Erm, screen size? Extra drive bay? Ports? If you need those things you don't have a choice, no matter how cost comparable a machine with a smaller screen, lacking some of the ports, and only one 'drive bay'.I figured screen size, but why would someone pay $1800 for a 17" MBP with older technology, for example, an older graphics card, USB 2.0, older i7 processor, etc? They could get a used or refurbished 15" Retina for the same amount.
The cpu difference of sandy bridge to haswell isn't that great. It's something, but 20% on multicore benchmarks doesn't translate terribly well into real world use unless you can show that one throttles its cpu significantly less over the work involved. I do personally like the real estate, but I can't say that I would pay $1800 for one today. While it remains to be seen how the 650m holds up, the 6770m seems to have a high failure rate.I figured screen size, but why would someone pay $1800 for a 17" MBP with older technology, for example, an older graphics card, USB 2.0, older i7 processor, etc? They could get a used or refurbished 15" Retina for the same amount.
The 6770m is significantly slower. It depends on what you are doing though. There are areas where both would be insufficient or at least not ideal.How does the ATI 6770m in the 17" compare to the nVidia GT650m in the 2012 15" Retina?
People that work in media production: cinematographers, live streamers, fcpx editors, visual compositors, etc.
Well, that the problem. Normally, you can get the 2012 rMBP with the particular configuration at the same price or cheaper then a 17" + DYI upgrades.the 17" (as all cMbP) is userupgradable, so if you think about how much you can save on ssd and ram it's not a bad device
Could you elaborate?People that work in media production: cinematographers, live streamers, fcpx editors, visual compositors, etc.
The 17 MBP is a better option than rMBP for these jobs.
From what I see on Geekbench3 x64, your model averages at around 11000. Compare this to 14500 for the 2013 retina and 13500 for the 2012 one. Thats 30% increase in performance.My geekbench score is 12,000 which is only a few hundred points lower than the 2013 haswell macbook.
Do you have some benchmarks? It wouldn't surprise me if you were right though.Apple uses opencl for graphics acceleration and AMD seems to handle opencl better than nvidia.
I have no doubt about it. Still doesn't explain why it should be better at those tasks then a faster computer like the rMBP.I can run autodesk smoke 2013 and da vinci resolve with no problems on this machine. It can handle a 4 camera HD livestream.
The CPU speed improvement is absolutely in line with the previous trends. We still get our 10% per year or so. I'd say that the biggest advantage of the newer MBP (besides battery) is the superior computing power in a more mobile package. My 2012 base rMBP was cheaper then your machine, has a better screen and will perform at least as good while being 2/3 of the weight.Biggest advantage of newer macbook pros is better battery life. They really havent gotten much faster over past couple years as intel is focusing on power consumption.
it is nice having thunderbolt, fw800, usb 3.0 (via thunderbolt caldigit hub which is tiny,cheap and also has an hdmi port) and esata (via expresscard) all on the same laptop. It makes ingesting media from multiple sources that much easier. Its like the swiss army knife of macbooks on a set location where versatility is important.Some professionals are after the Express Card slot on the 17", until they can afford to upgrade their entire systems to Thunderbolt which is still expensive.
It is slower, but the larger form factor strikes a chord with some users. They want the larger MBP. I don't understand it, but different strokes for different folks.
That's my hobby. I like arguing Comes with the job@leman
lol...damn. you really seem to disagree with my entire post.
Ok, fair enough. Still, 14500 is 20% faster than 12000the 11,000 benchmark score is with 8gb ddr 1333. lower timed memory creates a slight bottleneck on the 2.5 i-7 hence why my score is higher.
I do agree the there is a slight improvement in cpu performance but it is not 30% faster than my late 2011.
I would be careful with translating the Linux benchmarks to OS X, the implementation stack is completely different. Its true though that Kepler architecture (650M) really sucks for GPGPU.as for opencl on AMD vs nvidia here is a benchmark test done in fedora which clearly shows amd ahead of nvidia (unfortunately no 650m though: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTQwMDI
On the other hand, a refurb 2012 rMBP with 512GB RAM was less then $2000 last time I saw it on Apple store.even with all my customizations I would only get roughly $2100 if I sold it on ebay (well, before ebay takes their cut). The top model 2013 with a similar build is $3,653.27 shipped w/ tax to California which is approaching MacPro pricing.
Apparently it does for the particular benchmark If you have some better ways to quantify the performance difference, please share. We are especially interested in media work.No. A 30% higher score in benchmarks doesn't translate to 30% better performance.
There seem to be people here arguing along very bizarre lines. It's been pointed out that people who buy the 17inch presumably want the things that the retina doesn't provide, like a 17 inch screen, the ports, and expandability, and don't care as much about the swanky screen and moderate speed increases. The response is - but there's a swanky screen, and moderate speed increases.It is slower, but the larger form factor strikes a chord with some users. They want the larger MBP. I don't understand it, but different strokes for different folks.
Erm, the only thing the 17" has is the screen size. Expandability and ports are more flexible on the rMBP: USB3, 2xThunderbolt, 802.11ac. Unless you need tons of internal storage of course.It's been pointed out that people who buy the 17inch presumably want the things that the retina doesn't provide, like a 17 inch screen, the ports, and expandability, and don't care as much about the swanky screen and moderate speed increases.