I suspect the 'genius' was referring to the SSD speeds and because things get paged out when you run out of RAM, the faster SSDs in recent rMBPs does improve in this area but it is still no substitute for having more available RAM. You already have the right advice in this thread - Screen, RAM & SSD size are all important. CPU should really be your last decision since any recent rMBP is very well specified in this regard and only specific uses will require the top end upgrades.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What's more important processor power or RAM?
- Thread starter ImLorelei
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I suspect the 'genius' was referring to the SSD speeds and because things get paged out when you run out of RAM, the faster SSDs in recent rMBPs does improve in this area but it is still no substitute for having more available RAM. You already have the right advice in this thread - Screen, RAM & SSD size are all important. CPU should really be your last decision since any recent rMBP is very well specified in this regard and only specific uses will require the top end upgrades.
Sad thing is that for most things the difference in speed is barley noticeable between 2011 and 2016..
The last significant jump in speed was back in 2011 and since then the main focus has been on battery life and iGPUs.
Unless you really want to spend the money for a new machine then you can put 16GB of RAM and 2x SSD´s in your 2011 MBP and use it for a few more years.. A 2016 MBP will be faster but it´s still in seconds here and there, not minutes
Sad thing is that for most things the difference in speed is barley noticeable between 2011 and 2016..
The last significant jump in speed was back in 2011 and since then the main focus has been on battery life and iGPUs.
Unless you really want to spend the money for a new machine then you can put 16GB of RAM and 2x SSD´s in your 2011 MBP and use it for a few more years.. A 2016 MBP will be faster but it´s still in seconds here and there, not minutes
I will see what the new MacBook Pro's bring when they are announced this year. I was just thinking that the upgrade might be worth it from the 2011 not just for speed but because of the Retina display. Can you even tell the difference with the Retina display?
I may pick up a 2016 MacBook if the MacBook Pro is a bit over kill.
The Retina display is the one big reason to upgrade, its great, especially for text simple as that.
RAM, but that also depends on a lot of things. I would take a quad core with 8 gb vs dual core with 16gb if I was using all cores for my work
The 12" MacBook has a Retina display as well doesn't it? At the moment I'm waiting until Apple announce the MacBook Pro's, but I'm torn between another MacBook Pro or the 2016 MacBook.
Yes it does, your previous post however asked if the retina an display was worth it, it certainly is.
Now if you require portability over performance, and ports and even a bit of battery life the retina MacBook is for you, if not then it's the pro all the way.
Ok thank you, I haven't used a retina MacBook Pro, I've used and own (back home) a 2012 iMac which has a nice display not sure if it's a retina tho. Yes portability and battery life is a bonus for me as I like to use my MacBook's on the go just like my iPad.
I use a similar program, installed it a couple of months ago and must say it helps a lot.
Both are important, you can have the fastest processor in the world, but running on 4 GB of RAM it's going to run like hell if you try to do anything with it. Likewise you could have 128 GB of RAM but if you only have a 1 Ghz single core processor, it's going to run like hell.
A good plan for budget CPU and RAM configurations is 1 GB of RAM per processor core.
If you want something average 2 GB of RAM per processor core.
If you want a the most out of it 4 GB of RAM per processor core.
When I say core, I'm also referring to the hyper-threading core. (Single core i3 has two processing threads so I'm saying 1 GB for each processing thread)
The last thing you want is bottlenecks, so my suggestion is at least 2 GB per core and a dual core i5 (4 threads) @2.5 Ghz and above will be sufficient.
If it's still too slow for you, consider looking at SSDs.
The processor reads data from RAM, if you don't have enough RAM it has to pull from the disk, load it into RAM, then feed it to the processor from the RAM. This is like Windows 95 boot-up slow on today's computers.
Supplying each core with 2 GB of RAM provides the computer enough time to remove unneeded data from RAM, queue up the needed stuff in it's place and feed it to the processor before your computer bogs down. 4 GB is optimal but only necessary in hardcore gaming, video editing, or photoshopping with 100s of layers.
A good plan for budget CPU and RAM configurations is 1 GB of RAM per processor core.
If you want something average 2 GB of RAM per processor core.
If you want a the most out of it 4 GB of RAM per processor core.
When I say core, I'm also referring to the hyper-threading core. (Single core i3 has two processing threads so I'm saying 1 GB for each processing thread)
The last thing you want is bottlenecks, so my suggestion is at least 2 GB per core and a dual core i5 (4 threads) @2.5 Ghz and above will be sufficient.
If it's still too slow for you, consider looking at SSDs.
The processor reads data from RAM, if you don't have enough RAM it has to pull from the disk, load it into RAM, then feed it to the processor from the RAM. This is like Windows 95 boot-up slow on today's computers.
Supplying each core with 2 GB of RAM provides the computer enough time to remove unneeded data from RAM, queue up the needed stuff in it's place and feed it to the processor before your computer bogs down. 4 GB is optimal but only necessary in hardcore gaming, video editing, or photoshopping with 100s of layers.
Yes you are using an SSD, even though it is a fusion drive, CoreStorage places all boot files and commonly used Apps on the SSD until it is filled to an extent, then it places files on the hard drive.
OP, I don't know if you've purchased your new computer yet, but I would go for the RAM almost everytime. Getting the increased clock speed CPUs will not provide as much direct benefit compared to increasing RAM for better multitasking IMO. Also, go for the refurbished unit on the Apple Store. It comes with the same warranty as a brand new model and is cheaper; you can even buy AC+ if you'd like. I purchased a refurb 2012 rMBP back in 2013 and it is still going strong with no issues yet!
If the storage is SSD then better go with Processor, as the cache will utilise the SSD (which is not significantly affect performance compared to conventional storage).
Thank you bhayes444. Not purchased yet as I decided to wait for the new MBP to be announced. As I intend to buy and keep for a few years, I want to ensure I've got the most update-to-date. Current MBP is behaving and performing much better after buying CleanmyMac, so not in a hurry. I will go for the larger RAM and SSD.