Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Customize a Macbook Pro

J

Jim Klatt

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I have been operating off the dual-core intel 3 ghz mac pro for the last few years. I also use a 23 inch Cinema Display.

I am extremely tempted by the portability of a Macbook Pro, so I was thinking of selling my MacPro and getting a refurb. I am guessing that my biggest loss will be render times and expandability.

So, I am thinking:

17-inch hi-res matte(or anti-glare LED) monitor.
4 Gigs of Ram
the older intel core duo 2 with 2 firewire and the express card slot
at least 200 GB hard drive

Beyond that, I was hoping for some input on what would really maximize my
power and speed. (besides a $2500 Kona card, of course).
 
Ok .. do this (is what I did).

MacBook Pro
3.06 ghz Processor
8 gigs of RAM.
Highest capacity SSD storage (yes go solid state).
And Im having some guys spec out replacing my CD ROM for another SSD Storage Slot (cause i never really use my CD Rom- I would use the express slot/esata more than a CD rom reader/burner -- word to the wise.. it will void your APPLE WARRANTY)

Yes , get the 17 inch version (for that e-sata expandability option).- and the (non-glare non-glossy screen- those are annoying)

If you REALLY WANT to get all fancy-dancy, there is a dual screen external box from http://Matrox.com for your laptop (in a way its dual screen.. but there are no dual video ports from the MacBook Pro, as much as you would think there would have been).
 
Joseph - How does 8 GB run with os x ? I heard that people had trouble over 6 GB...

I've seen specs for solid state, but how is the real-world performance advantage for you over the sata drive? cheers.
 
I decided to wait til the SSD drives expand their storage capacity and the price comes down some. It is just too much for too little at this point. I think next year we will see a price more relative to actual value. (hopefully the same goes for the 4 GB Ram sticks...they are resting at the edge of Apple's bleeding edge so I went with 4 GB to start.)

I wouldn't have pulled the trigger on the new models unless they had the express card slot. That was crucial, otherwise I would have gone with the older 2.6 models.

Now I just have to wait for my bto!
 
Jim: OS X runs great with 8 GB, and with 16 GB. (I can't speak about 32 GB, but I've never heard anything to suggest any problem there either.) You can buy a good, tested, reliable memory upgrade from OWC (macsales.com) when you need it (and if you shoot 4K you will) for a lot less than from Apple.

I think the 6 GB issue you may have heard about is that there are some situations where the new Nehalem-processor Mac Pros (not the Macbook Pros) are faster with 6 GB than with 8GB of ram. It has to do with the memory architecture on those processors -- nothing to do with OS X at all.
 
I also would be interested in Jims question, what really maximizes Power and speed of a MBP. Ram, Ghz, Graphic Prozessors, drives?
Im working with After Effects that does like Open GL Graphic cards.
Do the Prozessors in a new MBP support Open GL 2.0?
 
For the fastest MBP, get fastest processor, the fastest, largest drive, and as much RAM as you can get (but don't buy RAM from Apple, they overcharge for it).
I don't know for sure about Open GL for sure, but the G8600M in the last generation MBP does, so I expect the new one would.
I think the SS drives are small for the video world, and don't have the write speeds to justify the cost yet. Conventional HD speeds fall as you fill the drive up, so larger = faster as well as more space.
If you really want to trick it out, replace the DVD drive with a 2nd HD and raid them.
 
OpenGL 2.0 (2.2 I think, actually) is supported on the MBP. It's part of OSX. The GPUs in the systems determine just how much of the functionality is accelerated by hardware as opposed to being handled on the CPU.

The current nVidia 9400M (all MBP models) is a decent graphics chip. The 17" and some 15" configs can also have the 9600M GT added as an option. And it boots OpenGL and 3D apps by quite a bit. It's one of the best mobile GPUs going right now.

To maximize performance on a MBP, some of the puzzle is application-specific. But in general, the faster CPU and more RAM are the best way to maximize performance in computationally-intensive applications. A faster drive is also necessary to make load times and data transfers to/from disk operate faster. I personally wouldn't recommend a SSD drive in these systems. The cost is way too high in relation to any benefits and the capacities are rather low. Go for a 7200rpm HDD and move on. Put the money into an eSATA RAID (you'll need that expresscard slot) and use that for your workspace drive. You'll be much happier. Save the Firewire 800 port for offloading RED or other media formats. It's an OK solution too for external HDD options, but it's roughly 1/4 the speed as eSATA and has much higher latency.

As for memory amounts, I recommend 4GB in the current MBP systems. 8GB would be even better, but once again, the cost is not very economical unless you need that much RAM every day. The only issues I've ever read/heard about or encountered with OSX and RAM over certain capacities is with some of the older iMac and MBP models (like the one I own) as Intel and Apple were making the 32 to 64 bit hardware transition. Most MBP models from 2~3 years ago still have 32bit memory controllers and can't physically address more than 4GB total system addresses, which means that you can only use about 3.5GB of RAM. So installing the full 4GB allowed in those older systems is pointless and installing 3GB of mis-matched RAM sacrifices performance, so many of us will suffer with 2GB because it still holds the performance level up. Many people had problems with larger RAM amounts in the '06 Mac Pro systems because of operator error. Too many people buying the base configuration with 1GB (2x512MB) and installing mismatched module sets, effectively cutting their performance by 60%.

OSX loves lots of memory, it thrives on lots of memory and performs beautifully. Anyone who tells you otherwise isn't paying attention. I recommend 16GB in an 8-core Mac Pro. As soon as 4GB modules drop in price in the next 6 to 8 months or so and more applications go native 64bit with Snow Leopard, then 24 to 32 GB of RAM will become highly desirable.

8GB in a Macbook Pro will also be a good idea at that point and 4GB SODIMM prices should come down out of the stratosphere by then.
 
Just a small correction: the 9600M display adapter is not an option in the new 17" Macbook Pros, it is standard. They come with two display adapters -- the nVidia 9400M for greater power efficiency and an nVidia 9600M for when you want the power it offers (and uses). Pretty slick for 3-D and probably for Open GL as well.
 
Jeff...
Thank you for very detailed answer!
But the 17" would just be to giant for my laptop use, cause I'm also a writer and need it to be portable. Would you than reccomend an older series to get the card slot? Till now on my musicvideo shoots I worked with 4 • 8 gb cards, a fire wire 800 reader and two USB drives,on a mbp just doing drag and drop and had no problems. By reading the posts in the forum I'm feeling like an unprofessional. I can't afford much money but need a portable book I can write, transfer data on set, edit and grade in AEF (because of my photoshop backround) with. I also use a great calibratet monitor. With the chance of coming around like a fool I would appreciate if you (or anyone else) would take the time to give me advice what minimum MBP I'd need, cause my local apple store can't...
 
Kim, I am going with the 17' inch because the smaller ones do not even have an express card slot (and there is only one firewire 800 slot) AND it is the only size that has a high resolution monitor option. The high res option offers native 1920 x 1080, which is the same as the cinema display.

I have heard some people using Logic Mainstage can only function flawlessly with the 17', anything less is not to be counted on.

The performance benefits of a 17 inch make those extra few pounds worth it imo. I know that I wouldn't have traded in my Mac Pro and Cinema Display if I had to live by the 15' and under specs.

As far as the older MBP's go, I was leaning towards the 2.6 Intel Core Duo 2(since it has 2 firewire and 1 express card slot, but it was too hard to stomach spending so much money on an older machine, with the older graphics card.
 
You may be right...
But the 17" is such a giant machine.
The question to me is having a portable book and getting a mac pro later on or getting and staying with the big MBP. Do you think the big 17" really does the job? (also in terms of increasing data rates of the future )
 
Yes, David is correct, the 9600M is included as standard on the 17".

Kim, going to a previous generation model of the 15" is a good solution if you need the expresscard slot. But that comes down to what you need the system to do and how much external storage bandwidth and connectivity options you need.

Don't worry about feeling unprofessional. :) The expresscard and faster external storage solutions are hotly discussed topics around here because many people are desperately seeking faster and faster mobile workflows for transferring and managing data. But not everyone needs this.

Personally, if I were looking to buy a 15" MBP, I would go with a previous generation model. You get the expresscard slot and should be able to find a model with the graphics chip and CPU to fit your needs. HDD and RAM can be upgraded at any time very easily. The previous generation models are a good way to save a little money too. Not too hard to find one and many Apple stores or retailers who have them are eager to discount them by 15% or so compared to a new model.

I agree on the extra bulk of the 17". While they are not much bigger overall -- about 1.2" longer by almost another inch added in the other direction, still 1" thick. They are heavier and require a larger bag, more space in a backpack. They are physically larger to use when you flip them open, not great for on an airplane...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top