Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

advice on picking a macbook pro

T

tk7434

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Oct 27, 2011
3
0
I was hoping for advice on choosing between the high end 13' macbook pro or the low end 15' one. My main question is which will be faster in everyday use.

I'm a first year PhD student in a Biochemistry/Biophysics program, so I'll be using a lot of science and math applications. The main scenario where speed would come into play is for rendering images and using visualization software like PyMol, and using Matlab or Mathematica. I also sometimes use Photoshop, and frequently use Serato (a DJ program). I don't usually game on my computer. Given this background, which would be a better option for me?

13' 2.8 GHz Dual Core w/
8 GB RAM
750 GB 5400 rpm HD

15' 2.2 GHz Quad Core w/
8 GB RAM
750 GB 7200 rpm HD
Hi-Res antiglare display

I don't really care about the 13' having a smaller screen or the 15' being less portable as I see that as an equal trade-off. My main question is if the 2.2 GHz quad core will be faster than the 2.8 GHz dual core
 
tk7434 said:
I was hoping for advice on choosing between the high end 13' macbook pro or the low end 15' one. My main question is which will be faster in everyday use.

I'm a first year PhD student in a Biochemistry/Biophysics program, so I'll be using a lot of science and math applications. The main scenario where speed would come into play is for rendering images and using visualization software like PyMol, and using Matlab or Mathematica. I also sometimes use Photoshop, and frequently use Serato (a DJ program). I don't usually game on my computer. Given this background, which would be a better option for me?

13' 2.8 GHz Dual Core w/
8 GB RAM
750 GB 5400 rpm HD

15' 2.2 GHz Quad Core w/
8 GB RAM
750 GB 7200 rpm HD
Hi-Res antiglare display

I don't really care about the 13' having a smaller screen or the 15' being less portable as I see that as an equal trade-off. My main question is if the 2.2 GHz quad core will be faster than the 2.8 GHz dual core
Click to expand...



yes the 2.2 Quad is much faster then 2.8 dual
 
The 15" has a better graphics card too, if the larger size and price aren't a problem i'd go for that one.
 
Since you'll actually be using your computer for work, as opposed to surfing like me, I'd definitely go with the 15" Hi-Res. It'll both be faster and, more importantly, have nearly double the real-estate for multi-tasking. The 13" is painfully low res. In the opinion of some, 15" Hi-Res could even stand one more bump to 1920×1200 (WUXGA) if they offered it.

But bottom line, I'd get the 15" Hi-Res for the resolution alone.
 
tk7434 said:
My main question is if the 2.2 GHz quad core will be faster than the 2.8 GHz dual core
Click to expand...

This is all you needed to ask. (If you're only concerned about speed, I really don't understand why you included all the extraneous "fluff" in your post). :)

Yes, the quad will out perform the dual core.
 
Steve's Barber said:
This is all you needed to ask. (If you're only concerned about speed, I really don't understand why you included all the extraneous "fluff" in your post). :)

Yes, the quad will out perform the dual core.
Click to expand...

everything I've read about quad vs dual core always said that which one is faster than the other is completely dependent on how your using it, as in which programs are running because only some programs make use of more than 2 processors. What I was wondering was if, given my context, a 2.2 Quad will be significantly faster than a 2.8 Dual.
 
Go Last Gen Refurb

Don't forget the refurbished site. The last generation (Early 2011)

Macbook Pro 2.3Ghz Quad
15.4-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit Hi-Res antiglare widescreen display, 1680-by-1050 resolution
4GB (2 x 2GB) of 1333MHz DDR3 SDRAM
750GB Serial ATA @ 5400 rpm
8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
Intel HD Graphics 3000 and AMD Radeon HD 6750M

For $2,039.00

A little more speed in the processor and a gigabyte of VRAM.
 
Get the 15". As to some programs only using 1 or 2 cores, I routinely see program load evenly distributed between my 4 (non-hyper-threaded) cores. The only time you see a problem with load not being distributed nowadays is when programs don't use the hyper-threaded threads. Which is fine with me as it keeps heat to a minimum.

Plus, the 15" has much better graphics capability.
 
As a biologist who has used similar programs, get the 15". Partly because of the quad core (all those data and number crunching programs should run faster, especially if they are optimized for multicore processing), but the other features will also make a difference. The other features are not "fluff". The 7200 rpm drive will definitely make a difference, and while your graphics card will speed up 3d rendering (and games), some non-3d programs can actually take advantage of the graphics card to enhance speed, like Photoshop for example.

If you have the cash, get the 15". And by the way, in my experience, macs are great for doing science research! :)
 
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