2.6GHz vs 2.3GHz Macbook Retina

Started Jul 4, 2012 | Discussions thread
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,144
Re: 2.6GHz vs 2.3GHz Macbook Retina

Tom_N wrote:

gatorowl wrote:

I too vote for the 2.3 version. I can't justify spending an extra $600 just to get the bigger SSD (yes, I'm totally discounting the speed increase).

I'm going to wait and hope that Apple adds the 512GB as an upgrade option after Christmas.

I believe that most of that $600 is for the bigger SSD.

If you upgrade the 2.6 GHz model to have a 2.7 GHz CPU and a 768 GB SSD, you pay $250 for the CPU speed bump, and $500 for the extra 256 GB of SSD space. Apply the same relative pricing to the $600, and you're probably paying $200 to get the 2.6 GHz CPU, and $400 to get the upgrade to the 512 GB SSD.

In the interest of being frugal–and having a very limited budget–I'd rather just pay the $400 for what I need instead of $600 to pick up a very marginally faster chip as well.

Lee Beasley wrote:

My 11" MBA is a 1.8 GHz processor with 4MB of RAM, and it's extremely fast. I just love it. I'm really thinking that the 2.3 GHz/16 MB RAM combo would do everything I like to do with no problems, too. I'm not so concerned about the extra HD storage space as I used to be. 256 MB is really OK in a laptop. After all, I can work on a project and then store it elsewhere. I'd like to have the 512 MB SSD, but I don't see it as critical.

I kind of think that I can get by with 256GB as well, but I'm not sure. I currently travel with a MBA with 256GB of storage. It hasn't been a problem yet, but I want my next laptop to last 2-3 years.

Anyway, I'm not in a hurry, and the January updates may add 512GB to the low-end model or provide it as a $400 bto option. Therefore, I'm going to wail.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow