanks anyway.

aznguyen316: Ok, so I guess it doesn't matter with the graphics, as I won't need the faster one anyway. Well I'm glad.
I will be using the SSD as my only harddrive on the computer itself, but I always have external harddrives with me anyway, as I have so much RAW footage/photos and so on.

My plan is to work from the SSD, and after that put all the RAW material on an external harddrive.

I would say go with the 2.2. You can always use an external drive to store the data, and honestly the i think the extra speed will be more valuable than the extra space seeing as you can always have those external harddrives. Also upgrading an internal hard drive is much easier than the CPU.

 

[MultiMediaWill]

MultiMediaWill: Ehm, I need a new computer, and not a new harddrive. I can't afford more than around $2800 for this computer. But thanks anyway.

aznguyen316: Ok, so I guess it doesn't matter with the graphics, as I won't need the faster one anyway. Well I'm glad.
I will be using the SSD as my only harddrive on the computer itself, but I always have external harddrives with me anyway, as I have so much RAW footage/photos and so on.

My plan is to work from the SSD, and after that put all the RAW material on an external harddrive.

Yea, I know. I said buy the computer and if money permits then get the 1TB SDD.

 

[Bending Pixels]

You're not going to see a marked difference between the 2.0 and 2.2ghz processors, as far as day to day work goes. I'd suggest going with the 2.0 processor and the 256gig SSD. The "base" MBP model is fast...screaming fast.

I purchased my first Mac last spring when the 2010 MBP's were announced. I got the base model and the only change I made was to swap the 320gig 5400rpm drive for a 500gig 7200rpm drive. The "base" model with a 7200rpm drive should be more than fast enough to editdo video editing in FCP.