2.93ghz 15" for the same price as the base model 17" is the 17 worth it?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by stevieapollo, Mar 3, 2009.

  1. stevieapollo macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Whittier, CA
    #1
    I am super confused i took back my 15" for the 17" and now i find out that i can get the 15" 2.93ghz processor for the same price as a base model 17"

    can anyone justify the extra 300 for the screen? power should be #1 and seeing that my 17" macbook pro doesn't get anything close to 8 hours on a charge i think the 15" is the better buy. any thoughts to help me and many other out?

    i use an external monitor am i going to be getting better resolution with the 17" rather then using the 15" or would it be the exact same and depends on the display?:eek:
     
  2. tecknical macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2008
    #2
    it depends on the display. are you mainly going to use the MBP plugged in to an external?
    also, what is the main purpose of the MBP? unless youre doing heavy, and i mean HEAVY video editing or graphic design that requires intensive CPU power, i'd say save your money, the the 2.66GHz MBP, and invest in a good hard drive/accessories.
     
  3. iaymnu macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    #3
    The matte screen is great. With my 17" I am getting a good solid "estimated" time close to 7hrs. (web browsing(youtube,hulu,mysoju etc)..)+wifi.

    The battery is a big step from the uni 15" 2.53 that I used to have. There is definitely a difference in battery times.

    I have a 24" LED Cinema display hooked to the 17". Res is 1920x1200 on both, but due to screen size I have to squint to read the text on the 17" sometimes. 17" resolution will be better than the 15" by itself w/o external. if that is what you are asking for?
     
  4. apolloa macrumors G3

    apolloa

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    Location:
    Time, because it rules EVERYTHING!
    #4
    Hahaha, I remember reading posts on this very forum by people still active who stated as fact that you would NEVER get the 2.93 in the 15" Mac Book Pro because it wouldn't run cool enough LOL.

    Er, anyway, the 15" is more portable, and now comes with the power if you want it. If you use an external display then it will look the same on either model.
     
  5. jmark macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    #5
    If you're always using an external display, the benefits of the 17 go down somewhat.

    The 15's come with smaller, lesser-quality internal fans. Wondering how hot that 2.93gHz CPU will get in the 15...

    To me a great deal of the benefit with the 17 is that it (for me) pretty much eliminates any desire/need to use an external display (except when doing stuff like DJ-ing with videos, of course).
     
  6. stevieapollo thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Whittier, CA
    #6
    i will be using the macbook pro for video editing and music creation. I had a 24inch 2.8ghz imac that i was using before and it got the job done but i needed something portable. more speed would be awesome cuz rendering time was a little slow.
     
  7. jmark macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    #7
    Then I'd stay with the 17. It runs cooler under high CPU load.

    The real-world speed difference from the CPU speed increase is incremental at best, and may cause more internal heating than it's really worth.

    Cooler innards = longer life.
     
  8. stevieapollo thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Location:
    Whittier, CA
    #8
    so keeping my 2.66ghz 17 inch is what would be best? and getting a good 7200 rpm hard drive would be better then spending the cash on a faster cpu. even tho i will be editing on final cut at least a couple of times a week. i know my machine is fine for running logic i never have problems but video stuff is the only thing that i wonder about.
     

Share This Page