This is just one thing I need a little help with... How much difference am I going to see between the two 15" macbook pros? Is it in the speed of the processor, or is it the cache difference that will really count? What exactly does that actually mean for my computer - the cache (3mb vs 6mb)? Thanks
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 vs. 2.5 GHz Macbook Pro?
- Thread starter Mo Tiggas
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Here's a metaphor way to put it think of the 3MB Cache as a student with a three page notepad to take notes and the 6MB Cache as the other student with a six page notepad. If the teacher ask the students based on their notes explain the lesson taught which student you think would have more detail on the lesson explained.
What type of applications would benefit? The analogy was good, but didn't really explain the true benefit of the extra cache from an application performance perspective.. Is this only relevant for video editing?
That metaphor doesn't really explain anything. There is almost no connection between that metaphor a CPU cache.Here's a metaphor way to put it think of the 3MB Cache as a student with a three page notepad to take notes and the 6MB Cache as the other student with a six page notepad. If the teacher ask the students based on their notes explain the lesson taught which student you think would have more detail on the lesson explained.
CPU cache is sort of like RAM on the CPU, but much quicker.
Work is done at the CPU level and the data is stored in the cache. If you need more storage then the overflow is pushed out to the RAM. RAM is much slower and less efficient than CPU cache. If you run out of RAM, then the data is pushed out to the hard drive as virtual memory or swap. Swap is much slower and less efficient than RAM.
More cache allows the CPU to perform more operations without having to push data to the RAM. Neither 3MB nor 6MB will be enough for most operations and storage so RAM will be used.
The average Internet, E-Mail, etc user will not notice a difference. People performing intense operations such as video or photo editing might because more data can be queued up in CPU cache.
My recommendation is to get the faster processor with larger cache, but if money is an issue or there is a big disparity in price, don't feel bad getting the other 2.4 GHz. It won't make enough of a difference to get upset about.
bump, I have the same question as the OP. I would use the computer for editing with Aperture 2 and archiving photos mainly, some internet usage of course but really I would keep it to photography related applications.
Right now money is not an issue but I wouldnt want to spend 500$ more for a machine with miniscule differences than its "little" brother. So I am seeking advice on 2.4 vs. 2.5, which do you think would be more appropriate and why? Thanks to all of you who already responded to this thread.
Right now money is not an issue but I wouldnt want to spend 500$ more for a machine with miniscule differences than its "little" brother. So I am seeking advice on 2.4 vs. 2.5, which do you think would be more appropriate and why? Thanks to all of you who already responded to this thread.
the difference isnt that large, the main difference your after is the CPU speed (in this case 100mhz is going to be NOTHING). even for future proofing apple isnt going to say "you need the 2.5ghz penryn MBP to run this", they will probably say "2.2ghz penryn MBP" or something like that.
if you can afford the 2.5ghz go for it especially if you will be doing multitasking at high levels (video editing and parallels etc at the same time) otherwise just spare your money for extra RAM, HDD or something else.
if you can afford the 2.5ghz go for it especially if you will be doing multitasking at high levels (video editing and parallels etc at the same time) otherwise just spare your money for extra RAM, HDD or something else.
Yes that is what I was thinking, the 100 mhz difference really wouldnt do that much would it? I know the 2.5 ghz computer has more graphics card but I have read on this site (I have leanred so much here) that it is more the CPU than the GPU for photo editing. In which case, 100 MHZ wouldnt matter at all would it? And I could use the money saved to buy a RAM upgrade and external HD's.
The processor difference is so small here, it's only worth it if you get paid for doing processor-intensive tasks (in which case you'll be getting the 2.6 BTO option anyway).
In 99.9% of real-world everyday tasks, a 2.4 upgraded to 4 GB of RAM will perform better. If you want to make that 99.99%, also upgrade it to a 7200 rpm disk -- and the machine will still be cheaper than the 2.5 version.
In 99.9% of real-world everyday tasks, a 2.4 upgraded to 4 GB of RAM will perform better. If you want to make that 99.99%, also upgrade it to a 7200 rpm disk -- and the machine will still be cheaper than the 2.5 version.
4GB RAM is only going to make a difference if you're using more than 2GB on a regular basis.
Generally speaking, you can never have enough RAM - especially these days on a Mac, where lots of people are running Windows via Fusion/Parallels. That may change when 8/16 GB configurations become the norm, but for some crazy reason operating systems seem to get bigger to fill up typical amounts of RAM for common users...
No, this is not a measure of the card's power. It will have 512mb of RAM to address, but this will not "double" the power or really have any impact like that. It merely means that textures, models etc which would normally be swapped to system RAM can be held in the vRAM.
Overall, due to the faster processor, increased cache and increased VRAM between the 2.4 and the 2.5, I believe you'd notice more of a difference between the 2.4 and the 2.5 than you would between the 2.5 and the 2.6, where only processor speed is different. The biggest noticeable difference you'll see, however, is increasing RAM. The performance bump from 2GB to 4GB of RAM will be more noticeable in most applications than the difference from the 2.4 to the 2.6 processor/cache/VRAM.
Is almost impossible to see the difference between the machines. I wuold Go for the 2.4, get 4 GB ram (120USD cas 4), get a Hitachi 320GB 7200rpm, (170USD) and a great external Backup HD (500GB 200 USD) and your machine will kick the ass to the 2.5GHZ model.
I had a 2.4 penryn and switched over to the 2.5 penryn lately. Was the 2.4 not good enough? Hardly, it was an awesome machine. i only switched because i wanted to run a 30" display.
My experience with both is that the 2.4 was less hot, stayed cool easier, and had longer battery life. Since my 2.5 has the 7200 rpm HD.
I feel the 2.4 also has a very nice lcd panel amde by samsung the 9c81.
my advice, unless you're gonna do some heavy duty work, get the 2.4, max out the ram, get a nice firewire drive, and nice accessories like a case, bag etc.
My experience with both is that the 2.4 was less hot, stayed cool easier, and had longer battery life. Since my 2.5 has the 7200 rpm HD.
I feel the 2.4 also has a very nice lcd panel amde by samsung the 9c81.
my advice, unless you're gonna do some heavy duty work, get the 2.4, max out the ram, get a nice firewire drive, and nice accessories like a case, bag etc.
.... unless, of course, the 2.5GHz model also has 4GB RAM and the same hard drive.
Why would you switch for that? All MBPs, including the 2.4GHz model, can run the 30" ACD.
yes good point, the difference between 256mb and 512mb is something like 5%-10% increase in FPS (normally). not really worth it
*I* wouldn't buy either because both have the NVIDIA 8600 gpu, which is a ticking bomb. Either wait for the new machines in Sept. or buy a 2.33 MBP.
my two cents....
my two cents....
Why would you even think of buying a 2.33GHz...its nearly 2 1/2 year old computer? It only supports 2GB (3.3GB really), doesnt have LED, small HD, and a slower CPU. I would rather wait or just buy one now. The 8600 issue will be addressed and I would advise the OP to buy AppleCare with any machine that you buy just incase something happens.
yes they all can. It probably is just me. But I felt I needed the extra vram and L2 cache. Not to mention, I went with having a glossy MBP and matte cinema display.
Yea TM is one of the reasons I want to get this computer instead of something else but the decider for me was 2.4 or 2.5, especially since I will be using it for Aperture 2. Knowing the 256 to 512mb increase on the GPU doesnt increase a whole lot anyways is also awesome to know. Thank you again ha. I feel like the geico guy who saved a bunch of money on his insurance.
Smart move! Just be sure you don't buy the RAM upgrade from Apple..... way too expensive.
- Here's some info on RAM upgrades:
- Guides : Hardware: MR Guide to Buying RAM
- Guides : Hardware: MR Guide to Understanding Intel Mac RAM
- Apple charges more than double the price you would pay with other reputable RAM providers (for example, $200 for 4GB RAM.)
- A great source for Mac-compatible RAM is OWC. Their MacBook and MacBook Pro 4GB upgrade kit is $99 (£50). You can check their site for other configurations.
- Another source is Crucial memory from newegg.com.
- Installation for a Macbook or a MacBook Pro is easy and does not void the Apple Warranty or the AppleCare Protection Plan, unless you damage something in the process.