2.93ghz vs 2.66ghz on new 17" unibody mbp

212rikanmofo · Jan 12, 2009, 02:27 PM

I can't really decide if its really worth the extra $300 to upgrade to a 2.93ghz? I wil lbe using this as a main desktop replacement machine. I will be taking it with me to work everyday. I am a graphic designer so I use mostly the adobe creative suite apps and also do some photography, and edit movies as a hobby on the side using iMovie.

Will there be a big and noticeable difference on the 2.93ghz vs. the 2.66ghz? I'm guessing it will be better since the 17" has a higher resolution screen, which means more pixels it needs to process. 1920x1200 instead of 1440x900 compared to the 15" unibody mbp.

Next Tuesday · Jan 12, 2009, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 212rikanmofo

I can't really decide if its really worth the extra $300 to upgrade to a 2.93ghz? I wil lbe using this as a main desktop replacement machine. I will be taking it with me to work everyday. I am a graphic designer so I use mostly the adobe creative suite apps and also do some photography, and edit movies as a hobby on the side using iMovie.

Will there be a big and noticeable difference on the 2.93ghz vs. the 2.66ghz? I'm guessing it will be better since the 17" has a higher resolution screen, which means more pixels it needs to process. 1920x1200 instead of 1440x900 compared to the 15" unibody mbp.

Its always a good idea to get the highest processor out at the time. Will future proof it .27 more.

detz · Jan 12, 2009, 02:37 PM

What do you use it for? I doubt you will notice a difference at all. Put the $300 towards Ram and/or SSD for a more boost for your dollar.

mBox · Jan 12, 2009, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by detz

What do you use it for? I doubt you will notice a difference at all. Put the $300 towards Ram and/or SSD for a more boost for your dollar.

If you have the cash go for it. I for one never see the jump at .3 or less in speed. I do a lot of 3D and Motion Design and those apps usually need Video and RAM power plus faster bus speeds.
Ive learned this from MacPros and Uber expensive PC Workstations.
Dont get me wrong, as a consumer looking at a personal MBP, Im fighting with the fear of the Quad coming out earlier than summer :P
Ive tried to research the diff between current dual-core vs quad-core and havent found anything to support this.

kastenbrust · Jan 12, 2009, 02:45 PM

Theres already threads about this but it boils down to if your really a pro or not. Video work, Flash and Photoshop will be aided by the faster processor, but for other uses save your money.

sebasti · Jan 12, 2009, 02:50 PM

I posted similar topic about 2.66 vs 2.93 which is still on the first page :P

After thinking about the issue personally I decided to go with the 2.93. Everything looses value over the time and power comes obsolete. The processor is the one thing I can't upgrade (atleast easily) in future. Year from now there's no processor I could even install to old by-that-time antique motherboard.. however prices of ram and SSDs are likely to half where capasity will double.

mBox · Jan 12, 2009, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sebasti

.. however prices of ram and SSDs are likely to half where capasity will double.

good thought there

$300 isnt so bad at the moment for the bump in speed. $1600 (CAD) for and extra 4GB however is hard to swallow :P If you can find a home for the existing 2x2GB DD3, then bumping it up to 8GB would make sense. I always find that if/when that ever happens I just end up buying the latest and greatest system

jjahshik32 · Jan 12, 2009, 03:08 PM

If your not going to upgrade for a while, then I'd say whats $300 dollars in the next 3-4 years anyway? Go ahead and do it!

Jan 12, 2009, 02:27 PM	#1
212rikanmofo macrumors regular Join Date: Jan 2003	2.93ghz vs 2.66ghz on new 17" unibody mbp I can't really decide if its really worth the extra $300 to upgrade to a 2.93ghz? I wil lbe using this as a main desktop replacement machine. I will be taking it with me to work everyday. I am a graphic designer so I use mostly the adobe creative suite apps and also do some photography, and edit movies as a hobby on the side using iMovie. Will there be a big and noticeable difference on the 2.93ghz vs. the 2.66ghz? I'm guessing it will be better since the 17" has a higher resolution screen, which means more pixels it needs to process. 1920x1200 instead of 1440x900 compared to the 15" unibody mbp.

Jan 12, 2009, 03:08 PM	#8
jjahshik32 macrumors 68040 Join Date: Sep 2006	If your not going to upgrade for a while, then I'd say whats $300 dollars in the next 3-4 years anyway? Go ahead and do it! __________________ 2.26GHz 8-core Nehalem Mac Pro, ATI 4870, 16GB RAM, WD3000HLFS Raptor + 24" LED ACD (on an ergotron MX arm) 17" 2.8GHz MBP

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Jan 12, 2009, 02:37 PM	#3
detz macrumors 6502a Join Date: Jun 2007	What do you use it for? I doubt you will notice a difference at all. Put the $300 towards Ram and/or SSD for a more boost for your dollar.

Jan 12, 2009, 02:45 PM	#5
kastenbrust Banned Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: North Korea	Theres already threads about this but it boils down to if your really a pro or not. Video work, Flash and Photoshop will be aided by the faster processor, but for other uses save your money.

Jan 12, 2009, 02:50 PM	#6
sebasti macrumors newbie Join Date: Nov 2008	I posted similar topic about 2.66 vs 2.93 which is still on the first page :P After thinking about the issue personally I decided to go with the 2.93. Everything looses value over the time and power comes obsolete. The processor is the one thing I can't upgrade (atleast easily) in future. Year from now there's no processor I could even install to old by-that-time antique motherboard.. however prices of ram and SSDs are likely to half where capasity will double.