I understand the logic behind getting the 2.3 cpu now since it cannot be upgraded. This is the one time however where i can safely say it is a waste of money. At best you are looking at a 4% speed increase which most will never really notice. Like was pointed out already it will not really help resale either. A few years down the road a 2.2 or 2.3 quad will not matter compared to a 8 core machine. Both older cpus will seem equally slow in comparison. At best you may be able to get a few extra bucks for it. Future proofing doesnt really work either. If the 2.2 starts to feel slow to you then the 2.3 is going to feel equally slow. All the 2.3 gives right now are bragging rights and thats about it. If there was a clear advantage such as 10% i might say it would be worth it but all of the above rules still apply. In the end it will still be an old slow machine.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
15" 2.2GHZ vs 2.3GHZ?
- Thread starter TheEddiePShow
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Spend your hard earned money on a better upgrade. The upgrade from 2.2 to 2.3 is only for people who want to say they have the fastest machine and can fork out the $ to do so.
In terms of price/performance ratio, it's not justified.
Get 3rd party 8GB Ram and a $150-250 SSD; that's what will make a difference.
In terms of price/performance ratio, it's not justified.
Get 3rd party 8GB Ram and a $150-250 SSD; that's what will make a difference.
Maybe it would be worth it for those true "Pros" that make money off of their machines and depend on getting projects done in the quickest amount of time possible. For others, like myself, I don't know if 250 bucks is worth a 4% increase in performance. That $250 puts you half-way to a 256 GB OWC drive! Maybe even further with the new SSDs coming out in the next few months!
Even still, a 4Ghz Pentium 4 processor from 2004 does little for you today. And it cost $1000 back then.
Spend your money elsewhere.
As a true pro i can say nope. That extra 4% is not going to really help me out very much. Sure I have deadlines but i spend way more time in meetings, actually working on projects, doing revisions then I do actually rendering. At 4% a render that would take 1 hour is only going to take an extra 2.4 minutes to render. If i have a deadline that tight then i am already in some serious trouble.
I agree 100%. I am not a "Pro" by any means and will be picking up the 2.2 just because of common sense. If it doesn't make sense to make the jump from 2.2 to 2.3 to the people that use their machines for work, then it makes no sense to me as a mainstream user to do any different. Thanks for the insight!
Sorry to derial thread, and ask for info but its same kind of request for speed, processors, etc.
Im thinking of getting new macbook pro 15, the first option one 2.0ghz. This should be able to handle PS CS3 no problems yeah? No lag or anything, im basically after a solid machine but also portability. Im a pc user and this fan is always on haha, wanting a mac for too long so im gonna get one me thinks. If anyone replies thats super! cheers
Im thinking of getting new macbook pro 15, the first option one 2.0ghz. This should be able to handle PS CS3 no problems yeah? No lag or anything, im basically after a solid machine but also portability. Im a pc user and this fan is always on haha, wanting a mac for too long so im gonna get one me thinks. If anyone replies thats super! cheers
you can produce lags on almost every machine in the world with photoshop, when you know how to use it (except a supercomputer maybe)
however photoshop cs3 for sure works fine with the 2.0 15".
anyways if you work mainly with graphics you should consider the stronger 15", because this time you really get something for the higher price.... noticable faster cpu and gpu with 4 times as much videoram...
you can produce lags on almost every machine in the world with photoshop, when you know how to use it (except a supercomputer maybe)
however photoshop cs3 for sure works fine with the 2.0 15".
anyways if you work mainly with graphics you should consider the stronger 15", because this time you really get something for the higher price.... noticable faster cpu and gpu with 4 times as much videoram...
Thanks both for great replies. I think I will go with the 2.0. To me, another £300 is too much. Not sure whether to get it on finance or just save lol.
Thanks again.
Re-decision
Damn guys. You got me. I had just ordered a 17", 2.3GHz, 8GB RAM, 750GB HDD when I came across this thread. Around 2 minutes later I cancelled my order and replaced it with all the same except a 2.2GHz and another $242 in my pocket. I understand both sides of the argument, but the difference in speed is probably going to be negligible. And considering I'm not going to be spending that $242 on anything but my next mac or an upgrade to my new one, it'll be invested in something that WILL make a bigger difference later. I guess I chose the 2.3GHz originally because I currently have a 3.06GHz core 2 duo, so force of habit or something. But if you think about it, $242 will buy you a lot more in the future than it will now. In two years, that $242 could be the difference between 8GB and 16GB of RAM, or an HDD and SSD. In a year, it could let you upgrade your current machine in ways that would boost your performance more than if you were to go with a 2.3GHz now. Buying a computer is tough but fun. It will always be better to save your money and buy next years model because technology isn't going to regress. But you have to buy sometime, and you have to have your game plan in your head when you do. You have to weigh what money is best spent now, and what is best spent later. It seems to be that this 2.3GHz business is the point of diminishing returns, and at that point, it's best to save that money for next time.
Maybe I'm saying all of this to convince anyone in a dilemma, or maybe it's just to justify my decision. I don't know. But even though I had spendable money leftover after buying the 2.3GHz model, I ended up changing my mind. I suppose it all just depends on your financial situation, your use of the computer, and your evaluation of the speed enhancement.
But no matter which side you're on,
Congratulations on your new Mac!
Damn guys. You got me. I had just ordered a 17", 2.3GHz, 8GB RAM, 750GB HDD when I came across this thread. Around 2 minutes later I cancelled my order and replaced it with all the same except a 2.2GHz and another $242 in my pocket. I understand both sides of the argument, but the difference in speed is probably going to be negligible. And considering I'm not going to be spending that $242 on anything but my next mac or an upgrade to my new one, it'll be invested in something that WILL make a bigger difference later. I guess I chose the 2.3GHz originally because I currently have a 3.06GHz core 2 duo, so force of habit or something. But if you think about it, $242 will buy you a lot more in the future than it will now. In two years, that $242 could be the difference between 8GB and 16GB of RAM, or an HDD and SSD. In a year, it could let you upgrade your current machine in ways that would boost your performance more than if you were to go with a 2.3GHz now. Buying a computer is tough but fun. It will always be better to save your money and buy next years model because technology isn't going to regress. But you have to buy sometime, and you have to have your game plan in your head when you do. You have to weigh what money is best spent now, and what is best spent later. It seems to be that this 2.3GHz business is the point of diminishing returns, and at that point, it's best to save that money for next time.
Maybe I'm saying all of this to convince anyone in a dilemma, or maybe it's just to justify my decision. I don't know. But even though I had spendable money leftover after buying the 2.3GHz model, I ended up changing my mind. I suppose it all just depends on your financial situation, your use of the computer, and your evaluation of the speed enhancement.
But no matter which side you're on,
Congratulations on your new Mac!
Got the same setup myself from the retail stores this morning. Right now in the Apple stores, they are carrying the 2.3 upgrade w/ the upgraded non-glare hi res screen. The thing I really wanted is the the non-glare screen, but when you start doing the special upgrades with their online store, it becomes a major pain when you have to do a full exchange or repair during the first 2 weeks. Also, with the edu discount, it isn't as bad in price
As soon as I can, I will try to run Geek Bench for some numbers.
I went 2.3, cos the extras cache sounded good. But I got everything maxed out on my 15inch.
My laptop is my bread and butter, so even spending 1k extra is nothing compared to the money I earn from it. Maybe one or two designs jobs and I've got my money back.
Just buy the most upgrades you can if your a power user.
Otherwise just get a 13inch if your just posting comments on forums.
My laptop is my bread and butter, so even spending 1k extra is nothing compared to the money I earn from it. Maybe one or two designs jobs and I've got my money back.
Just buy the most upgrades you can if your a power user.
Otherwise just get a 13inch if your just posting comments on forums.
Just another note. I was looking at the Geekbench benchmarks and noticed that the difference between the 17" and 15" both with a 2.3GHz is greater than the difference between 2.2GHz and 2.3GHz both on the 17".
Macbook Pro 17" 2.3GHz - 10164
Macbook Pro 17" 2.2GHz - 10026
Difference: 138
-----------------------
Macbook Pro 17" 2.3GHz - 10164
Macbook Pro 15" 2.3GHz - 9886
Difference: 278
Is there a component that isn't controlled between the 17" and 15" models that's responsible for this difference? Or is the 17" simply faster? But if you're basing your decision between 2.2 and 2.3 off of Geekbench, you may want a 17" over a 15" or maybe even (no data to support this) a 17" 2.2GHz over a 15" 2.3GHz if you're good for the money. Thought for food!
I
Stephen Colbert
Macbook Pro 17" 2.3GHz - 10164
Macbook Pro 17" 2.2GHz - 10026
Difference: 138
-----------------------
Macbook Pro 17" 2.3GHz - 10164
Macbook Pro 15" 2.3GHz - 9886
Difference: 278
Is there a component that isn't controlled between the 17" and 15" models that's responsible for this difference? Or is the 17" simply faster? But if you're basing your decision between 2.2 and 2.3 off of Geekbench, you may want a 17" over a 15" or maybe even (no data to support this) a 17" 2.2GHz over a 15" 2.3GHz if you're good for the money. Thought for food!
I
Stephen Colbert
Haha, I'm not so narcissistic as to say I apple (subtle substitute for a heart) myself after my post. Stephen Colbert is the comedian I referenced in the last sentence of my post. I'm Joe, nice to meet you. I'm going to put the $242 I saved on cooling as the reason. Hmm, I'm now wondering what internal differences exist between the 15" and 17". If you want, you can check out previous ifixit teardowns of 15" and 17" and look for differences, I'll do so later, I have homework.
I totally understand your choice for 15", the real reason I chose a 17" was because resolution trumps portability (for my situation). I'm upgrading from 15" and before that a 13.3" white Macbook and before that 12.1" Powerbook. Could you imagine going from a 12.1" directly to a 17"? hahaha.
A New Dogma
Exactly. It all depends on your situation! Man, that's the answer to everything! Mac vs PC, Computer 1 vs Computer 2, Car 1 vs Car 2, hell, Girl 1 vs Girl 2 (I don't mean to equate women to purchasable merchandise, this is simply to emphasize the ubiquitousness of my point).
And for me, although I could get an HD external monitor for a new 15" mac, I prefer to lie down on the couch when I watch movies and play games. This is why you and only you should choose what's best for you, you're the one who knows all of your preferences. This is why people should stop pretending that they know what's best for someone else. Present the facts and let them decide for themselves!
Exactly. It all depends on your situation! Man, that's the answer to everything! Mac vs PC, Computer 1 vs Computer 2, Car 1 vs Car 2, hell, Girl 1 vs Girl 2 (I don't mean to equate women to purchasable merchandise, this is simply to emphasize the ubiquitousness of my point).
And for me, although I could get an HD external monitor for a new 15" mac, I prefer to lie down on the couch when I watch movies and play games. This is why you and only you should choose what's best for you, you're the one who knows all of your preferences. This is why people should stop pretending that they know what's best for someone else. Present the facts and let them decide for themselves!
yea i currently have the 2.3 15in .. i really wanted the 2.2 with the hi res matte screen but my local store didnt have it .. just the maxxed one. It was more than I wanted to spend. I think I am going to return it tomorrow and just order the the 2.2 with hi res matte and maybe the 128gb ssd and be done with it.
I hate returning stuff to the apple store .. but it will save me like 200-300 dollars which is a lot to me
I hate returning stuff to the apple store .. but it will save me like 200-300 dollars which is a lot to me
That's what I did. I went ahead and ordered the 8gb of RAM for $100 from amazon too
I think the Apple SSD upgrade ($90) plus $100 for RAM is way better than a $225 upgrade on .1Ghz
The only reason I forked for the 2.3GHz was for the antiglare option (since it's the only channel configuration at the Apple Store for the 15" with the antiglare display).
I did not get an SSD or faster GPU stuff people apparently think you get for the extra bit. It's not much faster than 2.2GHz model, so I don't think it's good value.
I did not get an SSD or faster GPU stuff people apparently think you get for the extra bit. It's not much faster than 2.2GHz model, so I don't think it's good value.
And if you REALLY needed speed, you wouldn't be using a laptop to render. You would use a much faster iMac. Or a MacPro. Or a render farm with hundreds of MacPros (or equivalent).
You can always spend more money on more processing power. You can sacrifice mobility for more power. But it's usually a waste.
I ended up just getting the 2.2 anyway and so far everything is going good. I may get the ram if I need it, but well see. I don't want to waste the money if I don't need to since I just paid 2400 and I'm buying an hd camera tomorrow for $900. The battery is giving me more than 7 hours too, I think their whole '7 hours' thing is just to cover their back.