2.8GHz v. 3.06GHz for the 17' MBP

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by thornton93, Jun 10, 2009.

  1. thornton93 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2009
    Location:
    Toledo, Ohio
    #1
    Sometime this week or next week i will be buying a 17' MBP. Now im thinking of maybe upgrading the processer to the 3.06GHz 1. Now i will be doing school work on the MBP and playing World Of Warcraft. Is it worth paying a extra 300$ for .26GHz? And will i even notice the difference because im not really doing any extreme stuff?

    Thank you for you help =):D
     
  2. bli625 macrumors 6502a

    bli625

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    #2
    Get the cheaper one. You won't notice the difference.
     
  3. alanlindsay macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    #3
    The increase in performance is 100 x (3.06-2.8)/2.8 = 9.3% when under 100% CPU load while the cost increase is 100 x 300/2499 = 12%. So if you pay 12% extra you are getting 9.3% extra performance when the CPU is at 100% load.

    Depending on your usage it could be worth it. Clearly the bragging rights from having a MBP at >3Ghz are pretty awesome. Personally, I'd recommend the 2.8 as I doubt you'll see appreciable gains from the 3,06Ghz.
     
  4. Dwalls90 macrumors 601

    Dwalls90

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2009
    #4
    Unless you're encoding, or just running benchmarks, you won't see that extra clock rate being used at all. Hell, I'd take the 2.53ghz option if there was one - that's all you'll really be needing. Intel has designed an awesome CPU, one that really puts all normal computing to shame seeing as it's more limited by Hard disk read/write and ram speeds.
     
  5. VEN macrumors newbie

    VEN

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2009
    Location:
    Swiss
  6. islandman macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2006
    #6
    I went for 3.06Ghz in my 15" MBP because I know that one day in the future, I would have questioned my decision if I bought something less. I doubt it will make a huge difference in day-to-day usage though.
     
  7. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #7
    Get the 2.8 GHz machine. You won't notice a difference unless the processes your computer must complete take over 3 minutes long. The better processor would shave a few seconds off, at best. Under normal usage, you wouldn't notice a thing.
     
  8. ColinEC macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2008
    #8
    Go for the 2.8GHz model and just have the peace of mind you saved money ;)

    9.2% increase under 100% CPU load is not worth it. You're paying $1.15 per MHz. $300 for 260MHz is not worth it.
     
  9. derek1984 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    #9
    Use that $300 you would be saving on the 2.8 and get a good SSD.
     
  10. drlunanerd macrumors 65816

    drlunanerd

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    One day in the future your 3.06GHz CPU is going to be outdated by mobile Nehalem.

    It's rarely a good idea to pay your own money for the current top spec Apple notebook if you cannot put a cost on maximal CPU performance, especially now as there's a major mobile CPU architecture upgrade coming in the next few months.

    Better to spend less initially, then upgrade to the new models and total cost of ownership should be the same or less.
     
  11. Sneakz macrumors 65816

    Sneakz

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2008
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    #11
    Thats only if it uses the P9700 and not the T9600. Do we have confirmation from anyone with a 2.8 15" or 17" MacBook Pro? Wikipedia says the P9700 so I hope it true...
     

Share This Page