2.4GHz vs 3.06GHz

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by clauditorium, Aug 8, 2010.

  1. clauditorium macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    #1
    I've searched around quite a bit, but haven't found an answer to this question.

    I'm currently trying to decide whether to purchase a laptop or a desktop computer. While I would appreciate the portability of a laptop, speed is an issue; I'm an impatient person. But I have to compromise a little, because money is an issue for me too.

    I've narrowed down my search to either a 2.4GHz MacBook, or a 3.06GHz iMac.

    This is the key question that will help me make a decision: is there a very noticeable difference between 2.4GHz and 3.06GHz processors? The rest of the stats for these two computers are very similar (aside from hard drive speed, but if I choose the MacBook, I could get a faster drive for it).

    For the record, programs I intend to use include Final Cut Pro and Logic Pro.

    I'll appreciate any input I can get. Thanks!

    EDIT: I forgot to mention that I wouldn't be using the two above programs every day (and I certainly won't have both open at the same time). I'm not a professional editor or musician; I merely dabble in both.
    Also, if I got the laptop, I'd connect it to a larger screen (which I already own) for home use.
     
  2. poot1234 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2009
    #2
    If they both have the same amount of ram, drive speed, and cache, then you will not notice it too much. Of course the 3.0ghz will be faster, but if you want the portability, the 2.4 will be just perfect. The difference you might see when doing certain CPU intensive tasks will only be about a couple seconds different.
     
  3. mgridgaway macrumors 6502

    mgridgaway

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2006
    #3
    For normal tasks, no.

    For the tasks you mentioned, definitely. But that's not just because the processor is faster. Don't forget the hdd and GPU (sometimes, but not always) are both a factor, and are both faster in the iMac.
     
  4. clauditorium thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    #4
    I forgot to mention that I wouldn't be using those programs every day (and I certainly won't have both open at the same time). If that matters. I'm not a professional editor or musician; I merely dabble in both.

    And if I got the MacBook, I'd connect it to a larger screen for home use, and I'd likely get a hard drive that matches the iMac's.
     
  5. J&JPolangin macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2008
    Location:
    Thule GL @ the TOW
    #5
    ...so you're looking at the current gen whitebook and the prev gen iMac with 3.06 C2D's in both machines?

    The iMac will have a 3.5" HDD which will give better performance than the 2.5" HDD in the whitebook... will you upgrade the RAM in both machines?

    If so, what is the top limit on each and is that a consideration for you in the future since you say $$ is a concern?

    Are you going with a refurb unit (if in the USA) to save some $$?

    Lots more variables here...
     
  6. THX1139 macrumors 68000

    THX1139

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #6
    Get the fastest computer you can afford that runs the software you need. And remember, no matter how fast your computer is today, it will be too slow tomorrow. Especially if you are impatient.

    Either computer would be fine for what you do. You just need to ask yourself if you want a bit more speed in exchange for a ball and chain. A laptop will limit your speed slightly, but it will set you free.
     
  7. clauditorium thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    #7
    I'd stick with the 4GB memory in each case.

    I'm not in the US, but yes I am looking at refurbished units. To be specific, these two:
    http://store.apple.com/ca/product/FB...co=MTU0MzQ5Mjk (EDIT: never mind that it's currently out of stock)
    http://store.apple.com/ca/product/FC374LL/A?mco=MTgxMzM0Mjc

    I know the iMac's hard drive has twice the space, but that's not a factor in my decision.
     
  8. J&JPolangin macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2008
    Location:
    Thule GL @ the TOW
    #8
  9. clauditorium thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    #9
    Damn. Well, for the purposes of this query, let's pretend it isn't.
     
  10. seb-opp macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2008
    Location:
    London/Norwich
    #10
    I have a 2010 13" MBP 2.4GHz and my parents have a 2009 3GHz 21" iMac. I was at theirs last week encoding some DVDs on both, and the iMac was marginally quicker.

    Despite this if it was me I'd still think about how important portability is. If you currently have a laptop and use it at a desk 90% of the time, get the iMac. If you have a desktop at the moment and wished you could take it out and about with you, go for the macbook. If you're not a pro, time isn't money so waiting an extra minute or two for rendering shouldn't be too much of a problem?
     
  11. clauditorium thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    #11
    I currently have a desktop. One reason I'm interested in a portable computer is that I'm planning to go on 2-week road trips every two years starting next June, and it would be cool to have a computer with me. I also go on smaller trips, and I'm sure there are other times it would be useful to have one.

    Waiting an extra minute or two doesn't sound bad; my worry was that the difference would be more than that...
     
  12. clauditorium thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    #12
    Thanks everyone for your valuable input! I still haven't decided, but I'll be consulting this page to do so.
     

Share This Page