2.4 or 2.5 GHz Macbook Pro

[Mark 618]

I am in need of a bit of assistance. My current laptop (a 17" HP Pavilion, P4 3.2 GHz, 2 GB Ram, OS XP Pro) is in need of replacing. I am considering the 15" 2.4 GHz Macbook Pro and a 15” 2.5 GHz Macbook Pro.

I plan to use the laptop as a desktop replacement and I mainly do CADD (design) work with 3D modeling and some renderings.

What I am wondering is if the differences between the 2.4 and 2.5 GHz configurations will make a noticeable difference in what I am doing. When I look at things based on the technical specs the 2.4 GHz unit is ever so slightly slower (0.1 GHz), has less cache, has a smaller hard drive and has the 256 MB graphics card vs the 512 MB card for the 2.5 GHz configuration.

What I am not sure of is if these differences will be noticeable in doing my work and are they worth the additional $500.00 that the 2.5 GHz configuration costs.

Also, I have an additional question regarding using the Mac on the internet. On my present laptop (OS - XP Pro) I utilize antivirus software to protect my computer when on the internet/e-mail. Would the Macbook Pro require the same type of antivirus software when used on the internet/e-mail? If so what works the best?

Thanks for your comments.

 

[daneoni]

For me the difference between both models is negligible unless you're gonna be doing graphics intensive work that would actually make use of the extra VRAM. The processor difference is probably 10% at best meaning maybe a second or two faster.

I'd save the $500 and use it to max out the RAM but then again the extra 256MB might come in handy with your 3D modeling work and even more so if you plan to drive an external display

 

[jjahshik32]

2.4Ghz.

 

[Shabbis]

Get the 2.5

For what you will be using it for, go for the 2.5. You can get 4GB ram for a net of about $70 from OWC (they will buy back your original ram). The 2.5 gives you 6MB L2 cache and 512 vram which we all know the more hardware the better for Windoze!

No antivirus needed for OS X but if you are going to run Windoze then I recommend it.

 

[bart rijksen]

I'd say, get the 2.5. I got mine yesterday, and it is awesome, except for the hissing and popping sound when i plug in earphones, and start listening to music

 

[jjahshik32]

I'd say, get the 2.5. I got mine yesterday, and it is awesome, except for the hissing and popping sound when i plug in earphones, and start listening to music

This is the problem that I had with my 2.4Ghz macbook. I thought it was only with the macbooks that had this problem?? I dont have any of those problems on the 2.4Ghz mbp though. And believe me I use it with my b&w 805s speakers.

I'm glad I moved up from the macbook to the 2.4Ghz mbp as the popping sound scared the bejesus out of me before everytime a sound would come on. Also I've owned the 2.5Ghz mbp and the 2.4Ghz mbp (I dont see any difference in speed on everyday use and I'm a pretty heavy user also even gaming on COD4 connected to the 23" ACD).

IMHO if your going to buy a mbp and its not the 17", I think the 2.4Ghz mbp is the way to go and save that extra $500 for next year's nehalem upgrade. Even if you dont want to upgrade to the nehalem.. 2.4Ghz vs. 2.5Ghz I dont see the $500 upgrade worth it at all (I guess unless you are a hardcore or your job requires heavy 3d modeling on the go that fully utilizes the 512mb vram on the mbp then go for it, but imo I think if you really want to get stuff done in the 3d department.. rather opt for the mac pro with the ati or nvidia 8800gt).

 

[alphaod]

For me the difference between both models is negligible unless you're gonna be doing graphics intensive work that would actually make use of the extra VRAM. The processor difference is probably 10% at best meaning maybe a second or two faster.

I'd save the $500 and use it to max out the RAM but then again the extra 256MB might come in handy with your 3D modeling work and even more so if you plan to drive an external display

Apparently you didn't read the OP's post. He's doing CAD work; what do think that is I wonder?

Yes get the 2.5, because that extra 256 MB VRAM will make those rendering a bit faster.

 

[jjahshik32]

Apparently you didn't read the OP's post. He's doing CAD work; what do think that is I wonder?

Yes get the 2.5, because that extra 256 MB VRAM will make those rendering a bit faster.

Oops my bad, I missed that lol. If that's the case get the 512mb vram!

 

[daneoni]

....but then again the extra 256MB might come in handy with your 3D modeling work and even more so if you plan to drive an external display

Apparently you didn't read the OP's post. He's doing CAD work; what do think that is I wonder?

Yes get the 2.5, because that extra 256 MB VRAM will make those rendering a bit faster.

I did, hence the final part of my post. I still think the OP should go with the 2.4GHz since its more than capable but if he's willing to spend the extra $500 then by all means...

 

[MacBookProJoe]

Get the most you can afford! The more power you get (relatively speaking) the longer that technology will remain relevant.

 

[QCassidy352]

I think the current line up represents just about the least value for your extra $500 (which has been the difference between the base and the next level for some time now) that we've ever seen. That $500 gets you 100 mhz, 256 video RAM, and 50 GB of HD space.

The difference in VRAM used to be meaningful, but even 256 is so much on a 15" screen that the extra will make very little difference for almost all users. Ditto the 100 mhz. The HD space might mean something for some people, but professional users will likely want more than 250 GB and/or externals anyway.

 

[jjahshik32]

I think the current line up represents just about the least value for your extra $500 (which has been the difference between the base and the next level for some time now) that we've ever seen. That $500 gets you 100 mhz, 256 video RAM, and 50 GB of HD space.

The difference in VRAM used to be meaningful, but even 256 is so much on a 15" screen that the extra will make very little difference for almost all users. Ditto the 100 mhz. The HD space might mean something for some people, but professional users will likely want more than 250 GB and/or externals anyway.

I hardly ever care about the hdd size because I always take it out and put my hitachi travelstar 7k200 in anyway.
I also agree on the 256mb vram-->512mb vram as well, I remember when the 2.2Ghz 128mb vram (owned this too) jump to the 2.4Ghz 256vram on the previous generation mbp I saw a huge difference especially in gaming but I dont see any difference to the 512mb vram. Maybe 5% at most if that and I'm guessing that 5% is from the 6mb of cache.

I hear apple pays about $75-$85 to get from 3mb-->6mb cache with the 2.5Ghz from intel + so that's a major rip off imo. There was also a review about the comparisons from the 3mb of cache to the 6mb of cache as well on the mbp I think from anandtech and they concluded they only saw overall of 5% increase in speed from the 2.4Ghz(3mb cache)-->2.5Ghz(6mb cache).

After owning the 2.2ghz mbp of last years models and 2.4Ghz of this year and the 2.5Ghz 15" and the 2.6Ghz & 2.5Ghz 17" mbp..(dont ask me how or why, lol) I feel that the 2.4Ghz-->2.5Ghz I dont feel any difference at all BUT the 2.5Ghz and the 2.6Ghz of the 17" mbp did feel a bit faster overall and I"m guessing its due to the power usage as the 17" logic board/heat sinks are much bigger/efficient.

For example the 2.6Ghz/2.5Ghz 17" mbp ran really fast with no hiccups and very solid connected dual monitor mode onto my 23" ACD but the 2.4Ghz 15" mbp and the 15" 2.5Ghz mbp does run into some sort of a hiccup in heavy multitasking in dual monitor mode but feels alot faster overall in closed mode. Basically the 17" 2.5Ghz/2.6ghz mbp in dual monitor mode was fast or even faster than the 15" 2.4Ghz/2.5Ghz in closed "shell" mode.

 

[burningrave101]

Apparently you didn't read the OP's post. He's doing CAD work; what do think that is I wonder?

Yes get the 2.5, because that extra 256 MB VRAM will make those rendering a bit faster.

If he is doing the work on an external monitor then it would probably make a difference but on his laptop I doubt that it would since the 8600M GT isn't that fast of a card and can't handle 512MB of vRAM with it's 128-bit memory bus. When you're running an external display over your DVI connection though the vRAM is split up between the laptop LCD and the external display so then you'd only have like 128MB of available vRAM for the external.

 

[Mark 618]

Everyone, thanks for the opinions anf thoughts.

I will run an external monitor (I am probably going to get a 24" Acer or Viewsonic). Also the graphics I do are not very intense as my projects are smaller (mostly residential design) in nature.

 

[polar-blair]

I have also trying to choose between the 2.4 and the 2.5 mbp. Im getting one for college this year, im doing graphics also. But If you have not bought a mbp yet, you might want to wait a while, I've seen a lot of articles on the web about a new mbp remake to be announced in june along with the iphone 2.0 software. Nothing has been confirmed, but If you can wait It might be worth it, I know I would be gutted to go and buy a brand new £2000 laptop then 2 weeks later apple release a newer and better model, for the same price or maybe even less.

I thought I might just mention it.

 

[dblissmn]

I plan to use the laptop as a desktop replacement and I mainly do CADD (design) work with 3D modeling and some renderings.

Double the L2 cache and double the VRAM will make a difference for 3D work. I don't know enough about it to know how much, but I would check the benchmarks at Barefeats.com so you can make your own judgement. They did a test on April 1 (see http://www.barefeats.com/mbpp02.html) between the 2.4GHz 15 and 2.6GHz 17, which shows no difference whatsoever between the two on gaming but about a 20 percent difference between the two on, you know, actual work applications for 3D. The strong implication is that the cache and the VRAM are primarily responsible for that difference.