Is the 2012 13" MBP the last version you can upgrade

[akswun]

Hi everyone,

I just want to confirm if this version of the 13" is the last one where you can upgrade the RAM and HD yourself.
I have an opportunity to buy a used late 2012 13" i7 MD102LL/A for a decent price. From a brief search it looks like i can throw in 16gigs of RAM as well as a large SSD. Considering it does have 2 USB 3.0 ports and a thunderbolt port I don't think I'll be missing out on what the current line offers.

I've been holding off on buying a new MBP as my late 09' is still running fine and the prices are just insane. I think this 2012 13" will give me what I want without breaking the bank. I know it's not retina and it's not super thin but its whats under the hood thats appealing.

 

[iFoure]

Yes, your assumption is correct: the Mid 2012 Macbook Pro (non-Retina) is the last user upgradable Macbook. You can upgrade the RAM up to 16GB's and SSD, well I don't know what the max capacity for the SSD is... I have the Mid 2010 MBP and I'm considering buying the Mid 2012 model. We don't have much time left, Apple's been selling this particular Macbook for 3 years now and is ready to say farewell to it. So, time to buy it is NOW

 

[T5BRICK]

I just want to confirm if this version of the 13" is the last one where you can upgrade the RAM and HD yourself.

The mid 2012 non-retina models are the last upgradeable MacBook Pros.

I know it's not retina and it's not super thin but its whats under the hood thats appealing.

Aside from the lower resolution screen and higher weight, the CPU and GPU are several years old now and slow compared to current hardware. The battery life isn't going to be as good and the SSD interface is limited to SATA 3.

 

[robvas]

The CPU scores aren't THAT much different from a 2012 Pro to a 2015 Pro.

The graphics have gotten much faster and so have the SSD's though.

Technically, you can upgrade the 2012 and early 2013 Retina machines using a mSATA SSD and an adapter card. But you can't upgrade the RAM.

 

[macgeek18]

Yep, and that's why I bought mine in 2013.

 

[akswun]

Thanks for the help everyone. It seems like this is the MBP to get that is within my budget. I've been holding off for the updates this year on their current line. But other than aesthetics and the graphics card and slight speed bump with a soldered on SSD there isn't much of push for me to buy a newer version.
I wouldn't be using it for graphics anyways and only really need an i5 or higher for the programs I use. I just want to future proof my system.
[doublepost=1453300561][/doublepost]

The mid 2012 non-retina models are the last upgradeable MacBook Pros.



Aside from the lower resolution screen and higher weight, the CPU and GPU are several years old now and slow compared to current hardware. The battery life isn't going to be as good and the SSD interface is limited to SATA 3.

So you're saying the CPU is far slower than current versions? Don't really care for GPU. i7 at 2.9ghz seems pretty fast for me. And considering I would be putting in a SSD and adding 16gb of RAM wouldn't it be almost comparable to the current base model 13" retina MBP? Batteries can be replaced and Apple batteries tend to be the best around. My 09' still gives me about 2hrs on heavy use.

Again, the appeal to me is being able to add what I want to the MBP. Being cuckhold on the current line is annoying and costly. Storage is not a problem. It's getting higher spec'd processor and RAM for the Apple premium which sucks. Just so they could make the current line thinner.

 

[Samuelsan2001]

Thanks for the help everyone. It seems like this is the MBP to get that is within my budget. I've been holding off for the updates this year on their current line. But other than aesthetics and the graphics card and slight speed bump with a soldered on SSD there isn't much of push for me to buy a newer version.
I wouldn't be using it for graphics anyways and only really need an i5 or higher for the programs I use. I just want to future proof my system.
[doublepost=1453300561][/doublepost]

So you're saying the CPU is far slower than current versions? Don't really care for GPU. i7 at 2.9ghz seems pretty fast for me. And considering I would be putting in a SSD and adding 16gb of RAM wouldn't it be almost comparable to the current base model 13" retina MBP? Batteries can be replaced and Apple batteries tend to be the best around. My 09' still gives me about 2hrs on heavy use.

Again, the appeal to me is being able to add what I want to the MBP. Being cuckhold on the current line is annoying and costly. Storage is not a problem. It's getting higher spec'd processor and RAM for the Apple premium which sucks. Just so they could make the current line thinner.

It's a portable machine making it thin and light is the most important thing for most consumers.

To be honest I wouldn't change my retina screen for any reason either, and I don't do any video or photo editing beyond the most basic home photos from my phone, it makes a massive difference for text it has far better viewing angles and less glare and is much easier on the eyes for long term use.

To be honest if you don't ever want a sealed machine then you might as well swap to another maker now rather than spend good money on old apple tech.

 

[MrAverigeUser]

The mid 2012 non-retina models are the last upgradeable MacBook Pros.



Aside from the lower resolution screen and higher weight, the CPU and GPU are several years old now and slow compared to current hardware. The battery life isn't going to be as good and the SSD interface is limited to SATA 3.

"Limited" Sata III ??? Thats impressive 500MB/s write and read!
I am shure nearly nobody (exept perhaps heavy power-Users) will have the least chance to see any difference to even more faster than SATA III SSD-connections like mSATA or PCIe. Note: In that time apple delivered the SSD model with only SATA II SSDs (max 250 MB/s write/read) although SATAIII was possible. And this was (and still is) pretty fast.

But this model shurely has TWO SATA III (6GB/s) connections - so you could even work in RAID 0 in adding a second SATA III SSD in the optical bay if you are desperate for the fastest option - but this makes no sense (See above). Might be interesting for people needing a second HDD/SSD for whatever reason it might be Like Photos, FLAC, scientific databases or so...(which is simply IMPOSSIBLE for owners of nMBP: NO second SATA connection or drive possible/on board!)

And: Even no problem to install bigger SATA III SSDs like Samsungs 2TB SSD or (in some Months) the upcoming 4TB SSD…

performance of the newest nMBP 13" i5 is only 20-25% more than that of the 2012 cMBP model - so I doubt anyone can feel the difference between the two models in REAL LIFE:

------------------------------------------------------

specs From everymac.com:

here you can easily compare any MBP with each other and identify your model:

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/index-macbookpro.html

Introduction Date MBP 13" of June 11, 2012 Discontinued Date: N/A

Processors: 1 (2 Cores) Architecture: 64-Bit

Geekbench 2 (32): 6690 Geekbench 2 (64): 7323

Geekbench 3 (32): 2530 Geekbench 3 (32): 5106

Geekbench 3 (64): 2781 Geekbench 3 (64): 5689

Processor Speed: 2.5 GHz Processor Type: Core i5 (I5-3210M)
Details: This model is powered by a 22 nm, 64-bit Intel Mobile Core i5 "Ivy Bridge" (I5-3210M) processor which includes two independent processor "cores" on a single silicon chip. Each core has a dedicated 256k level 2 cache, shares 3 MB of level 3 cache, and has an integrated memory controller (dual channel).

This system also supports "Turbo Boost 2.0" -- which "automatically increases the speed of the active cores" to improve performance when needed (up to 3.1 GHz for this model) -- and "Hyper Threading" -- which allows the system to recognize four total "cores" or "threads" (two real and two virtual).

Also see: How fast are the "Mid-2012" 13-Inch and 15-Inch MacBook Pro models compared to one another? How fast are they compared to the models each replaced?
Turbo Boost: 3.1 GHz Custom Speeds: 2.9 GHz*

Processor Upgrade: Soldered FPU: Integrated

System Bus Speed: 5 GT/s* Cache Bus Speed: 2.5 GHz (Built-in)

ROM/Firmware Type: EFI EFI Architecture: 64-Bit

L1 Cache: 32k/32k x2 L2/L3 Cache: 256k x2, 3 MB

RAM Type: PC3-12800 DDR3L Min. RAM Speed: 1600 MHz
Details: Supports 1600 MHz PC3-12800 DDR3L SDRAM SO-DIMMs (204-pin).

Also see: How do you upgrade the RAM in the "Mid-2012" 13-Inch and 15-Inch MacBook Pro models? How much RAM of what type do they support?
Standard RAM: 4 GB Maximum RAM: 16 GB* everytime UPGRADEBLE by 3rd party RAM !!
Details: 4 GB of RAM is installed as two 2 GB modules, no slots free.

*Apple officially supports a maximum of 8 GB of RAM, but third-parties have determined that this model actually is capable of using up to 16 GB of RAM with two 8 GB memory modules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

NEWEST 13" rMBP (2015):


Introduction Date: March 9, 2015 Discontinued Date: N/A

Processors: 1 (2 Cores) Architecture: 64-Bit

Geekbench 2 (32): 8480 Geekbench 2 (64): 9632

Geekbench 3 (32): 3093 Geekbench 3 (32): 6446

Geekbench 3 (64): 3415 Geekbench 3 (64): 7259

Processor Speed: 2.9 GHz Processor Type: Core i5 (I5-5287U)
Details: This model is powered by a 14 nm, 64-bit "Fifth Generation" Intel Mobile Core i5 "Broadwell" (I5-5287U) processor which includes two independent processor "cores" on a single silicon chip. Each core has a dedicated 256k level 2 cache, shares 3 MB of level 3 cache, and has an integrated memory controller (dual channel).

This system also supports "Turbo Boost 2.0" -- which "automatically increases the speed of the active cores" to improve performance when needed (up to 3.3 GHz for this model) -- and "Hyper Threading" -- which allows the system to recognize four total "cores" or "threads" (two real and two virtual).

Also see: How fast are the 13-Inch "Early 2015" MacBook Pro models compared to one another? How fast are they compared to the models replaced?
Turbo Boost: 3.3 GHz Custom Speeds: 3.1 GHz (i7)

Processor Upgrade: Soldered FPU: Integrated

System Bus Speed: 5 GT/s (DMI2)* Cache Bus Speed: 2.9 GHz (Built-in)

ROM/Firmware Type: EFI EFI Architecture: 64-Bit

L1 Cache: 32k/32k x2 L2/L3 Cache: 256k x2, 3 MB*

RAM Type: LPDDR3 SDRAM* Min. RAM Speed: 1866 MHz
Details: Ships standard with 8 GB of 1866 MHz LPDDR3 SDRAM onboard.
Standard RAM: 8 GB* Maximum RAM: 16 GB*
Details: *8 GB of RAM is onboard by default, but it can be upgraded to 16 GB --->>>ONLY at the time of purchase !! at additional cost. RAM cannot be upgraded later!!!

 

[Samuelsan2001]

"Limited" Sata III ??? Thats impressive 500MB/s write and read!
I am shure nearly nobody (exept perhaps heavy power-Users) will have the least chance to see any difference to even more faster than SATA III SSD-connections like mSATA or PCIe. Note: In that time apple delivered the SSD model with only SATA II SSDs (max 250 MB/s write/read) although SATAIII was possible. An dit was (and still is) pretty fast.

But this model shurely has TWO SATA III (6GB/s) connections - so you could even work in RAID 0 in adding a second SATA III SSD in the optical bay if you are desperate for the fastest option - but this makes no sense (See above). Might be interesting for people needing a second HDD/SSD for whatever reason it might be Like Photos, FLAC, scientific databases or so...(which is simply IMPOSSIBLE for owners of nMBP: NO second SATA connection or drive possible/on board!)

And: Even no problem to install bigger SATA III SSDs like Samsungs 2TB SSD or (in some Months) the upcoming 4TB SSD…

performance of the newest nMBP 13" i5 is only 20-25% more than that of the 2012 cMBP model - so I doubt anyone can feel the difference between the two models in REAL LIFE:

------------------------------------------------------

specs From everymac.com:

here you can easily compare any MBP with each other and identify your model:

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/index-macbookpro.html

Introduction Date MBP 13" of June 11, 2012 Discontinued Date: N/A

Processors: 1 (2 Cores) Architecture: 64-Bit

Geekbench 2 (32): 6690 Geekbench 2 (64): 7323

Geekbench 3 (32): 2530 Geekbench 3 (32): 5106

Geekbench 3 (64): 2781 Geekbench 3 (64): 5689

Processor Speed: 2.5 GHz Processor Type: Core i5 (I5-3210M)
Details: This model is powered by a 22 nm, 64-bit Intel Mobile Core i5 "Ivy Bridge" (I5-3210M) processor which includes two independent processor "cores" on a single silicon chip. Each core has a dedicated 256k level 2 cache, shares 3 MB of level 3 cache, and has an integrated memory controller (dual channel).

This system also supports "Turbo Boost 2.0" -- which "automatically increases the speed of the active cores" to improve performance when needed (up to 3.1 GHz for this model) -- and "Hyper Threading" -- which allows the system to recognize four total "cores" or "threads" (two real and two virtual).

Also see: How fast are the "Mid-2012" 13-Inch and 15-Inch MacBook Pro models compared to one another? How fast are they compared to the models each replaced?
Turbo Boost: 3.1 GHz Custom Speeds: 2.9 GHz*

Processor Upgrade: Soldered FPU: Integrated

System Bus Speed: 5 GT/s* Cache Bus Speed: 2.5 GHz (Built-in)

ROM/Firmware Type: EFI EFI Architecture: 64-Bit

L1 Cache: 32k/32k x2 L2/L3 Cache: 256k x2, 3 MB

RAM Type: PC3-12800 DDR3L Min. RAM Speed: 1600 MHz
Details: Supports 1600 MHz PC3-12800 DDR3L SDRAM SO-DIMMs (204-pin).

Also see: How do you upgrade the RAM in the "Mid-2012" 13-Inch and 15-Inch MacBook Pro models? How much RAM of what type do they support?
Standard RAM: 4 GB Maximum RAM: 16 GB* everytime UPGRADEBLE by 3rd party RAM !!
Details: 4 GB of RAM is installed as two 2 GB modules, no slots free.

*Apple officially supports a maximum of 8 GB of RAM, but third-parties have determined that this model actually is capable of using up to 16 GB of RAM with two 8 GB memory modules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

NEWEST 13" rMBP (2015):


Introduction Date: March 9, 2015 Discontinued Date: N/A

Processors: 1 (2 Cores) Architecture: 64-Bit

Geekbench 2 (32): 8480 Geekbench 2 (64): 9632

Geekbench 3 (32): 3093 Geekbench 3 (32): 6446

Geekbench 3 (64): 3415 Geekbench 3 (64): 7259

Processor Speed: 2.9 GHz Processor Type: Core i5 (I5-5287U)
Details: This model is powered by a 14 nm, 64-bit "Fifth Generation" Intel Mobile Core i5 "Broadwell" (I5-5287U) processor which includes two independent processor "cores" on a single silicon chip. Each core has a dedicated 256k level 2 cache, shares 3 MB of level 3 cache, and has an integrated memory controller (dual channel).

This system also supports "Turbo Boost 2.0" -- which "automatically increases the speed of the active cores" to improve performance when needed (up to 3.3 GHz for this model) -- and "Hyper Threading" -- which allows the system to recognize four total "cores" or "threads" (two real and two virtual).

Also see: How fast are the 13-Inch "Early 2015" MacBook Pro models compared to one another? How fast are they compared to the models replaced?
Turbo Boost: 3.3 GHz Custom Speeds: 3.1 GHz (i7)

Processor Upgrade: Soldered FPU: Integrated

System Bus Speed: 5 GT/s (DMI2)* Cache Bus Speed: 2.9 GHz (Built-in)

ROM/Firmware Type: EFI EFI Architecture: 64-Bit

L1 Cache: 32k/32k x2 L2/L3 Cache: 256k x2, 3 MB*

RAM Type: LPDDR3 SDRAM* Min. RAM Speed: 1866 MHz
Details: Ships standard with 8 GB of 1866 MHz LPDDR3 SDRAM onboard.
Standard RAM: 8 GB* Maximum RAM: 16 GB*
Details: *8 GB of RAM is onboard by default, but it can be upgraded to 16 GB --->>>ONLY at the time of purchase !! at additional cost. RAM cannot be upgraded later!!!

You can quote all the nonsense you want but the sheer fact of the matter is that the rMBP is a superior machine in every way and is a far more pleasant machine to use, from weight to the screen, from the SSD speed to battery life. Do you have a load of 2012's to sell or something??


I have used both machines and previous ones and far prefer the retina, of course everyone to their own but 4 year old technology and poor graphics and hot heavy machines is not my bag.

 

[T5BRICK]

So you're saying the CPU is far slower than current versions? Don't really care for GPU. i7 at 2.9ghz seems pretty fast for me. And considering I would be putting in a SSD and adding 16gb of RAM wouldn't it be almost comparable to the current base model 13" retina MBP? Batteries can be replaced and Apple batteries tend to be the best around. My 09' still gives me about 2hrs on heavy use.

The CPU is slower, but not a lot. The main improvements have been in the GPU.

"Limited" Sata III ??? Thats impressive 500MB/s write and read!

You're correct that 500MB/s R/W speeds are fast. 1400MB/s R/W in the current model is even faster.

 

[\-V-/]

It's still a very viable machine and is worth getting, IMO.

 

[MrAverigeUser]

You can quote all the nonsense you want but the sheer fact of the matter is that the rMBP is a superior machine in every way and is a far more pleasant machine to use, from weight to the screen, from the SSD speed to battery life. Do you have a load of 2012's to sell or something??


I have used both machines and previous ones and far prefer the retina, of course everyone to their own but 4 year old technology and poor graphics and hot heavy machines is not my bag.

There is NO REASON to get offensive, my friend. Getting personal offensive means being weak in arguments.

All you wrote is by fact more "nonsense" than my quoting hard data of a serious and well known Mac-website. Evidently you are in lack of any hard and convincing argument and you prefer to distract from your more or less 100% emotional and helpless statements being far from any REAL LIFE aspects.

It is in fact amusing to call OFFICIAL APPLE SPECIFICATIONS "nonsense". Same for the multiply by other reviews confirmed benchmarks...You shot yourself in the foot…

The OP stated that he doesn´t care about retina screens. IN FACT there is no significant difference in using both machines in REAL LIFE and daily work.

"poor graphics" - ridiculous…. for this Screen it comes with it is much more than enough..even for external monitors up to 2-2,5 k.

"4 years old technology" - so what? Technology doesn´t get "old" or useless just because apple tries to get the lemmings pay every amount of money to feel like "early adopters".

As for the "SSD speed" I´d like to do a double-blinded test with you - I am shure you would´t even be able to identify those machines with SATA III SSDs and those running the "faster" mSATA or PCIe-SSDs.

To accuse me to have commercial interest to promote these 2012 machines is the most ridiculous statement of all your postings. How could I have profit since the OP can still easily purchase this machine in every apple store anywhere on earth?

BY FACT the OP would save a very impressive amount of money by NOT purchasing the "new" rMBP and purchasing the mentioned machine instead (with standard-HDD and just 4GB RAM) and upgrade it himself with 3rd party parts (SSD and 2x 8GB of RAM). TAkes just 10 minutes of easy work - if you are capable of working with screwdrivers and turning them in the right moment right- and left wise .

If you love this machine it´s ok. But the OP does not want to get married with the machine, he told us clearly that he is just searching for a solid machine of high connectivity and with DVD, and is possible of "old" form factor. so what?

 

[\-V-/]

My cousin is still using the 2010 MacBook Pro I sold him after upgrading all the innards (16 GB RAM) and recently upgraded his laptop to an SSD for him. It has lasted him through University and he still uses it today. So ... there is absolutely nothing wrong with getting the 2012 and upgrading the innards.

 

[satchmo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you still get access to the innards with the current rMBP?

No, I'm not talking about the RAM (this I suggest going to 16gb if you think you'll be keeping this for 4-5 years).
But the HD, can easily be swapped for an SSD.

But ultimately it may also come down to budget and what you want to spend. The 2012 is certainly capable. I have a 2010 and can do pretty much everything the current MBP's do (except AirPlay).

 

[\-V-/]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you still get access to the innards with the current rMBP?

No, I'm not talking about the RAM (this I suggest going to 16gb if you think you'll be keeping this for 4-5 years).
But the HD, can easily be swapped for an SSD.

No. The RAM is soldered to the motherboard and the drive is a proprietary SSD. You can't swap it out for anything. OWC used to make the proprietary drives for the retina books but they don't seem to have any for the current models. The ones they do have are not only overpriced, but much slower than what comes with the computer itself.

 

[JackieInCo]

The CPU is slower, but not a lot. The main improvements have been in the GPU.

I ran an 8GB MKV movie through iFlicks on my 2012 13" MBP with 500 GB HD and 16GB RAM and it took about 15 minutes to process before importing to iTunes.

I ran the same file through iFlicks on my 2015 MBP with the 512GB SSD and 16GB RAM and it took about a minute. Of course the 2012 is dual core and the 2015 is quad.

I still enjoy using my 2012 MBP for internet and other uses but for other things like using iFlicks, I will continue to use my 2015.

 

[MrAverigeUser]

I ran an 8GB MKV movie through iFlicks on my 2012 13" MBP with 500 GB HD and 16GB RAM and it took about 15 minutes to process before importing to iTunes.

I ran the same file through iFlicks on my 2015 MBP with the 512GB SSD and 16GB RAM and it took about a minute. Of course the 2012 is dual core and the 2015 is quad.

I still enjoy using my 2012 MBP for internet and other uses but for other things like using iFlicks, I will continue to use my 2015.

It is not too fair to compare these machines when one is equipped with a HDD.

The bottle neck will be nearly EXCLUSIVELY the SSD. I am shure after installing a fat SATAIII SSD
(7-10-12 times faster than HDDs) for about 200 USD, there will be not much difference.
Exept for the price being payed both the machines…

The already posted performance of 2012 and 2015 machines confirmed that.

Who uses still HDD ?

 

[akswun]

Great points guys/girls......

Just to clarify a few things. I'm not a power user but I use DJ software and the occasional movie rip.. Handbrake... Realistically the hardest work my current 09 does is ripping an .mkv or .avi to .mp4. Even my version of Serato(SSL) doesn't require that much CPU power. I do have a SSD installed and know all about the benefits.
My biggest issue is the newest version of Serato(SeratoDJ) has a minimum spec of i5. My C2D can't handle it and I've noticed usb dropouts and lots of glitches when using SDJ. I can't have any of this when doing paid gigs. I need reliability, hence I use the older un-supported version of Serato.
I want to move to SeratoDJ as I want to buy a newer DJ mixer which has the newest soundcard built in to support SeratoDJ. I can't move forward with the newer software/hardware unless I update my MacbookPro.

I chose the Mid 2012 13" because it is the last version of MBP that you can upgrade yourself. I don't find the Apple premium worth it on the newer line of MBP if I can get an older model with a decent/similar processor and just upgrade the RAM and SSD. And with an optical bay I can add yet another SSD if I wanted to.

But JackieInCo made a good point that the current processors are quad and the 2012 is a dual core. I'm pretty sure there's a difference in power there regardless of RAM and SSD. BUT, the 13" Retina MBP does not come in quad core. Quad core is only available on 15" Retina MBP.

So with the current options for 13" Retina MBP you can max out at 3.1ghz dual core i7(+$240CAD) and 16GB RAM(+$240CAD) for a grand total of $3027 (Tax included)

The 2012 13" MBP that is being offered to me used is going for $800 which is a 2.9ghz dual core i7. Even if I bought the top of the line RAM and 1TB SSD and replaced the battery, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't equal $3027.... let alone 2K.
[doublepost=1453322105][/doublepost]Ok so going through the Apple.ca website and recalling what someone had mentioned that Apple continues to sell this version of MBP.
So with the 2.9ghz processor and basic HD(500gb ATA HD) and only 4GB of RAM it's $1727 after taxes. Def. NOT 3K. On the Crucial website 16GB of RAM is $75. 250GB SSD is cheap as well.
To me this is the best option of MBP for someone on a budget wanting a higher spec'd laptop. Having the option to install your own RAM and SSD is the biggest draw to me.

 

[T5BRICK]

So with the current options for 13" Retina MBP you can max out at 3.1ghz dual core i7(+$240CAD) and 16GB RAM(+$240CAD) for a grand total of $3027 (Tax included)

Crazy that the price difference in Canada is so much. I bought that same computer in April for $2200.

 

[akswun]

Crazy that the price difference in Canada is so much. I bought that same computer in April for $2200.

And considering the current exchange rate due to the falling Canadian dollar it isn't that far off.

 

[JackieInCo]

It is not too fair to compare these machines when one is equipped with a HDD.

The bottle neck will be nearly EXCLUSIVELY the SSD. I am shure after installing a fat SATAIII SSD
(7-10-12 times faster than HDDs) for about 200 USD, there will be not much difference.
Exept for the price being payed both the machines…

The already posted performance of 2012 and 2015 machines confirmed that.

Who uses still HDD ?

I'm sure that a huge amount of people buying the 2012 never replace the stock HD. If they do, it's probably to get a bigger capacity HD such as the 2GB. I'm still using an HD in my 2012 Mini simply because an SSD in that computer doesn't matter to me because it's an iTunes server. It's also connected to two external HD drives.

I'm not sure if I will even replace the HD for an SSD in my 2012. It's not that big of an issue to me. I've thought of replacing it with the 2GB HD myself.

Again, the computer sells today because it gives people options.

 

[akswun]

I'm sure that a huge amount of people buying the 2012 never replace the stock HD. If they do, it's probably to get a bigger capacity HD such as the 2GB. I'm still using an HD in my 2012 Mini simply because an SSD in that computer doesn't matter to me because it's an iTunes server. It's also connected to two external HD drives.

I'm not sure if I will even replace the HD for an SSD in my 2012. It's not that big of an issue to me. I've thought of replacing it with the 2GB HD myself.

Again, the computer sells today because it gives people options.

Storage isn't a problem now a days. But a SSD upgrade def. helps with speed, again, something you're not too worried about.
My problem with regular HD is that they are slow and eventually die. The stock HD in my 09 MBP died in 2012. Luckily I do TM backups, but it wasn't super current so I lost out on some data. But it was a painful ordeal. I upgraded to a SSD which was night and day compared to a regular HD. Not that SSD don't die, the initial SSD(samsung 840) actually died within a year but was replaced by Samsung and continues to work great til this day. Regular HD have moving parts and are at risk for failure. I have a back up for my back up which gives me a peace of mind.

The mid 2012 MBPs are the last of the best IMO. Unless the prices of the current MBP go down significantly, paying over 2K just doesn't seem smart. But I was wrong when I paid $1500 for my 09 MBP which turned out to be one of the greatest investments in my life. But during this period of my life where I'm married and saving for a house, dropping 3K for a laptop seems like a terrible idea.

 

[JackieInCo]

Storage isn't a problem now a days. But a SSD upgrade def. helps with speed, again, something you're not too worried about.
My problem with regular HD is that they are slow and eventually die. The stock HD in my 09 MBP died in 2012. Luckily I do TM backups, but it wasn't super current so I lost out on some data. But it was a painful ordeal. I upgraded to a SSD which was night and day compared to a regular HD. Not that SSD don't die, the initial SSD(samsung 840) actually died within a year but was replaced by Samsung and continues to work great til this day. Regular HD have moving parts and are at risk for failure. I have a back up for my back up which gives me a peace of mind.

The mid 2012 MBPs are the last of the best IMO. Unless the prices of the current MBP go down significantly, paying over 2K just doesn't seem smart. But I was wrong when I paid $1500 for my 09 MBP which turned out to be one of the greatest investments in my life. But during this period of my life where I'm married and saving for a house, dropping 3K for a laptop seems like a terrible idea.

I agree that an SSD will improve things greatly, I never denied that.

Also, I know personally that all hard drives will eventually fail. I spent the last three days copying hundreds of TV shows and movies off of six 1TB drives that I had connected to my Mac Mini. Some of those drives were bought in 2008 and they've managed to last all these years. It was getting harder and harder to access many of those movies and shows on my ATV on those drives. I would get a spinning wheel for many minutes and sometimes, the show wouldn't play at all. Even trying to browse to the actual movie file on the drive it self in finder would take minutes. I managed to get everything that i wanted to save off those drives and onto a 4TB drive I bought this last summer.

Those drives would also make loud noises to where I was thinking I had mice in my walls or floor between the basement and upstairs. One day I realized it was one of those drives and not mice.

I bought that 4TB drive for $110 at BestBuy in June. I can't get a 4TB SSD and I sure can't even get a 500GB SSD for less then $150 or at least a brand that I would trust such as Samsung. I haven't made up my mind yet so I am fine using the stock HD till I do decide.

As far as pricing on the 2012 goes, I bought mine in July at BestBuy when it was on sale for $799. I used my reward certificates to lower the price to just above $700. I wouldn't have ever bought it at the $1099 current price.

 

[snaky69]

It is not too fair to compare these machines when one is equipped with a HDD.

The bottle neck will be nearly EXCLUSIVELY the SSD. I am shure after installing a fat SATAIII SSD
(7-10-12 times faster than HDDs) for about 200 USD, there will be not much difference.
Exept for the price being payed both the machines…

The already posted performance of 2012 and 2015 machines confirmed that.

Who uses still HDD ?

Ripping movies is a 100% CPU(and GPU, if the program can use it) bound process. Same goes for rendering in final cut or any other type of software. Chucking a SSD in a computer will have ZERO effect on performance in that regard.

SSD help speed up moving large amounts of data around and getting this in and out of RAM. Once the stuff is in RAM (ie, ready to be processed) the SSD does nothing for your performance.

 

[MrAverigeUser]

Ripping movies is a 100% CPU(and GPU, if the program can use it) bound process. Same goes for rendering in final cut or any other type of software. Chucking a SSD in a computer will have ZERO effect on performance in that regard.

SSD help speed up moving large amounts of data around and getting this in and out of RAM. Once the stuff is in RAM (ie, ready to be processed) the SSD does nothing for your performance.

I think dependent on RAM and size of file during the converting process there will be several/multiple exchanges of data between CPU/RAM and SSD… (virtual RAM on SSD for outsourcing of RAM-data and reverse etc) ...