Sidebar Sidebar
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?

S

sebasti

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Nov 23, 2008
20
0
I'll be ordering new 17" MBP, only thing I haven't decided is the processor. Does anyone know what is the real speed difference between these two processors?

My main use purposes for MBP would be:
1) HD Video editing: Final cut pro, Adobe After Effects
2) Flash programming & design: Adobe Flash
3) Photo editing: Photoshop, Lightroom

I guess I won't notice much of a difference in 2 & 3 but HD video editing can be very heavy. Any insight, from anyone who has real experience from similar situations, is welcome.

(I'm planning to upgrade RAM to 8gb later when the prices drop, also will probably exchange the hard drive to SSD end of this year)
 
I am a video editor as well.

CPU will always be a factor in render times (as well as real-time effects). While the .27 ghz increase doesn't sound like much, it makes render times up to half a minute faster.

2 & 3 is more of the graphics card.
 
Niiro13 said:
I am a video editor as well.

CPU will always be a factor in render times (as well as real-time effects). While the .27 ghz increase doesn't sound like much, it makes render times up to half a minute faster.

2 & 3 is more of the graphics card.
Click to expand...

300 dollars for just 30 seconds faster? Is that what I'm reading?
 
trekster said:
300 dollars for just 30 seconds faster? Is that what I'm reading?
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you could be doing a dozen renders in a billed hour. That could be four times a day for two years. Then $300 doesn't sound like too much.
 
trekster said:
300 dollars for just 30 seconds faster? Is that what I'm reading?
Click to expand...

Indeed it doesn't seem worth it. With these Intel CPU's the most important thing is the Cache. And both the 2.66 and the 2.93 both have the 6MB L2 Cache. This is important as these chips still rely on the Front Side Bus which is the Bottle-Neck on Core 2 Processors - The lower 3MB cache is only offered on the lower-end 15" Model which I suppose is good, but it makes the 2.93Ghz option kind of pointless over the 2.66

Having said all this, if you plan to keep this machine for two, three or four years or even longer you may want to get the fastest chip available today as you cant go back and change it later like you can with the RAM and Hard Disk.
 
if you go into billable hours then a laptop is pretty much out of the question unless you can get some sort of internal sata raid configuration with 10,000 rpm drives (hint, no macbook pro can).

A Mac Pro would be 10x worth the cash.
 
30 seconds is a huge difference in the computer world. Even 1-2 seconds quicker is a respectable gain. When the CPU renders or is in use every little second adds up throughout the day.

But like another poster said ifportability isn't a factor at all, buy the mac pro desktops as they are miles faster for CPU rendering/storage solutions and especially for rendering.
 
You both know what i'm saying lol. I can understand the portability aspect, and this thing would be fine for editing, but for rendering, it would be wise to invest in a SAN and a Mac Pro.

If we are splitting hairs over 2.66 vs 2.93 Ghz then we might as well throw in 2.66 vs 2.93 vs 8 x 3.2 xeons especially when rending needs as much horsepower available.

To the OP: Of course, if this will be your only machine and in constant use, (and you can spare the cash for the upgrade), go for it. I'm mentioning the Mac pro just incase you hadn't though about it as a solution, because looking at your list of main usage screams mac pro.
 
Yep I understand what you mean. A Mac Pro is a lot better machine, but then its basically a better machine for anything that needs a fast CPU, Storage, or RAM. It is afterall a huge Dual-Socket machine. It's a shame that it costs less then a 17" Notebook but hey thats Apple :D
 
Eddyisgreat said:
You both know what i'm saying lol. I can understand the portability aspect, and this thing would be fine for editing, but for rendering, it would be wise to invest in a SAN and a Mac Pro.

If we are splitting hairs over 2.66 vs 2.93 Ghz then we might as well throw in 2.66 vs 2.93 vs 8 x 3.2 xeons especially when rending needs as much horsepower available.
Click to expand...

I do a bit of rendering myself. I got the 2.8ghz 15 inches macbook pr which I have returned. I am now on the waiting list for the 2.66 17 macbook pro.Thr upgarde to me doesn't worth it. If you do encoding and rendering a lot. Get a mac pro will speed things up a lot. Or if your rendered support distribute render. Build yourself a low cost quad core pc.
 
You can take the 15 inch macbook pro with the 2.8 GHz processor. It costs less and offers pretty much the same power.
 
EmperorDarius said:
You can take the 15 inch macbook pro with the 2.8 GHz processor. It costs less and offers pretty much the same power.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with that, especially if cost is an issue to you, however the upgraded CPU on the 17" will help with Flash encoding etc, but unless your a CS4 Flash expert its really just a gimmick.
 
But when it comes to using flash... 1440x1080 is way too little space
 
sebasti said:
But when it comes to using flash... 1440x1080 is way too little space
Click to expand...

I'm not a flash pro, however I worked with Flash even with 1280x800(old windows laptop), and also make 3D movies with my macbook pro 15" and I'm fine. But I know that not everyone can live with that :)

BTW: You might just go for the iMac. You get more power for a lower price, and since it's just a monitor w/ wireless mouse and keyboard it's also quite portable.
 
Thanks for all the input.

If the topic is about 2.66 vs. 2.93 on 17" MBP there's no need to speculate should I buy mac pro, imac or 15" MBP instead. I've decided everything else except processor. imac is not portable enough to be moved around the world.

What comes to the screen resolution.. if I say 1440x800 is too low for me then it is. You might be able to survive with it but even 1680x1050 is too low. I have to keep stage, timeline, properties, alignment tools, color pickers, library and CODING windows visible at the same time. It is just too slow to open and close them on need basis. Basicly just the coding window needs one monitor dedicated to it since it is hardly an option to view it few lines at the time. I prefer dual monitor (actually 3 would be ideal, as then i'd have one screen for quick look at reference materials) but with laptop it isn't an option --> 17" hi-res screen will have to do.
 
First off, 2.93 no doubt

Now sorry for the Hijack:

Is there a diff between the 2.8 15" and the 2.96 17" other than the screen. Will they be the same because the processor and the Graphics cards have to push out more on the 17" ? or will the 2.93 be faster?
 
Fonzijr1964 said:
Is there a diff between the 2.8 15" and the 2.96 17" other than the screen. Will they be the same because the processor and the Graphics cards have to push out more on the 17" ? or will the 2.93 be faster?
Click to expand...

The 17" won't have the GPU as underclocked as the 15".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back