New haswell 13 rmbppro vs 15 rmbp

[zeiter]

Hello there,

I would like to know if with the integrated graphic cards of the 13 inch, is it enough to use as a main post processing machine connected to an external display. I am buying this machine for the next 4-5 years. In a way, I think the 15 inch would be better, but with the money saved, I could buy a nice monitor. (currently have dell u2312hm)!

We don't know yet if the 13" will allow 16GB of ram. Is 8GB enough for the next few years? what about processor speed vs 15" (quadcore)? Of course, the 15 will have a faster graphic cards too...

Dilemma..

 

[Bear]

...
I would like to know if with the integrated graphic cards of the 13 inch, is it enough to use as a main post processing machine connected to an external display. I am buying this machine for the next 4-5 years. In a way, I think the 15 inch would be better, but with the money saved, I could buy a nice monitor. (currently have dell u2312hm)!

We don't know yet if the 13" will allow 16GB of ram. Is 8GB enough for the next few years? what about processor speed vs 15" (quadcore)? Of course, the 15 will have a faster graphic cards too...

Dilemma..

Apple has not announced the Haswell MBP update yet. Until then, some of your questions cannot be answered. Who knows what graphics options will be in either model. And who knows which processors will be used.

As for 8GB vs 16GB, We would need to know more about what applications you will be using. Not all photo management and editing applications have the same requirements.

 

[zeiter]

Apple has not announced the Haswell MBP update yet. Until then, some of your questions cannot be answered. Who knows what graphics options will be in either model. And who knows which processors will be used.

As for 8GB vs 16GB, We would need to know more about what applications you will be using. Not all photo management and editing applications have the same requirements.

I will be using LR5!

I know Apple hasn't announced anything yet. I am making these assumptions with the current lines. Right now, the 13 inch can only pack 8GB and has a dualcore cpu. The 15" can include up to 16GB of ram and is a quadcore.

 

[zeiter]

so now that we know the new macbook pro retinas. Is 13 inch enough for the next couple of years with the Iris 5100 or would I be better with Iris pro 5200 or even better with the nvidia card. Also, does dual core vs quad core make a lot of difference using Lightroom 5?

remember, i want to use this computer for the next 4-5 years.

Thank you

 

[kingalexthe1st]

I think it depends on how much you will use the machine for. Is this for professional use or are you a hobbyist?

I currently use my 2 year old macbook air 13" (4gb ram) and it's fine with LR5. There's a lag of 1 or 2s going from grid view to develop (and vice versa) but other than that it just flies. I process around 10-15 photos per day (out of about 40-50 shot) as I'm travelling and have lots of things to take photos of So if you're not going to be doing hundreds of photos per shoot then I think the 13" rMBP will suit you fine for the time frame you expect. BUT, let's hear from some rMBP owners first. Take my post with a pinch of salt.

Alex

 

[Puckman]

At face value, I'd say:

1. 15" bigger screen size, crucial for photography editing, IMHO. External monitor would help if you have the 13".

2. More RAM for sure, for LR and such apps (I would recommend at least 8G, preferably 16G).

3. Quad core vs. Dual Core. Maybe not as crucial in photo editing. But definitely a plus if you do any kind of video editing or encoding.

For the money, I'd go with the 15", 16G RAM, Quad core option.
Of course, budget considerations apply.

 

[zeiter]

At face value, I'd say:

1. 15" bigger screen size, crucial for photography editing, IMHO. External monitor would help if you have the 13".

2. More RAM for sure, for LR and such apps (I would recommend at least 8G, preferably 16G).

3. Quad core vs. Dual Core. Maybe not as crucial in photo editing. But definitely a plus if you do any kind of video editing or encoding.

For the money, I'd go with the 15", 16G RAM, Quad core option.
Of course, budget considerations apply.

how is the 13 vs 15 in terms of portability? I plan to use half the time the computer in clamshell mode using a dell u2713hm

 

[Puckman]

how is the 13 vs 15 in terms of portability? I plan to use half the time the computer in clamshell mode using a dell u2713hm

I couldn't tell you. I don't own either, seeing as they came out today.
But I do have the Dell 2713 and really love it.
I use my 2012 Air in clamshell mode most of the time.

I would compare the weights of the 13" and 15" retinas, but both are going to be pretty light and slim. So to me, that's not a big factor unless you travel a lot and need it on a daily basis. And even then, the 15" is probably pretty portable nowadays.

 

[Laird Knox]

I'm using a 13" 2011 MBP and find it very capable. I only do test edits and such on the road. My main library is on a PC desktop. I am, however, editing 36MP files in 16 bit and don't have any issues with it. Even with several layers in a Photoshop document. LR runs really well.

Initially the only upgrade I made to it was moving to 16GB RAM. This summer I installed an SSD but couldn't complain with the performance prior to the upgrade.

With 16GB and an external monitor I think you will have a very capable workstation.

 

[SilverOath]

Hello there,

I would like to know if with the integrated graphic cards of the 13 inch, is it enough to use as a main post processing machine connected to an external display. I am buying this machine for the next 4-5 years. In a way, I think the 15 inch would be better, but with the money saved, I could buy a nice monitor. (currently have dell u2312hm)!

We don't know yet if the 13" will allow 16GB of ram. Is 8GB enough for the next few years? what about processor speed vs 15" (quadcore)? Of course, the 15 will have a faster graphic cards too...

Dilemma..

The 13 and 15 really service two different markets.

Portability (13 )> 15): They're both relatively light compared to your traditional notebooks, and I never felt that the 15 was very heavy... but it was bulky, and definitely a bit more to lug around. If you're going to travel frequently the 13 is definitely better than the 15.

Power (15 >>> 13): Don't be fooled by their processor speeds, as the 13 is dual core, and the 15 is a quad core which is very considerable in terms of performance. The 15 also has integrated graphics, which is good if you plan to do anything more than very light gaming. However, real world benefits of these tend to relate more with what you will be using.

I'd really say if you're main purposes are going to be browsing, watching videos, messaging, word processing, home/hobbyists photo/videos, extremely light gaming the 13 will be a great machine. They both sport solid state drives and most of these functions are going to be near instant. The 13 will have plenty of power to power a 2560 display (current top tier), but may be sluggish when the 4k displays are released.

The 15 becomes a game changer if you do any moderate level of gaming, do really computational heavy stuff such as frequent video editing, compiling for programs, etc. They'll also be a little more capable given if you consider upgrading to a 4k display in the next few years.

In many ways computers have really exceeded the requirements for most software for your average, and slightly above average user. That's why they're focusing on longevity (better battery life) over performance -- so don't need to be as concerned about it being outdated in a year or two because you got the lower end model. That's why so many people with 2008+ dual cores, and a SSD are still quite happy with their machines -- because in every day use there isn't much of a improvement almost 6 years later.

 

[phrehdd]

Go for the better cpu and gpu. Don't worry about screen size but rather be prepared to use a regular monitor attached for more critical work. As always, consider calibrating both the laptop and regular monitor screens for accuracy and if need be matching between them.

As for RAM, always a good idea to try to have an option to have as much as you can. 16 is the better option than 8. You may not need it exactly now but as software seems to take more and more advantage, it is a worthy goal.

I work with a quad 2.0 Mac Mini with 16 gigs of RAM and an SSD. I use Photoshop, sometimes Lightroom and RAW conversion with Capture One Pro. The Mac Mini set up as above works reasonably well and I have no complaints.

 

[zeiter]

Go for the better cpu and gpu. Don't worry about screen size but rather be prepared to use a regular monitor attached for more critical work. As always, consider calibrating both the laptop and regular monitor screens for accuracy and if need be matching between them.

As for RAM, always a good idea to try to have an option to have as much as you can. 16 is the better option than 8. You may not need it exactly now but as software seems to take more and more advantage, it is a worthy goal.

I work with a quad 2.0 Mac Mini with 16 gigs of RAM and an SSD. I use Photoshop, sometimes Lightroom and RAW conversion with Capture One Pro. The Mac Mini set up as above works reasonably well and I have no complaints.

This is what is preoccupying me...in the long run, maybe i should get that quadcore and 5200 right even though I prefer the 13 inch size...it's just about $500 more with taxes that is hard to swallow...

 

[Macshroomer]

I'm using a 13" 2011 MBP and find it very capable. I only do test edits and such on the road. My main library is on a PC desktop. I am, however, editing 36MP files in 16 bit and don't have any issues with it. Even with several layers in a Photoshop document. LR runs really well.

I currently work with 36MP raw files ( less and less digital these days thankfully ) and very large film scans either on my 3.33 6 core MacPro which is maxed out or my 13" 2009 MacBook pro with twin SSD drives, 8GB of ram. I shoot professionally, I am starting to rely on the portable more so I am upgrading it this time around. I am getting the 13", 2.8 i7, 16GB ram, 512 PCI-e SSD. I stopped using 15" MacBook's some time ago, just to bulky for travel, will never go back to them regardless of specs.

As far as editing, I can easily do that on any machine, because editing is choosing and culling photos or splicing footage, not altering the content, color and tone of the photos, that is called processing. I am not sure when amateur camera owners or professional photographers started getting lazy and calling it editing, I suspect it might have been around the time we started hearing "Nice Capture", another lame label. A Photo Editor at a publication does not alter the content of the photo, a copy editor may alter the content of the text so it applies.

So yeah, you can easily edit on the 13", just choose the photos you either want to cull or work with, simple.