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

13" MacBook Pro 2.26 vs. 2.53 GHz

I always like to base those decisions on my current hardware. I never like to downgrade, I have a 2.4 GHZ processor (Not a MB) and would never downgrade. Stay the same if you have to, or upgrade.
 
puma1552 said:
Always max out the processor.

Can't upgrade it, so max it out.

2.26 is a dog by today's standards. I had that processor on my Dell XPS M1330 I bought in August 2007, no joke.

2.26 is definitely on it's way out the door, big time.

FWIW I have a 2.8 MBP and I converted a 180 MB AVI video to MP4 in about 40 seconds. The processor is to thank for that--always get the most you can because the RAM and hard drive can be upgraded later, and for cheap.
Click to expand...

Yes because a 2.53ghz core 2 is a screaming demon of a processor nowadays.

I could convert that same video in probably less than 10 seconds. But then again I'm typing this on a Core i5-750 running at 4.3ghz.

I'm going to bet that you could convert the same video on a 2.26ghz (which even I straight up divide the 2.8/2.26) in 49 seconds... instead of 44 seconds on a 2.53ghz...

Here's a little tidbit for you. If you really cared about having fast hardware you have to be one of 2 things. 1. Rich and buy each top of the line iteration. 2. Buy one down from the top of the line and keep selling and upgrading as they come out.

Anyone who thinks future proofing is possible with technology... I have a bridge to sell you. (it's future proof)
 
puma1552 said:
Always max out the processor.

Can't upgrade it, so max it out.

2.26 is a dog by today's standards. I had that processor on my Dell XPS M1330 I bought in August 2007, no joke.

2.26 is definitely on it's way out the door, big time.

FWIW I have a 2.8 MBP and I converted a 180 MB AVI video to MP4 in about 40 seconds. The processor is to thank for that--always get the most you can because the RAM and hard drive can be upgraded later, and for cheap.
Click to expand...

Thank you, finally some *u*kin sense!!
 
fibrizo said:
I'm kinda curious. How can you really tell the difference. Most times it shows approximately ~5% improvement in real world applications. ie the thing will finish in 19 seconds instead of 20. I would say that most people can't tell with a stopwatch.

Will the machine really fetch a better price in 3-4 years? not 300-400$ more I can tell you that. maybe 50.

Also 270mhz is not alot if you look at the over all machine speed. The cpu is not the bottleneck in performance here for most things. It's HDD and memory speed. Also 270mhz is approximately 11-12%. And realistically only 5% performance improvement, since the bottle neck is not the cpu typically, ie how often is your CPU 100% loaded.

I think another way to look at it is this way.

I can get a machine 95% as fast for 300-400$ less. A 5% increase in overall performance is about 60-80$ per 1% improvment. wherase the first 95% cost about 11$. Now people dismiss 300-400$ over 3-4 years as insignificant. Let me propose it this way. How much resale value is there? I'm going to use gazelle to do a rough estimate (since it's easy for everyone to use) Mind you this is nowhere near 3-4 years old though so the difference would be less.

Just as an example, I'm going to take the unibody aluminum macbook, precursor to the 13inch released 1.5 years ago. I actually owned the 2.4ghz model. (note prices would be higher if you sold on ebay or craigslist by about 100$ in my experience, but you'd have to do it youself) The original price was 1299 and 1599. And the 2.0 didn't even have a backlit keyboard.

2.0ghz = 515$
2.4ghz = 631$

Mind you this is 400mhz more, and had an additional backlit keyboard. But your resale difference is 116$

If you took the 300-400$ you would save, and add the sell price you could buy a new unibody 2.26ghz pro. Which is actually faster than the 2.4. I know because I owned both and benchmarked them. The later core revision is faster at a lower frequency than the older core. It surprised me too, because I thought I would have a slightly slower laptop. But I gained the new 7 hour integrated battery and a much much better LCD display.

So you can choose to pay 300-400$ for 5%, if that's what you chose. Or you can upgrade again sooner to a machine with much better specs than the high end machine you bought before for the same money basically.

If anyone ever told you to invest 300-400$ in something that would pay 116$ in the future... I'd think people would not be so keen to jump on it.
Click to expand...

I told you, I've owned the 2.26GHz before and it is slowwww.

5% increase in real world performance?? I believe you cannot measure real world performance, you just have to use it overall to see what I'm talking about.

Just as another person said in this forum, the 2.26GHz is a DOG.

Like I said, whats $300-$400 dollars in 4 years anyway?? Might as well get the faster machine that cannot be upgraded (CPU) and just upgrade the RAM to 8GB laters on and add an SSD as well.
 
jjahshik32 said:
I told you, I've owned the 2.26GHz before and it is slowwww.

5% increase in real world performance?? I believe you cannot measure real world performance, you just have to use it overall to see what I'm talking about.

Just as another person said in this forum, the 2.26GHz is a DOG.

Like I said, whats $300-$400 dollars in 4 years anyway?? Might as well get the faster machine that cannot be upgraded (CPU) and just upgrade the RAM to 8GB laters on and add an SSD as well.
Click to expand...

Like I said. I know the 2.53ghz core 2 must be a screaming demon of a processor by comparison. Especially with a core i5/i7 around the corner.

I'll stop with logic, numbers and data and speak to you on a level you might understand.

Both processors are "magical" and it's my gut feeling and belief that the 2.26 ghz is almost as fast. I believe in this for no particular reason, but when I used both it felt almost the same.
 
fibrizo said:
Like I said. I know the 2.53ghz core 2 must be a screaming demon of a processor by comparison. Especially with a core i5/i7 around the corner.

I'll stop with logic, numbers and data and speak to you on a level you might understand.

Both processors are "magical" and it's my gut feeling and belief that the 2.26 ghz is almost as fast. I believe in this for no particular reason, but when I used both it felt almost the same.
Click to expand...

It depends on what your really doing though. I run plex player with 9-12GB MKV files and the framerate stutters at times with the 2.26GHz while the 2.53GHz always runs buttery smooth, both with 4GB of RAM.

Plex is a big deal for me as I use it for all the movies I view. And it takes advantage of all the CPU it can get.
 
puma1552 said:
FWIW I have a 2.8 MBP and I converted a 180 MB AVI video to MP4 in about 40 seconds. The processor is to thank for that--always get the most you can because the RAM and hard drive can be upgraded later, and for cheap.
Click to expand...

That's good and all and that is what the higher end pros are for, but the op said he would be using it for basic stuff. 2.26 is more than enough for just basic things such as internet and word documents.

I'd say go for the 2.26 for $999.
 
jjahshik32 said:
I told you, I've owned the 2.26GHz before and it is slowwww.

5% increase in real world performance?? I believe you cannot measure real world performance, you just have to use it overall to see what I'm talking about.

Just as another person said in this forum, the 2.26GHz is a DOG.

Like I said, whats $300-$400 dollars in 4 years anyway?? Might as well get the faster machine that cannot be upgraded (CPU) and just upgrade the RAM to 8GB laters on and add an SSD as well.
Click to expand...

by your logic all the core 2 duos are dogs especially the 2.53 and 2.26 of course though. This is complete nonsense. The processors are nearly identical; there is no cache bump with the 2.53; and the clock speed is more than enough for 99% of what people do. The other 1% would not run on the 2.53 either.
jjahshik32 said:
It depends on what your really doing though. I run plex player with 9-12GB MKV files and the framerate stutters at times with the 2.26GHz while the 2.53GHz always runs buttery smooth, both with 4GB of RAM.

Plex is a big deal for me as I use it for all the movies I view. And it takes advantage of all the CPU it can get.
Click to expand...

This sounds like nonsense too. MKV files use the hardware assisted acceleration of the video card for decoding. This sounds to be an issue plex or with the source, meaning whoever did the re-encode.
If you would bother to read, you would fine that the hardware acceleration of the video card reduces CPU usage to 20% or less with the intel core duo processors for 1080p files. This rate of CPU usage is not enough to make the video stutter. More than they likely high CPU usage is an issue with plex.
 
Get a maxed out 2.5. I wish I had. I have a base 2.26 13" MBP. Buuuut, I WANT the 2.5 with a 256 SSD. Now that would be shweeeet (Cartman voice) ;)
 
kny3twalker said:
by your logic all the core 2 duos are dogs especially the 2.53 and 2.26 of course though. This is complete nonsense. The processors are nearly identical; there is no cache bump with the 2.53; and the clock speed is more than enough for 99% of what people do. The other 1% would not run on the 2.53 either.


This sounds like nonsense too. MKV files use the hardware assisted acceleration of the video card for decoding. This sounds to be an issue plex or with the source, meaning whoever did the re-encode.
If you would bother to read, you would fine that the hardware acceleration of the video card reduces CPU usage to 20% or less with the intel core duo processors for 1080p files. This rate of CPU usage is not enough to make the video stutter. More than they likely high CPU usage is an issue with plex.
Click to expand...

I'm just tired of arguing. There seems to be an answer to any of my experiences with real world usages. :rolleyes:
 
I have a 2.26 one and it runs fine, and it looks like it will do what you want perfectly. you can get a new hard drive or RAM later, I upgraded mine to a 500gb seagate running at 7200rpm and it works fine.
 
Anyone who says there is a significant difference between 2.53ghz and 2.26ghz, particularly in light of a several hundred dollar price difference, is a moron.
 
coupdetat said:
Anyone who says there is a significant difference between 2.53ghz and 2.26ghz, particularly in light of a several hundred dollar price difference, is a moron.
Click to expand...

He apparently could not take it anymore either and returned his new 13" for the 2.8GHz 15".
 
jjahshik32 said:
Its ok because I'll upgrade again. Even if I decide not to, it'll still be so much faster than yours. ;)
Click to expand...

And yours will be heavier, less portable, and I can buy two for every one of yours. And as soon as mine fails me where I need it, in school (programming), I will consider getting a new laptop, but not until.

That said, its ok, we understand you need the 2.8GHz for watching movies, whether or not you have any true need for it otherwise.
 
kny3twalker said:
And yours will be heavier, less portable, and I can buy two for every one of yours. And as soon as mine fails me where I need it, in school (programming), I will consider getting a new laptop, but not until.

That said, its ok, we understand you need the 2.8GHz for watching movies, whether or not you have any true need for it otherwise.
Click to expand...

I use mine for programming as well as hd content.

I never thought the 17" that I was carrying was really that heavy anyway, I just didnt like its dimensions. Having used all three, I'd have to say the 15" is the sweet spot.

What I really still want sometimes is a Mac Pro desktop (again) as I'm juggling 8+ terabytes of files.

I found the 13" rather to be more of a toy than a real notebook.
 
jjahshik32 said:
Having used all three, I'd have to say the 15" is the sweet spot.
Click to expand...

I know someone else you might relate to. He likes to refer to his as the sweet spot as well as bad boy pro.

I found the 13" rather to be more of a toy than a real notebook.
Click to expand...

Huh, I wonder why Apple thought it was worthy of the pro name then? Furthermore I wonder what yours is possible of that mine is not? I would guess not much, but I am sure you would post a bunch of crap that I could not care less about. The fact is mine meets and exceeds my requirements for performance for the work I do in school.
And while you might believe its a toy, I found it to meet every requirement I was looking for in a laptop, other than the lack of an anti glare display. If the display was going to be the deciding factor, I would not have bought an Apple as there was no way I would spend another $650 to acquire an anti glare screen regardless of whether I could afford it or not. I am a student, not working professionally, and a $2000 laptop seems unpractical.

Lastly, I guess you have not figured out that I do not care if yours is faster. Its irrelevant to me.
What matters though is the disinformation you post as advice for others.
 
kny3twalker said:
I know someone else you might relate to. He likes to refer to his as the sweet spot as well as bad boy pro.



Huh, I wonder why Apple thought it was worthy of the pro name then? Furthermore I wonder what yours is possible of that mine is not? I would guess not much, but I am sure you would post a bunch of crap that I could not care less about. The fact is mine meets and exceeds my requirements for performance for the work I do in school.
And while you might believe its a toy, I found it to meet every requirement I was looking for in a laptop, other than the lack of an anti glare display. If the display was going to be the deciding factor, I would not have bought an Apple as there was no way I would spend another $650 to acquire an anti glare screen regardless of whether I could afford it or not. I am a student, not working professionally, and a $2000 laptop seems unpractical.

Lastly, I guess you have not figured out that I do not care if yours is faster. Its irrelevant to me.
What matters though is the disinformation you post as advice for others.
Click to expand...

My guess that Apple just slapped on the "Pro" on the 13" (even though it has the exact same specs as the previous aluminum macbook 13" is to lure more people and trick them into thinking its a pro capable machine when in reality it isnt.

I really dont see any difference between the current 13" mbp and the 13" macbooks, except firewire (usb 3.0 will change all that imo and the aluminum body). Now if they stuck a dedicated GPU in the 13" uMBP I'd say it is a "pro" machine. Who knows, maybe they will in the upcoming upgrades?

You dont have to own an ati-glare mbp just because your a professional (as I am a student as well), you can own one just because you prefer it. The week that I've used the 13" uMBP was such a pain (for me) as the reflections were a HUGE distraction in every class. Especially when your outside trying to use it. I knew what to expect from the 17" matte but wanted a smaller dimension (which the 15" is the best suited) so I got the 15" matte.

As for spending $2000, I dont mind. If you have to money to spend then I dont see whats wrong with it.

It may be or may not be true that you care that my machine is faster than yours but my comments sure as hell bothers you. I've notice you got some kind of beef with me for no apparent reason, especially for me giving my opinions on the 13" 2.26GHz vs. 2.53GHz. Whether your just taking it personally as you own that exact spec'd machine or not, originally my opinions were not meant to be directed towards specifically you or to attack you.
 
jjahshik32 said:
My guess that Apple just slapped on the "Pro" on the 13" (even though it has the exact same specs as the previous aluminum macbook 13" is to lure more people and trick them into thinking its a pro capable machine when in reality it isnt.
Click to expand...

So the specs of the base 15" MacBook Pro are not a professionally capable machine either?

And apparently they tricked you pretty well. Lets see first they had you payed, what $3000?, for the 17", which you decided you did not like after a couple/a few months. So you sell it, and buy the "fake" macbook pro. But then you finally realize you have been tricked, and return it to buy the 15" "true" MacBook Pro, cannot have the one (base 15") with the same specs as the "fake", otherwise it will look like you have been tricked.
So in the end, you spent as much for your 15" "true" pro as a 17", and you say I have been tricked.
 
kny3twalker said:
So the specs of the base 15" MacBook Pro are not a professionally capable machine either?

And apparently they tricked you pretty well. Lets see first they had you payed, what $3000?, for the 17", which you decided you did not like after a couple/a few months. So you sell it, and buy the "fake" macbook pro. But then you finally realize you have been tricked, and return it to buy the 15" "true" MacBook Pro, cannot have the one (base 15") with the same specs as the "fake", otherwise it will look like you have been tricked.
So in the end, you spent as much for your 15" "true" pro as a 17", and you say I have been tricked.
Click to expand...

I dont think the base 15" is a professional capable machine either. In my book, as long as there is no dedicated GPU, I dont see how it can be called a "pro" machine.

Just think about it, before the "pro" was added to the current line of 13" mbp, what was so different from the first gen 13" unibody macbook as to now..?? A more powerful gpu? Nope. All they did was add the "pro" on it with virtually no difference.

BTW the 17" uMBP hi res that I bought didnt cost me $3000 it was $2542. After using it for 8 months and selling it I broke even with this 15" uMBP that has the exact same specs except that this 15" is more mobile.
 
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