13" 2.4 Core 2 Duo vs. 2.2 Core 2 Duo Santa Rosa

[elee888]

Hi everyone,

I've been debating whether or not to upgrade my 3 year old 15" Macbook Pro that has a 2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo (Santa Rosa) to the new 13" 2.4Ghz Macbook Pro. FYI... My current system also has 4GB of RAM. Since both systems are Core 2 Duo, what kind of speed bump am I going to see? Would this be a substantial upgrade?

 

[Eidorian]

Would this be a substantial upgrade?

Not even close.

 

[ayeying]

Not really. You'll see a very very very small marginal increase in speed in normal computing.

 

[Hellhammer]

Not even close.

+1

Plus your current one has dedicated GPU while 13" has integrated 320M which is worse.

 

[elee888]

Thanks for the quick replies. So would this be a serious downgrade then? I want a new laptop with longer battery life. I could buy a new battery for my older model but the old MBP batteries don't last very long compared to models of today.

 

[Eidorian]

You wouldn't see any performance gains worth noting besides the battery life.

 

[Hellhammer]

Thanks for the quick replies. So would this be a serious downgrade then? I want a new laptop with longer battery life. I could buy a new battery for my older model but the old MBP batteries don't last very long compared to models of today.

If you want a better battery, it's worth it. As Eidorian said, it won't be a performance upgrade, more like a downgrade as you now have better GPU

 

[Pax]

The new models run a bit cooler and feel a bit more robust. But otherwise I can't think of a good reason to make the switch. I'd just buy a 2nd battery for your Santa Rosa, that way you'd have 5-6 hours total just like a 13" MBP. The SRs are nice machines, I'm a little bit jealous of people who have them.

 

[Eidorian]

If you want a better battery, it's worth it. As Eidorian said, it won't be a performance upgrade, more like a downgrade as you now have better GPU

I still believe it's a dice roll on the 8600M GT vs. the 320M

 

[Hellhammer]

I still believe it's a dice roll on the 8600M GT vs. the 320M

Regarding to this thread, the 8600M GT is about 15% faster. Another good feature is that it doesn't use your RAM though the failure rate is pretty infamous.

 

[Eidorian]

Regarding to this thread, the 8600M GT is about 15% faster. Another good feature is that it doesn't use your RAM though the failure rate is pretty infamous.

I did limit my earlier statement to "it's a gamble".

 

[Hellhammer]

I did limit my earlier statement to "it's a gamble".

It sure is Dealing with 8600M GT is like playing Russian Roulette, every click may be your last one...

 

[alphaod]

It sure is Dealing with 8600M GT is like playing Russian Roulette, every click may be your last one...

Damn you must have some freakin' huge revolvers.

 

[elee888]

Why is the 8600M a "gamble" or playing Russian Roulette?

 

[Eidorian]

Why is the 8600M a "gamble" or playing Russian Roulette?

Originally we were talking about performance comparisons but we later went to this.

 

[Hellhammer]

Why is the 8600M a "gamble" or playing Russian Roulette?

Because 8600M GT has has extremely high failure rates and some people are saying that all 8600M GTs are defective, meaning that sooner than later it'll fail. Read Eidorian's link, it gives you the idea why it's like Russian Roulette