Which MacBook Pro configurations actually have tangible performance differences? | Hacker News Reader

Which MacBook Pro configurations actually have tangible performance differences?

9 pointsGeekette37 comments

Looking to get another one (13" size) and wondering which features and to what extents actually yield differences in performance for daily work use (some increments look too close to have any). I.e. Differences in processor speeds - is 2.3GHz noticeably faster and worth higher price than 2.5GHz? Or 3.1GHz vs 3.3GHz vs 3.5GHz?

If one can't get the max combo (fastest processor + highest memory + largest storage) then which feature should take higher priority (e.g. fastest processor vs highest memory)? Do certain feature combinations produce better performance? Etcetera.

View on HN

Given the choice, I'd max out memory first, get 512gb SSD, then use the remaining budget for CPU.

The price of a 1TB SSD isn't worth it. If you need extra storage you can buy a Samsung 850 SSD and an enclosure and get full speed transfers over the USB Type-C / TB3 ports.

> full speed transfers over the USB Type-C / TB3 ports.

The NVMe SSDs in the Macbooks are significantly higher throughput than USB-C ports support.

Should have clarified, I meant full speed in regards to both the SATA3 interface (6Gbps) and what the 850's are capable of, which is something like ~500-550 MB/s.

The access latencies are quite different, though, are they not?

I don't know. The throughput seems to be there: https://imgur.com/a/hhvZ2

For my use case, which is storing and running VMs directly off the external drive, it works better than I had ever hoped. The whole setup feels very fast.

16GB of memory at a minimum is no brainer for coders in my opinion. Some projects can require lots of heavy programs running at the same time.

You don't need more than 8GB of memory. I doubt anyone could notice a difference in real world performance between 8GB and 16GB.

The PCIe-based SSD in the Macbook Pro is so fast that virtual memory is equivalent to RAM for all practical purposes.

RAM is at least 10x faster than SSD memory so Im not 100% sure where you're coming from. If you're doing any kind of VM work (or just want to use more than two or three electron powered desktop applications at a time) 8GB RAM in 2017 is going to be pretty tight on a development machine.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDR4_SDRAM -- see peak transfer rate

Everything stated here is false.

Well, talk for yourself.

I need typically 32-64 GB RAM (virtual machines, etc.) and 16 GB is painfully little.

Different people have different needs.

Oh, and I don't think Macbook Pro's RAM bandwidth is just 2 GB/s. Even phones have 30 GB/s RAM bandwidth nowadays.

Besides, you don't want to ruin your SSD by constantly swapping.

>I doubt anyone could notice a difference in real world performance between 8GB and 16GB.

Just having Slack and Chrome open at the same time causes my "Memory Pressure" graph on OSX to turn yellow on my 8GB RAM MBP.

Electron apps!

"Badly written Electron apps!" - FTFY

Are there any other kind? At least thanks to electron apps we still have a need for Moore’s law.

Visual Studio Code seems like a good Electron app, but I've never checked its memory usage. The point is it's possible to create one though.

I need 16GB because of lots of Chrome tabs + electron apps :(

I do embedded dev, and I need very little RAM for the embedded compilation environment and even doing large circuit designs.

But I regret getting 8GB on this 13" MBP. Between Electron apps and the browser with dozens of tabs open, it sucks up all the memory. A quick look at current usage: 7GB for Safari, 4GB for Atom, 1.5GB for Slack.

My home machine with 16GB was fine.

> 4GB for Atom, 1.5GB for Slack

WHY DO PEOPLE TOLERATE THIS?

(Caps are intentional.)

Slack: because it's how we communicate internally and with our big clients.

Atom: I have a setup with a project in each window, but also an attached terminal that's all set to go for compiling and uploading to my test boards. It's the nicest solution I've found, the only downside is the RAM. But you've motivated me to check out some alternatives...

I think the OP was referring to the massive memory bloat of these applications.

This. I've been trying to move back to native apps now that every "technologist" out there seems to want to build in Electron to save money on development.

There's no substitute for good native engineering.

> 1.5GB for Slack

Holy shit! Are there clients that take less memory than this, or is their interface completely locked down? A terminal client would be wonderful.

Yeah, speak for yourself. My work MBP is consistently using 12-14GB. The home one is in a constant state of swap on 8GB, without running much beyond a browser, text editor, and mail client.

We gave our interns the 8GB models this year and they universally had performance issues that impacted their productiivity in a meaningful way.

> You don't need more than 8GB of memory.

You clearly haven't opened a recent version of Photoshop.

Maybe 5-8 years ago 8GB was enough. In 2017? Yeah right.

You want 16GB ram. You want 512GB storage if you do android or ios dev. Images take up a lot of room.

What's your daily work usecase? Do you run multiple VMs? Multiple chrome tabs? IDEs?

Currently not much programming related but lots of design/graphics/video intensive applications (photoshop, etc). And expecting to do more of data sci/stats related tasks in near future.

I would focus on discreet video card for your work load. IIRC, none of the 13 inch MacBook Pros have it.

This. OP might have to go the Windows/Linux dual boot route to get the most bang for his buck here.

Refurbished IT laptops work wonders here.

Left-field suggestion: Have you considered an iMac (or equivalent) and then getting something cheaper/lighter for when you're a roadwarrior? Depending on your usage/travel patterns that can work great too.

No - I travel a bit with extended stays, so, I'd rather the notebooks.

Keep in mind that i7's get hyper threading, i5s don't. Small MHz increases don't make the same difference as extra (virtual) cores.

The biggest performance difference in terms of RAW computing power will be a discrete GPU. But only for some (embarrassingly parallel) workloads and not for others. Everything else will make a marginal difference -- with the possible exception of RAM for memory constrained workloads that are swapping virtual memory to 'disk'.

Discrete.

If I was buying MBP tomorrow, I'd get 16GB RAM minimum, 512GB SSD minimum and integrated GPU. I would use eGPU with MBP for intense tasks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com