2.5 vs. 2.6GHz

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Fonzijr1964, Aug 15, 2008.

  1. Fonzijr1964 macrumors 68000

    Fonzijr1964

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Location:
    Maryland
    #1
    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.
     
  2. grapes911 Moderator emeritus

    grapes911

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    Location:
    Citizens Bank Park
    #2
    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.
     
  3. greenythebeast macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    #3
    You probably wouldn't even notice the difference. I'd go with the 2.5ghz version.
     
  4. Fabiano macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Location:
    Palmas, Brazil
    #4
    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
     
  5. Fonzijr1964 thread starter macrumors 68000

    Fonzijr1964

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Location:
    Maryland
    #5
    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)
     
  6. iMacmatician macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Fabiano macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2008
    Location:
    Palmas, Brazil
    #7
    hmm... you are right... I was not considering that! :(
     
  8. Fonzijr1964 thread starter macrumors 68000

    Fonzijr1964

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Location:
    Maryland
    #8
    What do u think???

    cost of the 2.5 vs. performance of the 2.6

    how does that compare???
     
  9. Bobioden macrumors 68000

    Bobioden

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    Location:
    Denver
    #9
    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.
     
  10. Firefly2002 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    #10
    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.
     
  11. chrono1081 macrumors 604

    chrono1081

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Location:
    Isla Nublar
    #11
    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.
     
  12. SimD macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2008
    #12
    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..
     
  13. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #13
    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.
     
  14. m1stake macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Location:
    Philly
    #14
    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.
     
  15. SnowLeopard2008 macrumors 604

    SnowLeopard2008

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2008
    Location:
    Silicon Valley
    #15
    yes however the OP was asking 2.5 vs 2.66ghz. You won't notice a difference, simple plain, cut-out answer.
     
  16. Firefly2002 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    #16
    No it doesn't.

    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.
     

Share This Page