macbook pro 2.3 vs 2.6ghz
- Started
- Last post
- 17 Responses
- OP310
I just bought the non retina with 2.6 processor. Replaced the hard drive with a 256GB SSD to install all my applications and then removed the optical drive and installed a 512GB SSD. I wanted a retina, but since you can't update them down the road, I went with the Highres Screen Non Retina instead. Its really fast and have no problems running after effects and photoshop.
- oh and I added 16GB of RAMOP31
- all this was way cheaper then buying the Retina with simliar specs. I dont have the screen, but I'm ok with that. The computer is much fasterOP31
- This is the same machine we bought at work. Still has Firewire which is a huge plus too.monospaced
- animatedgif0
"macbook pro w/ retina for video editing and motion graphics work"
Why?... It'll look completely different on the screens it'll actually be played on.
- Retina screens are a godsend for video editing (and grading) and photography. Try it.inteliboy
- wouldn't it all just be pixel doubled?animatedgif
- even pixel-doubled, it would just look normalmonospaced
- Hombre_Lobo0
If your getting the ram upgrade because it's soldered on, that makes sense.
But bare in mind the extra ram will in no way improve render times. In some tests more ram actually increases it (but only by 1% or something negligible)
I can't see how you would need more than 8gb unless you would have every program on you computer open at once. Which actually still isn't that bad with Linux based machines like a mac.
But i suppose you cant upgrade later and Might make it easier to sell on too.
- its not uncommon for me to have Illustrator, PS, AE, FCP all open at once.Aa77
- omg0
i still make my video mixes with a pair of VCRs
- ezkl0
only advice: you can save that money on an SSD. i think 300 mhz is measly compared to the advantages of solid state
- Extremely true.
MacBook air with low spec CPUs and ssds run very well, all thanks to the ssdHombre_Lobo
- Extremely true.
- dan53820
you can't upgrade a retina outside of the apple store. Everything on the Retina is soldered on.
- Aa770
thanks for pointing this out...I was looking at the $600 price different from the base models. so yeah, $100 extra for a 2.6ghz bump seems worth it.
thanks qbn
- hey, you can spend $350 for the 2.7 ;)monospaced
- gotta know when to fold em...Aa77
- monospaced0
For a $100 upgrade it's not that much, and more processor is always better.
- The $600 is for the processor AND double the SDD size.monospaced
- er... SSDmonospaced
- DD?arthur
- I wrote SSDmonospaced
- but if you must ask, DD = Disc Drivemonospaced
- bored2death0
Do you know what .3ghz feels like?
It's like night and day.
- chrisRG0
I have the 2.6 with 16gb, and a colleague has the 2.3 with 16gb.
there's no much difference tbh.
- vaxorcist0
for that difference in price, you can get a second monitor.... a much bigger productivity improvement in my mind....
- $100?monospaced
- big monitor.. or portable monitor... or even an iPad....vaxorcist
- Um, the upgrade price is only $100, and you can't get any of that for $100monospaced
- original poster said "is it worth an extra $600 for the 2.6? "vaxorcist
- yes, but the simple upgrade is actually only $100monospaced
- lvl_130
no. save the cash or go grab an external monitor instead.
- Aa77
I am about to pick up a new macbook pro w/ retina for video editing and motion graphics work.
I am definitely going to upgrade to 16gb of ram, but I am wondering if there would be much noticeable difference between the 2.3 ghz processor and the 2.6ghz. Both options are quad-core
is it worth an extra $600 for the 2.6? I'm not trying to be cheap, but if its only a matter of a render taking slightly less time, I might go with the 2.3 option.
anyone using either option for video?
any thoughts?thanks in advance