Performance Comparison

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by swwack91, Feb 17, 2007.

  1. swwack91 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #1
    I'm interested in purchasing a new MBP :apple:

    I'm just wondering, for about the same price, which system would yield higher performance (the most taxing apps i'll be using will be for video editing and graphics)

    15" 2.16GHz with 3GB of RAM
    or
    15" 2.33GHz with 2 GB of RAM

    thanks for any advice
     
  2. dllavaneras macrumors 68000

    dllavaneras

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    Caracas, Venezuela
    #2
    I'd say the 3GB RAM option will do better than the extra .17 GHz one. And it'll let you have more apps open at once :)
     
  3. Zwhaler macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #3
    I would go for the 2.16 with 3GB if I were you, because you would benefit more from the RAM then the tiny increase in CPU.
     
  4. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #4
    no

    I do agree that 3G RAM will perform better, but CPU is harder to replace than RAM, so u can buy the 2.33GHZ with 2G RAM and add RAM yourself later.
     
  5. suneohair macrumors 68020

    suneohair

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    #5
    2.33, better graphics, faster cpu. The memory upgrade to 3GB is too much for the slight increase in performance.

    When prices drop, get 2GB stick and slap it in for much much less. You will have a better machine that way.
     
  6. Habusho macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2006
    #6
    It really depends on the application you're running. If it's a very cpu intensive app then the faster cpu might be a little better. Apps like photoshop though react better with more ram.
     
  7. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #7
    An extra consideration, incase people have forgotten, is that two 1GB sticks will work together at twice the speed of one 2GB stick. You do not get this benefit with mismatched sticks. I would say the 2.33GHz with 2GB RAM would be best, because the RAM would run at up to twice the speed as the 3GB in the other, as well as being far less expensive.

    I vote for the 2.33.
     
  8. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #8
    No, not nearly TWICE the speed - maybe 6% faster real-world, that's it.
     
  9. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #9
    Aww man! Can we have extra input here?

    We need a third, fourth and fifth opinion, at least, on this issue.
     
  10. taylorwilsdon macrumors 68000

    taylorwilsdon

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #10
    OSX doesn't even utilize dual channel memory, so using two matched sticks offers NO advantage.
     
  11. e12a macrumors 68000

    e12a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    #11
    There was a thread earlier about this. the largest increase was 11% opening up iTunes. So basically, if you want to open up iTunes 11% faster, spend hundreds to get that 2 gb stick. I say it is not cost effective.

    If OS X doesnt use dual channel, does bootcamp utilize it through Windows?
     
  12. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #12
    What are you on about?
    http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/MacBookPro_17inch_TechOverview.pdf
    "For a performance improvement when working with large files, two easy-access slots allow you to upgrade your MacBook Pro with up to 2GB of memory. And if both slots are loaded with an equal amount of RAM, you can take advantage of the system’s dual-channel memory architecture for an additional performance boost. With a dualchannel memory interface, both banks of SDRAM can be addressed at the same time, achieving memory throughput of up to 10.7 GBps."
     
  13. Erasmus macrumors 68030

    Erasmus

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Location:
    Hiding from Omnius in Australia
    #13
    I'm sure Windows uses it, although I don't know to what extent. My PC gamer friend was commenting on the choice of 3GB maximum RAM on the MBP for just this reason.

    Geez... Only like 5%... I had no idea... I was thinking at least 50%...
     
  14. swwack91 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #14
    I've noticed that the tech brief that you linked to is about the older Core Duo MBP model. The way it says "up to 2GB of memory" infers that that's the maximum.

    Now with C2D's the max is 3GB.... so could your statistic have completely changed since that tech guide was published?
     
  15. smueboy macrumors 6502a

    smueboy

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Location:
    Oz
    #15
    I would go for the 2.33 C2D.
    RAM is easy to upgrade in the future, plus the 2.33 comes with a 256MB video card (as opposed to 128MB in the 2.16) which will be helpful if you are doing video editing etc.
     
  16. swwack91 thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2007
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #16
    i think i will just go for the 2.33 with 2GB....

    i'm workin' on a PC with 1GB of RAM (barely compatible sticks) and a 2.0GHz single core, no HT P4....EVERYTHING AND ANYTHING IS AN IMPROVEMENT

    lol, thanks guys
     
  17. phungy macrumors 68020

    phungy

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Location:
    FL/NY/TX
    #17
    Another vote for the 2.33Ghz. Like others have said, you get better processor and better graphics card. Both of which you won't be able to upgrade in the future.
     
  18. IEatApples macrumors 6502a

    IEatApples

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Location:
    Northern Hemisphere (Norway)
    #18
    So... :confused:

    What's the answer here?

    Is 2x1GB matched sticks better then a combo of 1GB+2GB?

    I've been searching all over for an answer to this question.

    Please, does anyone know the difference in performance?

    Is it worth the upgrade? :confused:
     

Share This Page