Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

13" 2.4 or 2.66? Is it worth the $300???

P

parrothead123

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jan 10, 2010
5
0
So, I really want to get a MBP and think I have narrowed it down to the 13" since portability is key for me and I want to try to keep it afordable. I will be using it a lot for preparing presentations, surfing, e-mail, photos (iphoto from dSLR) and making home movies in imovie (1080i from Sony HDR-SR8). I need some advice. Do you think a 13" 2.4 would suffice? Should I spend the $300 on upgrading the RAM to 8gb? Or should I step up to the i5? Thanks for any advice.
 
The low-end is fine for you. That 300$ is for almost nothing, you should then pay some more to get i5. Spend the money on SSD instead
 
Adding an SSD will give you much more performance than stepping up the processor.

Go for an SSD 100%.
 
if u have the extra cash, go with the 2.4ghz 15" with an ssd! otherwise i think your current choice should be alright.
 
Given that you're looking to do some more high-end stuff, it might pay off to go the high road and get the 2.66GHz. Here's why:

The 2.4GHz is a great machine, don't get me wrong. In fact, even when you're doing 1080i video editing or organizing high resolution photos, the 2.4GHz is a fine computer. But let's say that 3-4 years down the road, you're still doing the same things (HD editing, etc.) — you might be needing a larger hard drive by that point. On top of that, more speed is going to be more helpful particularly as your computer ages.

Now, going the i5 route with a 15" MacBook Pro, you probably would see a difference (faster machine, better graphics card, larger screen obviously). But you're also sacrificing portability. So then it comes down to a question of how useful these extras would be in the long run. I can tell you that from experience, I wish my MacBook Pro was a 13" — the 15" is just a little too bulky for my taste.

So it's a trade off. More power for the long haul vs. more portability (and of course, more money). If I had to choose, I'd probably go high end 13" and get the 2.66GHz. Hope that helps.
 
Thanks

I appreciate the advice. The problem is that the SSD is so much more expensive. Is it really worth the price especially since I'll probably be storing a lot of pics and video on it and would want at least 256gb? Is the 2.66 much faster than the 2.4? Thanks again.
 
parrothead123 said:
I appreciate the advice. The problem is that the SSD is so much more expensive. Is it really worth the price especially since I'll probably be storing a lot of pics and video on it and would want at least 256gb? Is the 2.66 much faster than the 2.4? Thanks again.
Click to expand...

You could replace the HD with aftermarket SSD (e.g. 80GB Intel) and then replace the SuperDrive with the HD. OS X and apps in SSD, other stuff in HD.

2.66GHz is ~10% faster but it will only effect when doing something CPU intensive e.g. encoding
 
the 2.66 is hardly any faster at all then the 2.4 (0.22ghz wont get you anywhere). besides it costs just $32 more then the 2.4 so apple is selling it at an insane permium.

i personally think the base 15" with the i5 is the best MBP of this generation although it is a little less portable. size is the only reason i havent bought it yet because the 13" indeed is a perfect little size, just the C2D cripples it (imho).

so if you can afford the bigger size and the extra $$ i would suggest the i5. you can always throw in an intel x25 SSD aftermarket at some point.
 
You could replace the HD with aftermarket SSD (e.g. 80GB Intel) and then replace the

That's a good thought. What are your thoughts about purchasing the RAM now or waiting a bit and doing that aftermarket also?

Thanks
 
parrothead123 said:
That's a good thought. What are your thoughts about purchasing the RAM now or waiting a bit and doing that aftermarket also?

Thanks
Click to expand...

Aftermarket of course. OWC sells 2x4GB for 255$ if you trade-in your 2x2GB, otherwise it's 320$ which is still a great deal.
 
Hellhammer said:
Aftermarket of course. OWC sells 2x4GB for 255$ if you trade-in your 2x2GB, otherwise it's 320$ which is still a great deal.
Click to expand...
If by "2x4GB" you meant two DDR3 4Gb RAM modules, OWC's price for that is $315.99. Even at that price, it's a bargain.

I agree with you that the OP would certainly be better off to buy the 2.4Ghz 13 inch MBP and thereby save $300. There would be virtually no real world performance difference between the 2.4 and 2.66Ghz chips. Although SSDs are still pretty expensive, they are becoming cheaper all the time. If I were buying a new MBP, I would find a way to add an SSD.
 
ziggyonice said:
Given that you're looking to do some more high-end stuff, it might pay off to go the high road and get the 2.66GHz. Here's why:

The 2.4GHz is a great machine, don't get me wrong. In fact, even when you're doing 1080i video editing or organizing high resolution photos, the 2.4GHz is a fine computer. But let's say that 3-4 years down the road, you're still doing the same things (HD editing, etc.) — you might be needing a larger hard drive by that point. On top of that, more speed is going to be more helpful particularly as your computer ages.

Now, going the i5 route with a 15" MacBook Pro, you probably would see a difference (faster machine, better graphics card, larger screen obviously). But you're also sacrificing portability. So then it comes down to a question of how useful these extras would be in the long run. I can tell you that from experience, I wish my MacBook Pro was a 13" — the 15" is just a little too bulky for my taste.

So it's a trade off. More power for the long haul vs. more portability (and of course, more money). If I had to choose, I'd probably go high end 13" and get the 2.66GHz. Hope that helps.
Click to expand...

Uh, how does .26GHz equate to 'long haul'? You actually think that a fourth of a GHz is going to do anything to future proof?
 
parrothead123 said:
I appreciate the advice. The problem is that the SSD is so much more expensive. Is it really worth the price especially since I'll probably be storing a lot of pics and video on it and would want at least 256gb? Is the 2.66 much faster than the 2.4? Thanks again.
Click to expand...

You won't "see" a difference between the 2.4 and 2.66 machines.

As others have stated you'll get more performance from an aftermarket SSD. If you plan on storing videos you'll probably need to go with an external drive (via FW) or an internal HD in the optibay. There are advantages/disadvantages to both options. I use both options with the second internal HD being my more recent setup. So far that configuration looks like a winner.

cheers
JohnG
 
Thanks for all of your help. Is the Applecare voided if I swap out the drives? Or will an Apple tech do that for $?
 
Ignorant newbie with same questions + SSD issues?

I've been looking at the same options: 2.4 vs 2.66 (I'm set on the 13 for portability needs). The upgrade seems too expensive. It's just 10% more performance, and the bump from 250 GB to 320 GB HD is only $45, so that makes the CPU upgrade really pricey.

I've been also looking into possibly getting an SSD. The one from Apple is of unknown quality and it's pretty expensive. As for an aftermarket 80GB, my old desktop eMac has 80 and it's been maxed out for a while.

Sorry if it's a dumb question, but I'm curious about something else: I've read that SSDs don't age as well as HDDs. Does that mean they get slower, or that you may actually lose data?

Hopefully they'll also get cheaper in the near future. Anyway, it seems that the best way to go is a 2.4, and then possibly upgrade to 8GB RAM, and maybe an SSD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back