2.4GHz vs. 2.5 GHz Macbook Pro?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by Mo Tiggas, Mar 30, 2008.

  1. Mo Tiggas macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    #1
    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
     
  2. LEStudios macrumors 6502

    LEStudios

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    #2
    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. :D
     
  3. JaredMatfess macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    #3
    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?
     
  4. grapes911 Moderator emeritus

    grapes911

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Location:
    Citizens Bank Park
    #4
    That metaphor doesn't really explain anything. There is almost no connection between that metaphor a CPU cache.



    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.
     
  5. Dan Lorth macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    #5
    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.
     
  6. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Dan Lorth macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    #7
    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.
     
  8. dal20402 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    #8
    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.
     
  9. neiltc13 macrumors 68040

    neiltc13

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    #9
    4GB RAM is only going to make a difference if you're using more than 2GB on a regular basis.
     
  10. laprej macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Location:
    Troy, NY
    #10
    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...
     
  11. gimmeiphone macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    #11
    also i think the graphics cards power is doubled, from 256 to 512, good for gaming!
     
  12. neiltc13 macrumors 68040

    neiltc13

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    #12
    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.
     
  13. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #13
    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.
     
  14. dollystereo macrumors 6502a

    dollystereo

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Location:
    France
    #14
    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.
     
  15. zer0tails macrumors 65816

    zer0tails

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    #15
    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.
     
  16. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #16
    .... 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.
     
  17. DoFoT9 macrumors P6

    DoFoT9

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2007
    Location:
    Singapore
    #17
    yes good point, the difference between 256mb and 512mb is something like 5%-10% increase in FPS (normally). not really worth it
     
  18. jaduffy108 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    #18
    *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....
     
  19. noodle654 macrumors 68020

    noodle654

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2005
    Location:
    Never Ender
    #19
    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.
     
  20. zer0tails macrumors 65816

    zer0tails

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Location:
    Canada
    #20
    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.
     
  21. Dan Lorth macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    #21
    wow this is awesome, thank you all of you for your responses. I think I will just go for the 2.4 and save some money to use on a HD upgrade and a RAM upgrade. Seriously, thank all of you you saved me about hundreds of dollars
     
  22. drewsof07 macrumors 68000

    drewsof07

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Location:
    Ohio
    #22
    That is a wise decision sir, buy yourself an external hard drive with the difference in $ for TM backups :)
     
  23. Dan Lorth macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2008
    #23
    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.
     
  24. drewsof07 macrumors 68000

    drewsof07

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Location:
    Ohio
  25. GGJstudios macrumors Westmere

    GGJstudios

    Joined:
    May 16, 2008
    #25
    Smart move! Just be sure you don't buy the RAM upgrade from Apple..... way too expensive.

     

Share This Page