new macbook pro: 6GB ram + 250 HD -or- 4GB ram + 128GB SSD??
hello. time for a new machine!
i am really on the fence here. so much so, i havnt pulled the trigger yet. what is best?? price wise they are about the same.
1. getting the stock 13.3 MacBook Pro 2.53GHz with 250GB HD, and switching out a 2GB chip for a 4gb, giving me 6GB of ram? OR
2. getting the stock 13.3 MacBook Pro 2.53GHz with the BTO 128GB SSD?
now, i have a 2.0ghz core 2 duo macbook, 2gb, 80gb drive. originally bought it for internet use, but now use it for work as i quit my job and am freelancing. it just isnt cutting it. i am a graphic designer. my consistent job is a small magazine, using indesign, photoshop and illustrator all at once. i also do motion graphics sometimes, with after effects mainly (sometimes a bit of cinema 4d, but just for "fx," no serious modeling or anything). and, i keep firefox and mail open, as well as calender and other random stuff.
whats going to give me the best overall performance boost? +2GB of ram, or using a SSD as the boot drive? opinions??
i am really on the fence here. so much so, i havnt pulled the trigger yet. what is best?? price wise they are about the same.
1. getting the stock 13.3 MacBook Pro 2.53GHz with 250GB HD, and switching out a 2GB chip for a 4gb, giving me 6GB of ram? OR
2. getting the stock 13.3 MacBook Pro 2.53GHz with the BTO 128GB SSD?
now, i have a 2.0ghz core 2 duo macbook, 2gb, 80gb drive. originally bought it for internet use, but now use it for work as i quit my job and am freelancing. it just isnt cutting it. i am a graphic designer. my consistent job is a small magazine, using indesign, photoshop and illustrator all at once. i also do motion graphics sometimes, with after effects mainly (sometimes a bit of cinema 4d, but just for "fx," no serious modeling or anything). and, i keep firefox and mail open, as well as calender and other random stuff.
whats going to give me the best overall performance boost? +2GB of ram, or using a SSD as the boot drive? opinions??
Comments
1. getting the stock 13.3 MacBook Pro 2.53GHz with 250GB HD, and switching out a 2GB chip for a 4gb, giving me 6GB of ram?
Don't RAM sticks have to be identical?
i am a graphic designer. my consistent job is a small magazine, using indesign, photoshop and illustrator all at once. i also do motion graphics sometimes, with after effects mainly (sometimes a bit of cinema 4d, but just for "fx," no serious modeling or anything). and, i keep firefox and mail open, as well as calender and other random stuff.
Sounds to me you need a 24" iMac or a MacPro with a Cinema Display if you take your profession seriously, rpsx.
An MBP would be a nice, convenient add-on for when you're on the road, but not essential for your business.
whats going to give me the best overall performance boost? +2GB of ram, or using a SSD as the boot drive? opinions??
Both more RAM and using an SSD will speed up operations. And if you insist on using an MBP as your one and only machine, I'd get both!
Got a decent backup system? Can't run a business without it.
I'd stick with the built-in 4GB Ram and upgrade it when you know you are running out if you really want the MB.
The Mac Pro would be a good buy for this sort of thing as mentioned but if the effects work is only a little, the MBP will be more convenient and the entry Mac Pro is way too expensive.
However, don't overlook the refurb Apple section. The machines come with a full warranty and are pretty much brand new. If you are willing to pay $1499 + $400 upgrade = $1899, you can get a quad Mac Pro for $2149:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB...mco=MjE0NDk5Mw
It has 8 Ram slots so you can add lots of Ram much more cheaply. You'd be able to get to 8GB Ram for about $100 extra.
If you want a MBP for convenience and portability, consider this one:
http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB...mco=MjE0NDk5Mw
It has a bigger screen and the 9600M GT video card with dedicated VRam so that video performance doesn't depend on installed Ram for $50 less than the new 13" one. It has two GPUs so if Apple get round to using both, you could see some nice performance boosts in certain apps. Video and effects apps are ideally suited for GPU computation. We won't see much of this until at least September or so when Snow Leopard comes out.
ram modules dont have to be identical. most of the main suppliers i have seen even have 6gb "bundles." i have been taking my profession seriously for the past 10 years, actually. i already have a monitor, so iMac would be redundant, and more expensive. a mac pro is also over my budget. a laptop is a requirement, as though the situation is rare, it is a necessary item for client meetings. i also had the experience this year of spending a nice 16 hour session at a post-production house for a commercial, feeding HD rendered frames for client changes to a inferno artist. again, rare - but, laptop absolutely necessary.
and to make the original request extra clear - the words to stress are "price wise they are about the same" - meaning i am looking to spend about that, not more. otherwise, i would just buy both without even asking. the problem is, after a few hours scouring the net, there seems to be no clear answer as to which is a better day-to-day performance upgrade - more ram, or an SSD. that, sir, is the question. but, thanks for your extra input.
mr marvin,
i did not know about the integrated graphics performance boost with the paired ram modules. yes, the 4gb modules are not cheap, thus the choice between one module or an SSD. i did not consider either a refub mac pro - but, here in japan, that same refurb model is $2400
i was on the fence about the value of the 9600M GT. and, your suggestion made me take a close look at the snow leopard page at apple.com. and, now i am even more unsure! but, maybe in a good way. in fact, with grand central AND open CL, that mac pro might actually be the way to go. i read that adobe products really only use 2 processors at a time, thus quad vs duo difference is not super significant... today. hmmm.... though, adobe is quite unreliable in its upgrades and quality control these days.
lots to think about. thanks for your insight!
If storage space isn't a concern, I would go with the SSD. Disk access is the bigger bottleneck in modern computers, IMO, and RAM amounts greater than 4GB aren't useful for normal people (those who need more, know they need more).
SSDs are certainly not a superfast miracle solution:
A common concern with the current crop of Solid State Drives is the performance penalty associated with block-rewriting.
Flash memory is comprised of cells that usually contain 4KB pages that are arranged in blocks of 512KB. When a cell is unused, data can be written to it relatively quickly. But if a cell already contains some data, even if it fills only a single page in the block, the entire block must be re-written. This means that whatever data is already present in the block must be read, then it must be combined or replaced, and the entire block is then re-written. This process takes much longer than simply writing data straight to an empty block.
This isn't a concern on fresh, new SSDs, but over time, as files are written, moved, deleted, or replaced, many blocks are a left holding what is essentially orphaned or garbage data, and their long-term performance degrades because of it.
To mitigate this problem, virtually all SSD manufacturers have incorporated, or soon will incorporate, "garbage collection schemes" into their SSD firmware which actively seek out and remove the garbage data. OCZ, in combination with Indilinx, is poised to release new firmware for their entire line-up of Vertex Series SSDs that performs active garbage collection while the drives are idle, in order to restore performance to like-new condition, even on a severely 'dirtied' drive.
OCZ and Indilinx Collaborate On New SSD Garbage Collection Scheme/
But it ain't on the market yet!
SSDs are certainly not a superfast miracle solution:
A common concern with the current crop of Solid State Drives is the performance penalty associated with block-rewriting.
Flash memory is comprised of cells that usually contain 4KB pages that are arranged in blocks of 512KB. When a cell is unused, data can be written to it relatively quickly. But if a cell already contains some data, even if it fills only a single page in the block, the entire block must be re-written. This means that whatever data is already present in the block must be read, then it must be combined or replaced, and the entire block is then re-written. This process takes much longer than simply writing data straight to an empty block.
This isn't a concern on fresh, new SSDs, but over time, as files are written, moved, deleted, or replaced, many blocks are a left holding what is essentially orphaned or garbage data, and their long-term performance degrades because of it.
To mitigate this problem, virtually all SSD manufacturers have incorporated, or soon will incorporate, "garbage collection schemes" into their SSD firmware which actively seek out and remove the garbage data. OCZ, in combination with Indilinx, is poised to release new firmware for their entire line-up of Vertex Series SSDs that performs active garbage collection while the drives are idle, in order to restore performance to like-new condition, even on a severely 'dirtied' drive.
OCZ and Indilinx Collaborate On New SSD Garbage Collection Scheme/
But it ain't on the market yet!
It's true that some drives handle block rewrites badly, but some drives do very well. See this article: A closer look at fresh versus used SSD performance. Those firmware updates OCZ is talking about are mainly to help drives with cheap flash controllers (Indilinx) cope. Good modern drives, like from Intel and Samsung, are much less affected by the block rewrite penalty.
I don't know what drives Apple uses. Cheaper to upgrade it yourself, anyway.