2.4 or 2.66 MBP? (15.4")

[fokket]

Long story short, I've searched many forums countless times and felt best to ask here telling the situation specifically.



Key points

1) Most system-demanding applications of mine are:-

Have photoshop,illustrator, iPhoto, Safari running simultaneously,
multiple photos and images open at same time.
*I feel slow on 1st gen C2D 2Ghz 1GB RAM

Pro/E (will be running this on Bootcamp)

Battlefield 2
(My gaming days are long gone, but still play that every once in a while.
I don't need hot shot performance, but still want reasonably good graphics)

2) I can deal with glossy screen, but want to wait until the matt screen option comes out, but will have to by June as I want to take the advantage of student discount



My friend has advised me to get the 2.4 Ghz model with SSD and 4GB RAM.

and firewire external HDDs, but what are your opinion?

What my friend suggested to me made a lot of sense as I can leave files that don't need rapid access (HD movies, Image files that simply needs to be stored, but not need soon) to ext. HDD and 'working files' on SSD



*PS I have thought of iMac and that's what I want, but I actually genuinely need portable.

 

[spinnerlys]

The 2.4 GHz model will suffice, and if you upgrade the RAM it will do nicely.

The only advantage of the 2.66 GHz model is the 6MB L2 cache (3MB on 2.4 model) and the 512MB RAM of the graphics card.

But if you only play once in a while, you won't notice that much of a difference.

Have a look at the MacBook Pro / PowerBook sub-forum, there are some threads about the differences of those two models you mentioned.

 

[clyde2801]

I'd get the base with a 7200 rpm drive and wait for SSD's to come down in price/come up in capacity. I know the people that have top end SSD's rave about them, but they are still a little too cutting edge for me now.

 

[techound1]

The free ipod student deal usually runs through the end of August, so your window is a little bigger than you thought.

There's a really great article on SSDs here. It may help you decide if you want to wait or not on the SSD.

 

[michael.lauden]

if you go with the 2.66 you would technically be outdated a bit later than the 2.4.

 

[James Cole]

Yes you probably wont notice the difference at all unless you are an extreme power user.

 

[fokket]

What about HD playback?


I'm also thinking of hooking up a 24" screen to be used as 'dual monitor' setup.


so I get 1 15" screen from NBP and one 24"

 

[spinnerlys]

Both will handle HD playback just fine, be it 720p or 1080p/i.

Don't forget an adapter for the external display, a miniDisplayPort to VGA or DVI from Apple will do fine and cost an extra 30$.

 

[wahoo10]

I went with the 2.66 in hopes of beating the "outdated" curve a bit. That and you get the extra graphics memory, and it comes with 4GB pre-installed RAM.

 

[nutritious]

lol, you should've just went with the 2.4ghz model. $500 extra for nothing. 512mb is a waste on an underclocked 9600 mobile card--there won't be any performance differences between the two. Look at it this way, an 8800gts only has 320mb of ram, but is more powerful than the 9600m, and you don't see 320mb bottlenecking it. 256mb is MORE than enough enough for an UNDERCLOCKED 9600m. And there won't be any noticeable difference between 2.4ghz and 2.66ghz--in essence, you got ripped off, and both laptops will be outdated at the same time as they use the same tech.

 

[zer0tails]

I wouldn't call it a waste of money as while not official, the 2.66 can support 8GB of ram whereas the 2.4 can't. That ability will be useful down the road.

you want my advice? Buy the best that you can afford

personally, I went with the 2.93 and no i don't consider it a rip off or waste of money. It's an investment for the next few years

 

[drewsof07]

Your decision really comes down to 2 questions:

1. How much GPU processing do you need for the next ~4-5yrs? 256mb or 512mb
   and
2. How much RAM will you need?

CPUs are really about the 3rd or 4th thing to look at when buying a computer, you need to consider the RAM speed and HD speed as well because both will hinder your performance no matter how fast the CPU is.

SSD's are whoa too expensive to buy in large capacity.
Who wants to offload all but important data to external drives?? I know I don't. The battery life isn't much improved anyway, they proved that when the MBA first came out so a slight performance boost is all you would see.

 

[nutritious]

I wouldn't call it a waste of money as while not official, the 2.66 can support 8GB of ram whereas the 2.4 can't. That ability will be useful down the road.

you want my advice? Buy the best that you can afford

personally, I went with the 2.93 and no i don't consider it a rip off or waste of money. It's an investment for the next few years

nice, so it can support 8gb? Kind of useless on a mobile core 2 duo machine. Having 8gb on a machine like that really makes no sense.

Your decision really comes down to 2 questions:

1. How much GPU processing do you need for the next ~4-5yrs? 256mb or 512mb
   and
2. How much RAM will you need?

CPUs are really about the 3rd or 4th thing to look at when buying a computer, you need to consider the RAM speed and HD speed as well because both will hinder your performance no matter how fast the CPU is.

SSD's are whoa too expensive to buy in large capacity.
Who wants to offload all but important data to external drives?? I know I don't. The battery life isn't much improved anyway, they proved that when the MBA first came out so a slight performance boost is all you would see.

*face palm*

CPUs are the MOST important thing when it comes to buying a computer. If your CPU is slow, it will not matter how much ram you have, hdd speed, etc. HDD speed is one of the most overrated things ever. I have a 10k rpm raptor inside my main rig, and there is HARDLY a difference between it and the 640gb western digital caviar black I have in my system. SSD has horrible write speeds, and I really wouldn't recommend SSDs to anyone at this time. According to your logic, it would be fine to load a pentium 4 machine with 8gb of ram, as the CPU isn't as important as the ram, which is silly, considering a pentium 4 would have no benefit from 8gb ram and would likely not benefit from over 2gb of ram. If a user wants 8gb of ram, he better have the CPU power to actually take advantage of it, something like an overclocked q6600 at the least...

Second of all, there won't be a difference between an underclocked 9600m with 512mb and with 256mb. A lousy underclocked mobile card isn't going to be bottlenecked by 256mb--256mb is more than ENOUGH for it.

 

[drewsof07]

nice, so it can support 8gb? Kind of useless on a mobile core 2 duo machine. Having 8gb on a machine like that really makes no sense.

You think that's the part that doesn't make sense?? spending as much on RAM as the cost of the computer makes no sense! haha

 

[nutritious]

You think that's the part that doesn't make sense?? spending as much on RAM as the cost of the computer makes no sense! haha

you can find 8gb of 1066 ddr3 ram pretty cheaply these days. It would cost no more than $80 if one knows where to look and is willing to mail in rebates.

 

[zer0tails]

you can find 8gb of 1066 ddr3 ram pretty cheaply these days. It would cost no more than $80 if one knows where to look and is willing to mail in rebates.

8GB of DDR3 ram for $80?? where? Even $200, i'll jump heh And mind telling me why you think 8GB of RAM wouldn't make sense in a core 2 duo machine? Because I know myself and a lot of others could make use of it.

think.

 

[theimacdude]

Your practically doing what I do on my 2.4GHz MBP.
Scrap all that SSD rubbish. Also upgrading the RAM is a must, for maximum performance.

 

[drewsof07]

*face palm*

CPUs are the MOST important thing when it comes to buying a computer. If your CPU is slow, it will not matter how much ram you have, hdd speed, etc. HDD speed is one of the most overrated things ever. I have a 10k rpm raptor inside my main rig, and there is HARDLY a difference between it and the 640gb western digital caviar black I have in my system.

You seriously don't notice an increased speed when transferring large files??? I sure as hell do with my 7200 compared to a 5400.

According to your logic, it would be fine to load a pentium 4 machine with 8gb of ram, as the CPU isn't as important as the ram, which is silly, considering a pentium 4 would have no benefit from 8gb ram and would likely not benefit from over 2gb of ram.

No, I implied when buying a NEW computer. 2.4 vs 2.66 is not a significant speed boost in the long run.
I agree the CPU speed is one of the components that cannot be upgraded in a notebook so you should have a powerful one to begin with, but there is a point where the cost to performance ratio becomes a losing situation for the buyer.

 

[nutritious]

8GB of DDR3 ram for $80?? where? Even $200, i'll jump heh And mind telling me why you think 8GB of RAM wouldn't make sense in a core 2 duo machine? Because I know myself and a lot of others could make use of it.

think.

Mainly because with the amount of multitasking you'd need to use all 8gb, a Core 2 Duo wouldn't be so good at multitasking that many apps. It won't be as speedy as you'd like even though you could have more apps open without needing to tap into HDD. Sometimes there are apps that can just burn through 8gb like nothing, but those kind of apps really would benefit more from a beefier processor than 8gb of ram to notice an actual speed difference. A C2D with 4GB of ram is really more than you'd need, and anything above that won't really be noticed considering the speed of the processor and the number of processors available. Now, if you had a quad core at 3ghz, it'll be to multitask much better than a C2D so it would benefit from 8gb of ram, a C2D--not so much. It won't really make your computing experience much faster if you're multitasking to the point you'd need 8gb of ram. And if you actually do need to use 8gb of ram, what the hell are you doing with a laptop to do the job? Get a nice quad core and it'll handle all of that much better and would actually benefit from the ram increases. But in most cases, 8GB is overkill for most quad cores, too.

Also, I forgot that we were talking about laptops and that sodimms are more expensive...so yeah you can't find 8gb for $80 considering the macbook pros only have 2 ram slots. yeah, 4gb sodimm sticks are expensive. I, myself, got 6GB 1600mhz ocz platinum ram @ 7-7-7-24 for $80 after MIR off newegg. I use it in my i7 rig.

 

[nutritious]

You seriously don't notice an increased speed when transferring large files??? I sure as hell do with my 7200 compared to a 5400.

No, I implied when buying a NEW computer. 2.4 vs 2.66 is not a significant speed boost in the long run.
I agree the CPU speed is one of the components that cannot be upgraded in a notebook so you should have a powerful one to begin with, but there is a point where the cost to performance ratio becomes a losing situation for the buyer.

compared to a 5400RPM (those things are silly slow), you will notice a difference, but there is not a huge difference between 10krpm and 7200rpm drives in my computer. And I feel sorry for people who spend so much money on these computers and get stock 5400rpm hard drives--that is pathetic.

Really, if people's main interest here is power, I'd look at desktops instead of laptops, but apple offers none besides the mac pro, so I understand. Really, apple needs to offer more options to its users.

 

[wahoo10]

And I feel sorry for people who spend so much money on these computers and get stock 5400rpm hard drives--that is pathetic.

What the hell is your problem? You're bashing everyone for no good reason. My 5400 is plenty fine in my apparently bad decision of a 2.66Ghz computer. Sorry I'm so pathetic and don't see the point to a HD upgrade when it was just un-needed.

 

[nutritious]

What the hell is your problem? You're bashing everyone for no good reason. My 5400 is plenty fine in my apparently bad decision of a 2.66Ghz computer. Sorry I'm so pathetic and don't see the point to a HD upgrade when it was just un-needed.

I'm not saying you're pathetic. I am saying Apple is pathetic for offering those kind of drives in their expensive laptops. And I'm not "bashing" people. I just don't want to see people waste their money...

 

[drewsof07]

I just don't want to see people waste their money...

Haha, "waste" is a matter of perspective
Most people justify maxing out their machines as an "investment"
You've been fairly helpful though.

 

[clyde2801]

I'd say the 2.66 has more value in the long run, at least when you sell your computer.

I just bought a used 2.33 15" mpb off of craigslist, and it has the top of the line ati card with 256 megs of video ram rather than 128 megs. I know that the base and mid level have the same processor, but I figured I'd get a little bit more useful life with the larger card. The same can be said of the 12" last gen powerbook (nvidia 5200 with 64 megs) versus the ibook (ati card with 32 megs).

Demands on video cards have been steadily increasing, even in the mac sphere of influence. My dual g5 2ghz powermac only had a nvidia agp card with 64 megs, for crying out loud, and it was the top of the line a few years back.

In 2012 (when we're all flying around in our apple hovercrafts), the difference in video ram may not make much of a difference between the two machines. But I'd bet you can sell the one with 512 megs of video ram easier than the one that 'only' has 256 megs.

 

[fokket]

What the hell is your problem? You're bashing everyone for no good reason. My 5400 is plenty fine in my apparently bad decision of a 2.66Ghz computer. Sorry I'm so pathetic and don't see the point to a HD upgrade when it was just un-needed.

I never understood it either.


Besides that, would 3MB of L2 cache of 2.4 would make much difference over 6MB of L2 cache of 2.66?


My buddy said to it wouldn't make too much difference unless I'm doing video work. Which I rarely ever do.