Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2.5 vs. 2.6GHz

Fonzijr1964

Fonzijr1964

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Feb 26, 2008
1,648
1
Maryland
I am thinking of getting a referb (my fist refurb and MBP) MacBook Pro. So I would like to know how much faster is the 2.5 vs. the 2.6GHz with 2Gb ram. I will be using it as an All purpose computer in my Home Theater and as a vacation computer as my air is just not powerful enough. So it will be storing (but mostly just accessing from my iMac) video data. Minimal Video Editing.
 
If everything else where equal in the two machines, then you probably won't even notice 2.5 vs 2.6 GHz. Maybe if you were doing large encoding of some type that took hours, then the 2.6 might knock off 10 or 15 minutes.
 
maybe with 2.5 you should have some more minutes in battery life. So I even advise you to get 2.4, as its less power hungry. I do care a lot about battery life, and the power of 2.4 is perfect for me. Plus, you can save some money for beer :D
 
Fabiano said:
maybe with 2.5 you should have some more minutes in battery life. So I even advise you to get 2.4, as its less power hungry. I do care a lot about battery life, and the power of 2.4 is perfect for me. Plus, you can save some money for beer :D
Click to expand...

Ha well the 2.4 only has a 3Mb Cache and the 2.5 has a 6 so i would go for the 2.5 at least




How will the 2.5 compare to my iMac (see signature)
 
GHz for GHz…

2.5 GHz » 2.6 GHz gives a 4.0% increase in raw performance.
2.5 GHz is 89% as fast as the 2.8 GHz in the iMac.
2.6 GHz is 93% as fast as the 2.8 GHz in the iMac.

These differences can be magnified when the apps use CPU power when they are "idle." If a certain set of apps uses 20% of the 2.5 GHz CPU while idle (therefore only 80% is available for real work), then 2.5 GHz » 2.6 GHz gives a 5.0% increase in raw performance. Also,
2.5 GHz is 87% as fast as the 2.8 GHz in the iMac.
2.6 GHz is 91% as fast as the 2.8 GHz in the iMac.
 
iMacmatician said:
GHz for GHz…

2.5 GHz » 2.6 GHz gives a 4.0% increase in raw performance.
2.5 GHz is 89% as fast as the 2.8 GHz in the iMac.
2.6 GHz is 93% as fast as the 2.8 GHz in the iMac.

These differences can be magnified when the apps use CPU power when they are "idle." If a certain set of apps uses 20% of the 2.5 GHz CPU while idle (therefore only 80% is available for real work), then 2.5 GHz » 2.6 GHz gives a 5.0% increase in raw performance. Also,
2.5 GHz is 87% as fast as the 2.8 GHz in the iMac.
2.6 GHz is 91% as fast as the 2.8 GHz in the iMac.
Click to expand...

What do u think???

cost of the 2.5 vs. performance of the 2.6

how does that compare???
 
For what you will be using it for, you will not see any difference between the 2.5 and the 2.6.

I also suggest the 2.4. Use the money you save to get a bigger hard drive and 4gb of ram, which will make more of a difference than the 3mb to 6mb of cache.
 
Dude, are you serious? Please do the math. A 2.6 GHz machine is, in a perfect world, a whopping 4% faster. There is not a single human being on this planet Earth that would ever be able to tell the difference between the two.

I doubt you could even find anyone to tell the difference between a 2.4 and a 2.6, certainly not 99% of the population.
 
The funny thing here is computers aren't standard...so...I'm going to go sit in the "It doesnt make a difference" camp. I would save the extra money and get an applecare warranty.

What I mean by computers arent standard is they can have the same specs exactly, same software exactly, be the same make, model and age, and get different test speeds. I see it daily where I work. Seeing two machines get the same performance speeds would be the oddity.
 
IMO, the "real" reason to go from 2.4 to 2.5 is for the VRAM upgrade... 2.5 to 2.6 is a little silly for the extra money.

Like everybody else said.. 4% isn't worth the money.. well at least not for me..
 
If I didn't get such an incredible deal---I would never have gotten the 2.6 upgrade. I'd have to say it's not worth it at all.
 
Actually the real reason to go from the 2.4 to the 2.5 is the cache upgrade - the 8600m GT can't really fill 512MB. The cache upgrade on the CPU makes a big difference.
 
m1stake said:
Actually the real reason to go from the 2.4 to the 2.5 is the cache upgrade - The cache upgrade on the CPU makes a big difference.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

the 8600m GT can't really fill 512MB.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not, but it call "fill" 256 MB, meaning 512 MB will make things much faster in situations where 256 MB or more is used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back