15" 2.2GHZ vs 2.3GHZ?

[monstermac77]

I think their whole '7 hours' thing is just to cover their back.

I'm pretty sure it's because they began using more stringent tests around the time they released their Macbook Airs. Consequently, their estimates have gone down but it is expected that their battery life will at least remain the same (hopefully this remains true for even the highest end quad core).

If I remember correctly, the new tests are called the Better Battery Test or something.

 

[richlee111]

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

I just got Geekbench and these are my results for my 2.3Ghz 15". I ran the test for both the 32 & 64 bit tests. Also, everything is stock except the RAM. I have swapped out the stock 4GB and put in 8GB RAM.

Macbook Pro 15" 2.3 Ghz 32 Bit Test - 10506 http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/368413

Macbook Pro 15" 2.3 Ghz 64 Bit Test - 11510 http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/368377

 

[monstermac77]

I just got Geekbench and these are my results for my 2.3Ghz 15". I ran the test for both the 32 & 64 bit tests. Also, everything is stock except the RAM. I have swapped out the stock 4GB and put in 8GB RAM.

Macbook Pro 15" 2.3 Ghz 32 Bit Test - 10506 http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/368413

Macbook Pro 15" 2.3 Ghz 64 Bit Test - 11510 http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/368377

Hm, interesting. But I don't think these can be admitted because of the RAM upgrade. I mean, that speed is significantly faster than expected, it must have something to do with the RAM. Nonetheless, I'm getting a 17" 2.2GHz with 8GB as well, so we can compare to see how much (if at all) yours beats mine by.

By the way, how'd you get yours so soon? I made a spreadsheet and I've had a bunch of people enter their shipping information so that newcomers can estimate when they'll receive their new computer. There's a chat room and tips for staying up to date with your tracking (there are a few websites that offer more accurate tracking). Here's the spreadsheet, you and everyone else who has ordered their Macbook Pro should enter their information:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc...kc2a0NFQkw2dk1TWG95WEE&hl=en&authkey=COHO7f0D

 

[jetjaguar]

well my mbp in my sig with the stock 4gb of ram got 10,410 in 32bit ..
cant run 64 bit .. once my 8gb kit gets here i will re-run it.

 

[richlee111]

Hm, interesting. But I don't think these can be admitted because of the RAM upgrade. I mean, that speed is significantly faster than expected, it must have something to do with the RAM. Nonetheless, I'm getting a 17" 2.2GHz with 8GB as well, so we can compare to see how much (if at all) yours beats mine by.

By the way, how'd you get yours so soon? I made a spreadsheet and I've had a bunch of people enter their shipping information so that newcomers can estimate when they'll receive their new computer. There's a chat room and tips for staying up to date with your tracking (there are a few websites that offer more accurate tracking). Here's the spreadsheet, you and everyone else who has ordered their Macbook Pro should enter their information:
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc...kc2a0NFQkw2dk1TWG95WEE&hl=en&authkey=COHO7f0D

You're right, the RAM upgrade puts this out of the stock category. I kind of jumped the gun, but I will put back the stock RAM and get some new results for stock.

As for RAM, I am using some G.Skill 1333.

As for my machine, it was purchased at the Apple store and not a BTO. The stores are carrying what you might called the fully loaded model w/ the 2.3Ghz upgrade and high resolution non-glossy screen. I originally wanted to get the screen upgrade, but w/ the education discount, I figured the processor upgrade on top of that was not too bad of a deal.

Hope you get yours soon.

 

[d0vr]

I got the 15" 2.2. Couldn't justify the money for the 2.3. If you have lots of money, then sure why not get a 2.3? But other than to say I have the fastest 15" possible, I don't see enough gain.

However, the money for 2.0 to 2.2? Most definitely buy that as it gets you much better graphics as well (which isn't that obvious on first glance.. I think it should be?). Order of importance to me:

CPU/Graphics - as they are combines in the upgrade
Hi-res screen - I need it
RAM - I upgraded this because I had the money. I don't need 4% of a difference in processor power and won't for the 3 years I might have it.
SSD - Waiting for it to become cheaper through 3rd party (also considering optibay)

In the end it comes down to what you need and what you can afford. As said, screen and processor can't be changed easily. It should be the two top things as everything else can be changed later.

 

[Ianblackburn]

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.

Yes but if you did that every day for say 5 years you would claw back a whole week and could have an extra holiday!

 

[sk3tch]

Guys, the reason you are seeing Geekbench scores kind of all over the place could be because the processors throttle the speed depending on load, temperature, etc. - it's through "Turbo Boost 2.0" outlined here.

Separately (Geekbench does not measure GPU), although the GPUs are the same on the high-end 15" and the 17", Apple may have clocked the GPU a bit higher on the 17" due to the better thermals.