What kind of speed differences would you get with the 2.2 vs the 2.4 GHz quad core i7 processors? Thanks!
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.
2.2 GHz vs 2.4 GHz Quad i7
- Thread starter foxyfabio
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It will be a litttttle bit faster during CPU intensive tasks.
Maybe this can help:
http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/
Maybe this can help:
http://www.primatelabs.ca/geekbench/mac-benchmarks/
I don't think any that you'd notice. I have a 2.2ghz, I've been in to Apple and tried the 2.4ghz, I see or feel no difference.
WOW thanks! awesome site!
In your opinion would the 2.2 GHz affect the longevity of the computer with software updates ETC?
No, it's an i7, that is all that matters. Maybe in five years you might not be able to run the latest Mac OS X version, but that is Apple (Lion can't run on Core Duo machines from 2006, which was five years before the introduction of Lion).
you would get a better geekbench score
if you had to ask you don't need it. same advice I got when I asked this question in my very first post. Now I am happy I didn't shell out the extra money, and used it for RAM and a couple SSD's
if you had to ask you don't need it. same advice I got when I asked this question in my very first post. Now I am happy I didn't shell out the extra money, and used it for RAM and a couple SSD's
Back in February, the discussion was between the 2.0GHz and the 2.2GHz where the 2.0GHz had a much slower GPU, it was a quite an update to the faster model. Now that the 2.2GHz base model has close to the same GPU as the faster model, you should be fine with the 2.2GHz model. This is all assuming every second doesn't cost you in other work completed (for some folks, a few seconds shaved here and there could lead to enough time to recuperate any additional costs immediately )
With the money you save, you buy thirty party upgrades like more memory, a SSD, optibay, a case, etc.
If whatever comes in 5 years cannot run on the 2.2GHz quad, it's unlikely the 2.4GHz quad would be any good.
)With the money you save, you buy thirty party upgrades like more memory, a SSD, optibay, a case, etc.
If whatever comes in 5 years cannot run on the 2.2GHz quad, it's unlikely the 2.4GHz quad would be any good.
That's why I pointed out the irrelevance of the CPU speed, but the relevance of the CPU type, in less words of course, and maybe not that understandable. Ah, written words. What a nightmare.
My co-worker and I both just got new MBP's. She got a 2.2 i7, and I got the 2.5 i7. Both machines are just plain stupid fast, the only difference I see when using hers is the limitation of the 5400rpm drive on the base config. Mine has a SSD and I definitely notice the difference opening files and working with just about anything that accesses the disk.
Frankly the only reason(s) I got the 2.5 were because of Final Cut Pro X and Compressor. Not just for current workloads, but also for future. I like to get plenty of life out of my Macs, and I'd like the MBP to give me at least a good 5 years. I had considered getting just the base config and a Mac Mini to do the encodes, but instead I opted for the 2.5 and am very glad I did. After working on my first FCPx project in 1080/24 and seeing how even at times the monster 2.5 had some issues keeping up, it was an excellent choice for longevity. Added to that are large RAW workloads in Aperture or Photoshop, like today I needed to tear through edits on 180/3.2 GB worth of photos, it's really nice to have that excess processor overhead when you see it's pegged.
So with that in mind, I can only see the 2.4 or 2.5 being necessary if you do work that really is processor intense. Aside from that, the 2.2 is brilliant and will last you many years.
Frankly the only reason(s) I got the 2.5 were because of Final Cut Pro X and Compressor. Not just for current workloads, but also for future. I like to get plenty of life out of my Macs, and I'd like the MBP to give me at least a good 5 years. I had considered getting just the base config and a Mac Mini to do the encodes, but instead I opted for the 2.5 and am very glad I did. After working on my first FCPx project in 1080/24 and seeing how even at times the monster 2.5 had some issues keeping up, it was an excellent choice for longevity. Added to that are large RAW workloads in Aperture or Photoshop, like today I needed to tear through edits on 180/3.2 GB worth of photos, it's really nice to have that excess processor overhead when you see it's pegged.
So with that in mind, I can only see the 2.4 or 2.5 being necessary if you do work that really is processor intense. Aside from that, the 2.2 is brilliant and will last you many years.