Which processor in rMBP

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by twdi, Dec 21, 2012.

  1. twdi macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2012
    #1
    My old Windows laptop died and when I looked at the rMBP, I really like it. But.. i'm a Windows user since ever. So there are some doubts offcourse, why should I spend a few hunderds euro more on a rMBP then a comparable Windows ultrabook.

    I'm using mainly Adobe LR4 and Photoshop/ Premiere Elements 11. I have a DSLR which creates 30Mb large RAW files and HD moviefiles. I'm not a pro photographer but won't like it if editing the pictures is slow on such a Macbook.

    Is it a joy to use those apps on a rMBP and which cpu would you advise? The i7 is 200 euro more expensive. Is it's performance increase noticable and worth the upgrade?

    What about music? I'm a hobby musician and consider also to use it as an audio workstation.
     
  2. Ploki macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2008
  3. nontroppo macrumors 6502

    nontroppo

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    #3
    I found before that Lightroom 3 was tangibly faster under OS X than Windows 7 on the same hardware, not sure about Lightroom 4. There are lots of criticisms on the Adobe forums of Lightroom 4's performance on any OS, but for me the trade-up to much better debayering and noise/contrast handling is worth it.

    What I certainly can say is that Lightroom 4 on the retina display is amazing, editing images at 220DPI live is just wonderful, it really changes the way I handle sharpening and being able to develop with more of the image on screen. This is for me, a revolutionary improvement in hardware. I look forward to high DPI displays becoming the default on Windows/Linux laptops too, it is simply too good for just rMBP owners to benefit from!!!

    I have the i7 2.6GHz 15" rMBP and can say that for a library of around 8000 RAW images (from 8MP - 18MP each), the rMBP handles Lightroom wonderfully. I would recommend the 15" quad-core i7 as a minimum, the dedicated GPU will also significantly speed up Premiere...

    I've used Premiere Pro only a bit, but I can say at least Final Cut Pro X works very well on the rMBP for 1080p level editing. Again, being able to preview a whole 1080p frame with space to spare is a huge step up from standard DPI displays.
     
  4. twdi thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2012
    #4
    Well, I like the size of the 13 inch because it's very easy to take with me on trips. The 15 is offcourse larger, heavier and more expensive
     
  5. nanolife macrumors 6502

    nanolife

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2011
    Location:
    Pasadena
    #5
    So you already know the answer for your own question. ;)
     
  6. twdi thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2012
    #6
    Not about the processor or windows ultrabook vs mac
     
  7. MCAsan macrumors 601

    MCAsan

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #7
    You have to decide if it is important to have a quad core i7 and GPU. Since my rMBP is my desktop replacement for at least 3 years, I went 15 and am glad I did. LR 4.1 works great as does PS6 and the Nik suite of plugins.
     
  8. bogatyr macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    #8
    On the 13", the i7 isn't worth the money. It is an extremely marginal upgrade. If you want a good processor for the buck, you need to go 15" and get a quad core.
     
  9. twdi thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2012
    #9
    Found a geekbench website. Interesting:

    http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench2/search?q=MacBook+Pro+(13-inch+Retina)+

    According that site, my windows machine with an intel i7 860 cpu doesn't differ a lot.

    The rMBP 13 with the i7 is only 1.15 times faster then the i5 cpu
     
  10. bogatyr macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2012
    #10
    Most of the benefit from the i7 2 core is the cache increase. Which is still marginal. The bigger bump is going from i5 to i7 quad. Or i3 to i5 (i5 offers more features like AES encryption built in and some other calculation benefits over the i3).
     
  11. Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Enjoying Better Things
    #11
    For me there is absolutely nothing compelling about the 13" Retina other than the size, the 15" absolutely dominates the 13" in every aspect, anyone looking to buy the 13" Retina should think about it very carefully.

    Apple set the standard for performance with the 15" Retina and now they are looking to cash in on those who are not able to live with the 15" footprint. A 13" with a basic CPU upgrade (dual core i7) costs as much as a base 15" Retina in many countries which is a bad joke to say the least.

    It makes little sense to go with the 13" unless you are absolutely tied to the form factor; the CPU`s performance level of the 15' over the 13" in isolation is significant to say the least, anything CPU intensive is simply going to be completed far faster, any app that can take advantage of multicore architecture more so.

    GeekBench Results:
    • MacBook Pro (13-inch Mid 2012) Intel Core i7-3520M 2900 MHz (2 cores) 7797 (High end)
    • MacBook Pro (15-inch Mid 2012) Intel Core i7-3615QM 2300 MHz (4 cores) 10799 (Base)

    My own base 15" Retina benchmarks at over 11K systematically (Link: just hit 11040 and 11043 and 11096) and on top of the far higher CPU rating you will have both the HD 4000 and GT 650M GPU`s, superior audio, higher resolution, twice the storage capacity. If i was forced to buy the 13" Retina i would be very unhappy to say the least giving up so much, saving just a couple of hundred dollars, just for the sake of the smaller footprint

    The bottom line is the 13" Retina is priced far too high, i applaud Apple`s ingenuity and engineering prowess, equally their greed is staggering just when will enough be enough $$$$. The 13" Retina should have a base price range of $1200 - $1300, in general the 13" line is grossly over priced, as fundamentally it`s a basic computer with little to nothing changing since it`s introduction in 2008 as the Aluminium MacBook; duel core CPU, integrated graphics only, and very poor resolution on the standard model.

    The straight up answer is buy a bigger bag, and you will have all the performance you need, at all times ;)
     
  12. Xgm541 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    #12
    2 inches and the slight weight increase will not break your back. I promise.
     
  13. macchiato2009 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2009
    #13

    i'm also hesitating

    and your analysis is absolutely right, thank you :)
     
  14. MCAsan macrumors 601

    MCAsan

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #14
    It is funny to see folks worry about the size and weight of a 15" rMBP. Obviously they never carried a 17" or even a 15" cMBP. ;)

    I just sold on ebay an HP Envy 17" with SSD and two internal 1TB drives. Not THAT laptop was heavy. :eek:
     
  15. Queen6, Dec 22, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2012

    Queen6 macrumors 603

    Queen6

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    Location:
    Enjoying Better Things
    #15
    Current price of the 13" Retina it simply makes no sense to buy over the 15" unless you are absolutely, categorically tied to the 13" form factor, the larger machine simply offers so much more...

    The 15" Retina is a super solid portable, with near workstation performance i have a base 15" and it never fails to impress especially in the performance stakes even with 100% load it will pump out 3.1GHz all day every, day :D
     
  16. twdi thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2012
    #16
    Strange...

    if you look at the geechbench website.... the same CPU in a Windows machine gets a lower performance count then with Mac OS.....
     

Share This Page