How much there's difference? Is there an article or some info about this anywhere?
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 vs. 2.93 : what's the real difference?
- Thread starter sebasti
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
How much there's difference? Is there an article or some info about this anywhere?
no but its common knowledge. If you want to get the full use out of these new Macbook Pro's graphics cards your going to have to wait until Snow Leopard is released with its Hybrid SLI capabilities (using both graphics cards at once) and Open CL (Graphics cards take work from processor to give 100% (double) speed increase for computer).
You need a Laptop with a 21" screen then, which is bascially impractical. If you really want to do all your Flash on a computer you need a PC, the laptop should just be for demo's and doing a few basic edits, however i would go for the 2.93 processor simply due to the extra boost its going to give.
I tried finding something on it - it's to do with the 17" having a roomier case, can let the GPU get hotter.
Well just more room available for a larger heatsink, atleast on the first generation macbook pros. Despite this, the GPU was still underclocked as leaving it fully powered would have affected battery life. one has to boot into windows to get the full effect (through hacking via rivatuner)
Without having the tech specs of the 2 processors its difficult to tell if they are from the same family, have the same cache, or if the 2.93 is similar a 2.4 with a different clock multiplier.
But $1200 for 4G of ram is that what apple uers really pay?
But $1200 for 4G of ram is that what apple uers really pay?
You have to remember that for 4GB extra (8GB total) its using 2x4GB sticks instead of 4x2GB. The cost for 4GB sticks is significantly more. Crucial sell 8GB (2x4GB) for $1179.99 (USD). Obviously the Apple one should be cheaper as they are removing 2x2GB (Which is already factored in to the cost) to put in 2x4GB but thats not the case.
You know, I'm sure I remember similar threads to this when the Unibody 15" came out 
And yes I had the exact same questions, I went for the 2.53 in the end though as I concluded it would run cooler and the battery may last a bit longer with it, also for what I use it for it wasn't a necessity.
So it's the same for you, it entirely depends on what you are going to use the laptop for, which in your case is going to be CPU tasks intensive such as rendering so for you I would advise the faster 2.93CPU.
And yes I had the exact same questions, I went for the 2.53 in the end though as I concluded it would run cooler and the battery may last a bit longer with it, also for what I use it for it wasn't a necessity.
So it's the same for you, it entirely depends on what you are going to use the laptop for, which in your case is going to be CPU tasks intensive such as rendering so for you I would advise the faster 2.93CPU.
I think we will have to see some proof on this one. I know the last gen did this, but I don't think the new gen does? Hopefully someone will post it on the web at some point?
While still waiting on my Macbook Pro 17"
I am starting to consider changing the CPU to 2.93
I plan on having this, my first Mac(X) ever, for atleast until it breaks down.
Bougth Full warranty for the next 3 years.
Former gamer I will be using it for alittle gaming, mainly to start with Spore.
Mostly I will be using programs such as Photoshop CS4 and Illustrator CS4, for minor to larger foto work, and IWork.
Current con:
CPU 2.66
Ram 4Gb
HD 320Gb 7200rpm
Go with 2.66 or change it to 2.93?
I am starting to consider changing the CPU to 2.93
I plan on having this, my first Mac(X) ever, for atleast until it breaks down.
Bougth Full warranty for the next 3 years.
Former gamer I will be using it for alittle gaming, mainly to start with Spore.
Mostly I will be using programs such as Photoshop CS4 and Illustrator CS4, for minor to larger foto work, and IWork.
Current con:
CPU 2.66
Ram 4Gb
HD 320Gb 7200rpm
Go with 2.66 or change it to 2.93?
I can't justify the price...I've been monitoring my CPU use for about three weeks now and it's never the CPU that bogs down my system so I see no need for it. I would rather take that $300 and either put it towards more ram or SSD when the price comes down both of which would have a bigger performance increase then the CPU*
*for me.
*for me.
It really has to do with the heatsink being much bigger and more efficient and it does help with more room in the casing for the heat to dissipate.
But yes the 17" mbp does have a higher clocked GPU and its always been the case.
Considering how optimized GPUs are for certain tasks, it's entirely feasible that utilizing the GPU can yield a 100% increase in speed. It's AltiVec all over again!
Using the CPU in conjunction with the GPU will not provide a 100% speed increase. Where are you even getting a 100% increase from? We're not talking about another CPU. It'll help the CPU out, it isn't going to take over.
Considering they find it appropriate to use GPUs in their Tesla line, Nvidia clearly seems to think that GPUs are more efficient at FP calculations.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla_computing_solutions.html
Look up what Altivec did.
Of course, the performance increase scales with the parallelization of the task at hand, but many CPU-intensive tasks such as rendering are suited to parallelization.
OpenCL in consumer technology you jumped to that conclusion and compared it with state of the art dedicated GPU's (and a bunch of GPU's in SLI that are don't need video outputs).
I'm not denying the GPU is a lot of power locked up and waiting to be exploited and used, but the 100% performance increase from just using OpenCL? No..
If you actually knew more about Tesla and CUDA, you'd know that virtually all Tesla products were Nvidia 8800GTX cards in parallel without video outputs, though they're using the 280GTX now as well. The distinction is pointless as both are consumer graphics cards.
In fact, the technology behind Tesla, the CUDA language, was accessible on non-modified Nvidia cards as well. However, it also is the primary deterrent to usage as it's a proprietary solution that requires specialized coding.
What OpenCL offers is an industry standard that is compatible across OSes and vendors, providing similar benefits as the OpenAL and OpenGL standards. As was an issue with Altivec and CUDA, the benefits of OpenCL will be highly dependent on the parallelization potential of the task. However, many processing-intensive tasks tend also to be suited for parallelization.