15" 2.2GHZ vs 2.3GHZ?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by TheEddiePShow, Feb 24, 2011.

  1. TheEddiePShow macrumors newbie

    TheEddiePShow

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    #1
    As I stated before, I need something good for final cut, motion, and after effects. Do I need to get the 2.3, or is there not even a difference. I read that the 2.3 can go up to 3.(something) but can the 2.2 do the same? Thanks for the help
     
  2. Phycoduck macrumors regular

    Phycoduck

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    #2
    Both processors can be Over clocked via the Turbo boost, However the 2.3Ghz has a 8MB shared L3 cache which is a 25% jump compared to the 2.2Ghz.

    Also, the 2.3Ghz will have a different motherboard compared to the 2.2Ghz because of the cache.

    Now £200 to upgrade sounds like the deal of the century, cant wait for the Geek benchmark results.
     
  3. TheEddiePShow thread starter macrumors newbie

    TheEddiePShow

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
  4. Beige Panda macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    #4
    http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2011/02/macbookpro-benchmarks-early-2011/

    Not a huge difference between the two. There's a significant jump between 2.0 and 2.2, however.

    Whether it's worth $250 for that performance increase is up to you, of course.
     
  5. karohan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    #5
    It's not only that though. The better graphics card is reason enough to help justify the $250 as well.
     
  6. Beige Panda macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    #6
    But it is only that. I'm talking about the upgrade from the 2.2ghz processor to the 2.3ghz processor, not the upgrade from the low-end 15" to the high-end 15".
     
  7. TheEddiePShow thread starter macrumors newbie

    TheEddiePShow

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    #7
    Yea I think I'm set on getting the 2.2 and then just getting the 8gb of ram.
     
  8. keithano macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    #8
    I thought the $250 upgrade from 2.2Ghz to 2.3Ghz is only the CPU? What's the difference in the graphic card? It is still 6750m and the intel 3000
     
  9. keithano macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2008
    #9
    and the $100/$90 for 128gb ssd...
     
  10. TheEddiePShow thread starter macrumors newbie

    TheEddiePShow

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    #10
    Question, can I go in the store and actually ask them for those things? Or do I have to do it online?
     
  11. StefSSU macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #11
    For the optionals you have to order online. Honestly, I don't think you'll notice any difference between the 2.2 and the 2.3. Save the money and use it for either more RAM, or an SSD. Both will have much more of an impact compared to the processor speed bump, that CPU is already incredibly fast compared to the other components, especially the HDD. The new OCZ Vertex 3 SSD's with second generation SandForce controllers are out this year, going something like $250 for 128 gigs. If the new MBP's have 6gbps SATA*, then one of those would have a dramatic affect on performance.

    *I'm not sure about this, if they are limited to 3gbps SATA, then you may as well go for a cheaper SSD, like the Vertex 2. Be sure to thoroughly read up on them though, Solid State storage is a strange world indeed.
     
  12. amoergosum macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    #12

    I would really like to know what that means.
    In what situations would you notice a difference?
     
  13. fil3333 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    #13
    from what i have found out, the price performance ratio of the 2820 (compared to the 2720) is not good.
    from all benchmarks i've found yet i calculated an average performance gain about 4%....

    http://www.primatelabs.ca/blog/2011/02/macbookpro-benchmarks-early-2011/
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-2820qm-sandy-bridge-mobile,2838-8.html
    http://www.notebookcheck.com/Test-Intel-Sandy-Bridge-Quad-Core-Prozessoren.43706.0.html

    anybody who knows the real world difference between 6mb and 8mb cache?:confused:
     
  14. arctic macrumors 6502a

    arctic

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    #14
    Bear in mind that you can do your own RAM upgrades anytime in the future whenever you have the cash. But sticking with a faster processor, no matter how subtle the speed increase is, is permanent. So if you can afford the 2.3, I'd go for it and do the RAM upgrade (or SSD, optibay) down the line.

    Thanks for the find. But I do hope the differences are better with Macs, though. We'll know when more people receive their BTO shipments.
     
  15. PUMMYUK macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    #15
    I went with the 2.3 for one reason alone, you cannot upgrade this afterwards on your own. Like Arctic say, the ssd and ram can be done later down the line, whereas these things cannot be upgraded, easily if at all.

    However if it comes down to money, the order in which I would choose the customs are...

    Graphics option
    CPU
    Screen resolution
    Gloss or matte screen

    The L3 cache question is an odd one. Google attempts have not cleared up for me what the L3 speeds up. Looking at the MBA, they run large L3 caches compared to the MB so it must be there for some reason. If I come across anything that explains it, I will put up a link
     
  16. dagamer34 macrumors 65816

    dagamer34

    Joined:
    May 1, 2007
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #16
    Cost of the CPU upgrade alone will get you a 120GB SSD, which will have a FAR greater effect on performance than the upgrade from 2.2Ghz -> 2.3Ghz.
     
  17. arctic macrumors 6502a

    arctic

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2008
    #17
    It's not only about the cost. Like I said before, SSD or RAM can be upgraded later down the line. When you financially recover from purchasing the machine, you might even have enough cash for a third party 256gb SSD considering these days they are going down in prices pretty fast. The 2.3Ghz CPU upgrade, on the other hand, can only be done upon purchase. If you choose a slower processor now, no matter how slight, you're stuck with it forever. Oh, and there's no such thing as a 120GB SSD. :D
     
  18. Gen macrumors 6502a

    Gen

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    #18
    If I tried selling you a third shoe, when you're buying a new pair for $250, would you buy it?
     
  19. axu539 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    #19
    There are plenty of SSDs marketed as 120 GB (See Intel, OWC, etc). Whether they ACTUALLY have 120 GB, or are overprovisioned and only stated as 120 GB is another story.

    With regards to future-proofing your machine, I don't think the 2.3 GHz upgrade is worth the money. You say you want it to last down the line, but by the time you've reached the stage where you might want to squeeze out every last drop from your machine, the 2.2 GHz and 2.3 GHz will be equally obsolete. New architectures will have come up that will make SB look like crap. Therefore, I think that in buying a machine now, you should only consider what you need now, and maybe within the next year. Past that, it will be outdated whether or not you spend an extra $250.
     
  20. dagamer34 macrumors 65816

    dagamer34

    Joined:
    May 1, 2007
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #20
    Depends on if your goal is for best performance or cost-effective performance. Were he to sell his laptop a year from now, he could use that $250 towards the purchase of a new one with a better increase in performance than going from 2.2Ghz to 2.3Ghz, just like what happened with this refresh. It's like buying a ~4Ghz Pentium 4 processor for $1000 back in 2005. Do you really think it's worth that much today?

    Also, I'd like to point you to this page: http://www.amazon.com/Intel-Interna...UR2I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1298823452&sr=8-1

    :)
     
  21. Hackintosh Sr. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2008
    #21
    They have the SAME motherboard. Where do some of you people get your info?
     
  22. axu539 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    #22
    While funny, I don't think that is a very good analogy. There are people who can get the most out of 2.3 GHz. A more apt comparison would be someone trying to sell you all those extra features on cars. While all those fancy-schmancy features might be cool, you probably won't ever really use them; thus, paying an extra 10% for those features is unwise. Similarly, for most people, the 100 MHz boost and 2 mb cache increase will not make a noticeable enough difference to warrant the extra $250.
     
  23. axu539 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2010
    #23
    Add the fact that the regular ebay/craigslist buyer won't care about the tiny CPU boost enough to pay more for your machine than the other guy who's selling his for $200 cheaper, with the slightly weaker CPU.
     
  24. BJonson macrumors 6502a

    BJonson

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2010
    #24
    I don't think its worth it although I had to get the 2.3ghz CPU just to get the hi-rez anti glares screen in my 15" because the apple store only sells this screen in store with the high end cpu. I was going to order it online but am leaving the country next week and needed it asap. Maybe that extra cache will come in handy down the road. Doubt it.
     
  25. Chilla Frilla macrumors member

    Chilla Frilla

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Location:
    United States
    #25
    This.
     

Share This Page