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.
2.66 or 2.8 or 3.06 processor for 15" MacBook Pro?
- Thread starter MagCat
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
2.8 IMHO, the Processor does have advantages over the 2.66.
For $300 you get three features that are not upgradeable. Speed 2.66 Vs 2.8, 6 Vs 3MB Cache, 512 Vs 256MB Video Ram. The extra 180 in HD space is questionable in the consideration process.
Although, I would pay Apple 300+ for an advanced discrete graphic card. The 9600m is getting its ass handed to it these days.
For $300 you get three features that are not upgradeable. Speed 2.66 Vs 2.8, 6 Vs 3MB Cache, 512 Vs 256MB Video Ram. The extra 180 in HD space is questionable in the consideration process.
Although, I would pay Apple 300+ for an advanced discrete graphic card. The 9600m is getting its ass handed to it these days.
I kinda take back my vote for 2.66ghz because I forgot about the extra cache and was thinking it was $500 extra not $300.
Unless you are doing something where you are directly racing someone else, don't bother getting anything more than the lowest grade CPU.
There are notable differences between newer and older generations, but not huge differences between processors of the same core with different clock speeds.
There are notable differences between newer and older generations, but not huge differences between processors of the same core with different clock speeds.
Mine is refurbished? It is most definitely not, please do more research into "early 09 mbp" before such a statement.
As for the new models I would recommend the 2.8.
Reason?
Its as fast as the 3.06 if under heavy load due to a program built into it called "Intel Turbo Boost Technology."
Its $300 cheaper and the difference in price of what that processor is worth compared to the 2.66 or 2.8 is $100 to $150 depending on where its bought. Not saying most are capable of installing there own processor, especially on a non socketed board, but its not impossible.
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35563&processor=T9600&spec-codes=SLB43,SLB47,SLG8N,SLG9F,SLGEM
Reason?
Its as fast as the 3.06 if under heavy load due to a program built into it called "Intel Turbo Boost Technology."
Its $300 cheaper and the difference in price of what that processor is worth compared to the 2.66 or 2.8 is $100 to $150 depending on where its bought. Not saying most are capable of installing there own processor, especially on a non socketed board, but its not impossible.
http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35563&processor=T9600&spec-codes=SLB43,SLB47,SLG8N,SLG9F,SLGEM
I went for the 2.8. Someone has mentioned the exact reason I chose 2.8 vs. 2.66.
For $300, you get bigger processor cache, better video card, bigger HD, and faster clock cycle. Not a terrible deal if you really think about it.
For $300, you get bigger processor cache, better video card, bigger HD, and faster clock cycle. Not a terrible deal if you really think about it.
what....read what i wrote.....
IT IS ONLY AVAIL. REFURB
i dident say yours was refurb.
Looks like I misunderstood that statement. Sorry about that, I was slightly discombobulated with the choice of words there
*Directed at the point of this topic*
Another thing that I may suggest, but seriously don't do it just because I said to, is overclocking. Many know how popular the Intel i7 920 is over the extreme version (975) because both can be (and people always do) overclock them to the same rate up to 4GHz. The core 2 duo's that are in todays mbp's can no exception to overclocking: they can be overclocked and people do overclock them.
What I'm getting at here is if you are confident in what you are doing, try a l-i-t-t-l-e overclocking. Pay careful attention to the emphasis on little.
The risks are that the processor could die (its rare but it can fry it immiediately) and more heat. I believe it also voids your warranty however for those that have a model that is no longer in warranty and are want to speed up a 2.8 to a 3.06 (or just 3.0) I'm sure it can handle that.
Overclock at your own risk, as it has MANY risks.
I don't think so! Look at the
2.66 GHz http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37130
vs.
2.80 Ghz http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35563&processor=T9600&spec-codes=SLB43,SLB47,SLG8N,SLG9F,SLGEM
FYI, BOTH have 6 MB cache. Just putting it out there.
Oh, I'm beginning to doubt myself. Is it [http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=40380&processor=P8800&spec-codes=SLGLA,SLGLR| this one] that you're talking about for the 2.66 Gz?
I don't think so! Look at the
2.66 GHz http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37130
vs.
2.80 Ghz http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=35563&processor=T9600&spec-codes=SLB43,SLB47,SLG8N,SLG9F,SLGEM
FYI, BOTH have 6 MB cache. Just putting it out there.
Oh, I'm beginning to doubt myself. Is it [http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=40380&processor=P8800&spec-codes=SLGLA,SLGLR| this one] that you're talking about for the 2.66 Gz?
no they dont, the new 2.66 one has only 3mb cache not 6mb.
i know....AGAIN READ THE THREAD
i said the new ones are 3mb , someone then tried to correct my by saying it was 6mb...which was wrong.
THe only thing I could recommend, if you don't need a ton of space, would be to upgrade to the SSD. That will make a HUGE difference in actual noticeable performance when booting the computer and apps. Not to mention it is also longer lasting than an HDD.