2.4Ghz or 2.66GHz 2010 Macbook Pro 13.3"?

Ash9414

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 25, 2010
459
19
United Kingdom
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.
 

EstrlM3

macrumors 6502
Apr 16, 2010
317
0
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.
 

Ash9414

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 25, 2010
459
19
United Kingdom
Without telling us what you use your machine for it's hard to give you advice.
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?
 

EstrlM3

macrumors 6502
Apr 16, 2010
317
0
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.
 

seb-opp

macrumors 6502
Nov 16, 2008
398
1
London/Norwich
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?
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?
 

Ash9414

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 25, 2010
459
19
United Kingdom
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.
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?
 

Lurchdubious

macrumors 65816
Oct 15, 2008
1,150
19
Texas
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.
 

Ash9414

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 25, 2010
459
19
United Kingdom
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?
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?
 

js81

macrumors 65816
Dec 31, 2008
1,199
16
KY
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.
 

MTD's Mac

macrumors regular
Mar 18, 2010
175
26
Los Angeles
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.
 

Ash9414

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 25, 2010
459
19
United Kingdom
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.
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?
 

vant

macrumors 65816
Jul 1, 2009
1,231
1
The 2.66 is one of the biggest cash cows for Apple. I'd avoid it entirely no matter the circumstances. .26GHz + small increase in HD doesn't equate to $300.
 

ldobson

macrumors regular
Jun 19, 2009
141
0
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).
 

Chupa Chupa

macrumors G5
Jul 16, 2002
14,834
7,394
The 2.66 is one of the biggest cash cows for Apple. I'd avoid it entirely no matter the circumstances. .26GHz + small increase in HD doesn't equate to $300.
Exactly. The smart money goes w/ the low end here no question.
 

hypermog

macrumors regular
Nov 17, 2009
245
0
It's an 11% performance gain for 20% price premium. You'll get more performance, but less bang per buck. Since you aren't doing well, anything intensive at all... go with the 2.4. It's almost as fast as the fastest 13" model from 2 months ago!
 

mixvio

macrumors 6502
Apr 12, 2009
388
0
Sydney, Australia
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.
 

Ash9414

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Apr 25, 2010
459
19
United Kingdom
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?
 

tbonecrush84

macrumors newbie
Apr 21, 2010
2
0
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
 

vant

macrumors 65816
Jul 1, 2009
1,231
1
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?
I'd avoid it entirely no matter the circumstances. .26GHz + small increase in HD doesn't equate to $300.

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.
Exactly. The smart money goes w/ the low end here no question.
.
 

magbarn

macrumors 68020
Oct 25, 2008
2,299
1,404
The 2.66 is one of the biggest cash cows for Apple. I'd avoid it entirely no matter the circumstances. .26GHz + small increase in HD doesn't equate to $300.
Yeah, this one is obvious. Apple should've at least given a bigger carrot like the core2duo with 6mb cache.
 

Vantage Point

macrumors 65816
Mar 1, 2010
1,169
1
New Jersey
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.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.