2.26GHz vs. 2.53GHz 13" MBP -- How much of a difference?

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by analytical44, Jun 9, 2009.

  1. analytical44 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    Philly
    #1
    Hello all. I've been waiting patiently for an upgrade to the uMBs and now that it's finally come I'm not sure what to do. I've searched around the forums and sorta got an answer to this question but I still want to know more. How much difference does .27GHz make in terms of speed? I've heard that basic users won't be able to notice the difference between the two but there has to be some performance increase with a faster processor...no?

    If one cannot tell the difference doing basic tasks such as word processing, iTunes, bowsing, etc., where can the difference be seen? Are there any processes where a significant difference is noticeable?

    Also, in terms of resale value, does anyone expect that the 2.53 model will be able to be sold at a substanially ($100+) higher price? I'm very curious because upgrading the 2.26 to a 500GB hardrive and 4GB of RAM comes out to be relatively cheap and I would do it in an instant if the difference is truely that minimal. On the other hand, if the extra .27GHz will allow me to stay up to snuff with future technological advancements I'd consider the extra money to be a worthwhile investment. Any help would be greatly appreciated and would go a long way in helping me come to a decision. Thanks.
     
  2. analytical44 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    Philly
    #2
    Nothing? I could really use some help from people who know what they're talking about before making a purchase. Thanks.
     
  3. analytical44 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    Philly
    #4
  4. scotsomuni macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    #5
    I'm having the same dilemma with the exact same configuration...500 GB and 4 GB of ram...the difference is roughly $200 for upgrade processor. I honesly doubt you would ever know the difference of 0.27GHz, but at the same time, I personally would probably pay the extra $200 for piece of mind and to hopefully future proof it for it for little longer. However, the $200 could be used towards software or other things as well. I've always read that you're better off upgrading the RAM and/or Video Card before spending money on small increments of processing speed.
     
  5. heatmiser macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    #6
    Projects that would freeze your computer for 3 hours (e.g., conversions) will now freeze your computer for 2h45 min. The day to day stuff won't change; that's what RAM is for.
     
  6. tempusfugit macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Location:
    Chicago
    #7
    true the jump from 2.0 to 2.4 was a bigger one in the original uMB's but when I considered the extra memory and HD space coupled with a modest increase in processing power I decided on the 2.53. Also the way I looked at it was the 2.26's are slower than the higher end uMB.


    apple charges about 100 bucks to go from 2 to 4 gb ram. Online for quality ram you're looking at about 70 bucks.

    We all know you can upgrade your HD relatively cheaply, but if you don't really plan on this its nice to have an extra 90 gigs of HD space out of the box.

    the .27 GHz increase is processing power might be modest, but they are dual core processors so I like to think of it as a .54 GHz increase in overall power.
     
  7. hyperscribble macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2009
    Location:
    St. Pete
    #9
    People have been saying that the difference in speed between 2.26Ghz & 2.53Ghz CPUs is not that significant, which for basic users is probably true.

    Having said that, if one works with 3D imagery/animation and has the need to render a 300 frame piece (as an example), we're talking about shaving some time off of that render when considering the 2.53Ghz CPU over the slightly slower processor. For example, if the 2.26Ghz CPU renders those 300 frames in two and a half hours, the 2.53Ghz may render those frames in just two hours and ten minutes. Respectively, if a render session lasts two days & 12 hours with the 2.26Ghz, the 2.53Ghz may finish in just two days and a couple of hours, and so you can see where the advantages sit. So, that area of working is probably where people will see the most difference in a marginal speed increase. I can imagine that the faster CPU may also accelerate video encoding/2D rendering in a somewhat similar fashion.
     
  8. LED macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    #10
    Like others have said here, the difference in clock speed is insignificant. You are unlikely to notice a difference. If you want a significant performance increase, save your money for a solid state drive.
     

Share This Page