17" MBP 2.66ghz vs 2.93ghz, .54mhz or .27mhz difference?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by 212rikanmofo, Feb 25, 2009.

  1. 212rikanmofo macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    #1
    Wouldn't the overall difference in speed be .54 and not .27? since we are looking at the dual processors at a whole? I am still deciding on whether or not I should get a 2.93ghz over the 2.66ghz. I am a fulltime graphic designer and use my computer everyday for work. The apps I use mostly are photoshop cs4, indesign, illustrator, aperture, office 08, ilife 09, iwork 09. I use my computer to do practically everything. Internet, watch movies, encode video, video editing, etc.

    Was wondering if the difference of .54mhz make a noticeable difference when using like photoshop, applying filters, and also making adjustments to RAW files in aperture?

    I had a 2.53ghz 15" unibody MBP recently and notice that even with that model it chokes in aperture when making certain adjustments to RAW files. And since the 17" is a bigger machine meaning more pixels on the screen, wouldn't it require more power to push all those extra pixels?

    I really need some professional opinions before I take the plunge and order my 17" mbp. Real proof of actual speed diff between the 2 model using real world applications and uses will help me better make my decision.
     
  2. J the Ninja macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    #2
    No, it doesn't work that way. That's like saying "I have 2 cars with a top speed of 100mph, and they hold 5 people each. If I have only 5 people total to transport, I should be able to make the car go 200mph". Not to mention, if you did count it as .54, that would mean you are actually doing 5.32GHZ vs 5.86Ghz, which is the same percentage difference anyway.

    To be honest, it sounds like a Mac Pro may be a better choice for you, since you use heavy apps daily for your living. There is only so much power you can pack into a laptop. If you can wait, check out the "2009 Mac Pro" thread over on the MP board.

    The actual speed improvement will be less than 10%. Maybe ever so slightly more if it's something that is GPU heavy (the 17" MBPs frequently have a somewhat higher GPU clock). Did you have 4GB of RAM and a 7200rpm HDD in your other MBP? Those will make a much bigger difference than a higher-clocked CPU.

    The larger screen will have some minor effect, but not severe, as for image processing it is not required to actually work in a higher resolution the way it would for games. (Images are processed at their own resolution, not the res of whatever they are displayed on).
     
  3. 212rikanmofo thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    #3
    I see, yes my 15" mbp came standard with 4GB ram. and I had the default 320gb HDD. I believe 5400 rpm... if what you say is true. I might as well pick up a base model 2.66ghz.
     
  4. Mr D macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    #4
    If you use your laptop everyday, why not just go with the 2.93? It will be faster, so if its something that adds to your own personal productivity, go with the best!
     
  5. 212rikanmofo thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2003
    #5
    very difficult decision since you guys saying the noticeable difference is 10%.

    the pro's of getting the base 2.66 model is i can pick one up at the store instantly.

    I plan on keeping this laptop for at least 4-5 years. That's how long I usually keep them.

    Not sure if the extra .27 speed increase would be worth it to me. Since you guys say the CPU hardly reaches 100% :confused:
     
  6. nep61 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 17, 2007
    #6
    I bought the 2.93GHz 17" MBP. As a Final Cut Pro / AVID Editor, I never wanted the question in the back of my mind to be .... "Should I have gotten the faster processor?"

    I spent then extra $$ and I'm so happy with that decision. Besides.... if you're dropping close to $3000 for a machine you will heavily depend on for photoshop & aperture.... go for the BEST you can get.

    Just my 2 cents.:)
     
  7. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #7
    First off it's 266MHz difference per core. It's may not sound like much, but if you're working on stuff that requires all the processing power you can get (and your wallet can support it), then by all means go for it.

    Otherwise, 2.66GHz should be enough for almost anything.
     
  8. Tracer macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    #8
    Aren't RAW files huge?

    The hard drive might be slowing you down here.

    You also might be getting a lot of page outs.

    Someone with more CS4/Aperture experience can chime in here as to whether or not the performance problem is related to RAM/CPU/HD Speed.

    The 8GB allowance of the 17" MBP might be a must have feature for you.

    Tracer
     

Share This Page