Just like the title says, do you own either of these machines? What are your experiences? Can you justify the huge leap in price for a slight increase in spec? I wanted a 2.66Ghz, but now looking into a 2.4GHz instead, I just want to see how other people feel about this situation.
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.
2.4Ghz or 2.66GHz 2010 Macbook Pro 13.3"?
- Thread starter Ash9414
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i went base...
it has the 4GB RAM and 250GB HD is plenty for me as i only use if for applications. I keep music/video on externals.
usage is pretty irrelavent as both machines will porform the same in realworld tasks. they both have same ram and video card, .26 processor doesnt make a real difference.
it has the 4GB RAM and 250GB HD is plenty for me as i only use if for applications. I keep music/video on externals.
usage is pretty irrelavent as both machines will porform the same in realworld tasks. they both have same ram and video card, .26 processor doesnt make a real difference.
I still recommend the 2.4GHz. Those extra 260MHz aren't worth it unless you use nanosecond stopwatch
Oh yes, sorry about that. I will mostly be using it for school work and simply tasks such as using Safari. But occasionally I want to rip DVDs with Handbrake, maybe play a few games, such as Sims 3, and some light photo editing using GIMP.
P.S. I forgot video editing in iMovie, not sure if this will change things?
yes the base 2.4 is fine for you
How would the 2.66GHz classify differently to the 2.4GHz. Meaning what would I have to be doing to justify getting the 2.66GHz instead and paying the extra £200?
Basically if you were trying to do extensive video editing and or logic and an extra 10 seconds here and there mattered.
(and thats only in the case that you cant afford the i5/i7)
For light work in photoshop/video editing there will be very little noticable difference in performance.
as for web browsing email etc absolutely no difference.
(and thats only in the case that you cant afford the i5/i7)
For light work in photoshop/video editing there will be very little noticable difference in performance.
as for web browsing email etc absolutely no difference.
With the exception of school work, you will be using it mainly for leisure. This means when working with iMovie or GIMP, it isn't such an issue for you about how long it takes for things to render, where as if you were a professional, you'd want to complete tasks quickly to help you meet deadlines.
For you it seems time is not money, so what's the point in spending more on the computer? especially considering that even the base MBP is a premium computer and much faster than the average person's laptop, who would generally own a budget machine.
Why not spend the extra cash on accessories?
I won't be using Photoshop because I can't afford it and I'm not going to obtain it illegally because I've never done that and i don't intend on starting now (well, when I get my MBP). When you say there will be very little noticeable difference during video editing, will there only be a difference when exporting or during creation too?
My Unibody is the 2.4, bought a year and a half ago. She runs just fine! Other upgrades like RAM and a 7200 rpm hard drive will give you more noticeable speed increases.
That's what I was intending on doing. Just wanted to see other people's opinions on the matter and whether they thought it was worth it. I guess it isn't, and I will probably upgrade the 250GB to 320GB in the 2.4GHz anyway, so only difference is the processor speed.
When you say about how long it takes to render, are we only seeing minor differences, like around 10-20 seconds? Or longer? And by rendering, I'm guessing you mean saving and exporting the files?
I say get the base model - of course, I'm biased; that's what I just got, and love it, BTW.
Also, if you feel comfortable doing very minor computer work, replace the hard drive yourself. I paid $86 shipped for a 640GB drive, PLUS I got to keep my old 250GB and put it in an external case ($5 on eBay).
As for 5400rpm vs. 7200rpm, all I can say is check the benchmarks. You'll be surprised to find that many 5400rpm 2.5" drives (particularly large ones) are faster than their 7200rpm counterparts. I was between a 7200rpm 500GB and this 5400rpm 640GB until I saw that the 640GB was actually faster. And cheaper, BTW.
Also, if you feel comfortable doing very minor computer work, replace the hard drive yourself. I paid $86 shipped for a 640GB drive, PLUS I got to keep my old 250GB and put it in an external case ($5 on eBay).
As for 5400rpm vs. 7200rpm, all I can say is check the benchmarks. You'll be surprised to find that many 5400rpm 2.5" drives (particularly large ones) are faster than their 7200rpm counterparts. I was between a 7200rpm 500GB and this 5400rpm 640GB until I saw that the 640GB was actually faster. And cheaper, BTW.
I'm going to agree with the general consensus. My 2.4 GHz MBP seems as fast as the 2.53 GHz model it replaced, and the 320M graphics gives it an advantage in video and battery life. The 70 GB of hard drive space are negligible for most people. The base is a great value right now at the $1,100 range from resellers.
Ok, cool. What I was going to do is upgrade to 320GB on the Apple online store, and then perhaps buy a 500GB drive if I needed it in the future. The upgrade from 250GB to 320GB is only £40 so I think this is worth it as it involves me doing no work.
Another thing, will there be any difference when running Windows on the MBP, either in a virtualisation program or through BootCamp as I may try this out later if I really need to (for Windows only programs etc). Also, will you see any difference when playing games or watching a DVD?
I would agree with the other posters and say go with the 13" stock, thats what I just ordered. The difference between the two CPU's is not enough to justify the extra cash, period. You can still upgrade the RAM and hard drive and have the upgrades for a fraction of what Apple would charge you (see newegg.com).
Ok, cool. What I was going to do is upgrade to 320GB on the Apple online store, and then perhaps buy a 500GB drive if I needed it in the future. The upgrade from 250GB to 320GB is only £40 so I think this is worth it as it involves me doing no work.
Another thing, will there be any difference when running Windows on the MBP, either in a virtualisation program or through BootCamp as I may try this out later if I really need to (for Windows only programs etc). Also, will you see any difference when playing games or watching a DVD?
As others have said, the difference between the two CPUs is really infinitesimal. It's mostly a way to get extra cash from people who assume the higher number represents a big difference.
For games under Boot Camp, the GPU will be a bigger variable on performance than 0.26GHz. It may play a negligible role if you're using Parallels for virtualisation, but more RAM will be a bigger boost on that end and you're not going to be able to play games in a VM with the same parity that you would under straight Boot Camp, but that's the case no matter what CPU you go with.
What about a VM in general? Will it have any affect on that? I just want to cover myself for all the possibilities that I may run into in the future so that I don't regret my decision. Oh, and when I said games, I meant Mac game, would you see any difference then?
Definitely go with the 2.4 GHz processor. You won't notice any difference from the 2.66 GHz. If you were doing tasks where it would make a difference then you should get the 15" model anyway. Spend the $300 on an SSD or to max out the RAM. Those options will give you much better performance from your MBP
Yeah, this one is obvious. Apple should've at least given a bigger carrot like the core2duo with 6mb cache.
2.4 is fine. bigger and faster hard drive installed yourself will cost less and offer better performance.
I have a 2.26 MB and just upped the RAm to 4Gb and is works amazingly well for photo editing in Photoshop with 16 bit files in multiple layers using some powerful plugins like Topaz suite. You will be fine with 2.4 and not notice the difference if you went with 2.66.
I have a 2.26 MB and just upped the RAm to 4Gb and is works amazingly well for photo editing in Photoshop with 16 bit files in multiple layers using some powerful plugins like Topaz suite. You will be fine with 2.4 and not notice the difference if you went with 2.66.