Another Quiestion Regarding Purchasing Advice on the New 13'' MBP

[Mojodan]

Hello, I have been searching around for an answer to this question but have not really found (to my mind) a satisfactory answer.

I am looking to buy a new 13" MBP, and I am not sure whether I should get the 2.4 Ghz c2d, or the 2.66 Ghz c2d. Looking at geekbench scores, it appears that the two models are seperated by about 400 points, and I am wondering whether this is actually a worthwhile difference.

A common word of advice that I have run in to is that one should save the money on the processor and instead invest in a Solid State Drive. My problem with this is that SSD still seems too expensive right now for the amount of space you are getting (the largest that I could afford would be the 128 GB, which is not very much space, especially since I could be getting 500 GB otherwise). Later on, I feel that I could upgrade to an SSD when it is slightly more affordable. Furthermore, Hard Drive is something that can be upgraded at some point down the line, whereas a processor cannot. Does anyone think the slightly faster processor would pay off in the long run? especially considering I plan to keep this computer for several years.

For some context, I plan to be using this laptop mainly for music production (logic, ableton, perhaps reason) as well as maybe a little light gaming (assuming valve comes through with porting Steam to Mac)

Furthermore, I know that I have my heart set on the 13" (I am not really interested in 15" due to the portability issue, as I will be doing alot of traveling)

Thanks, your input is appreciated.

 

[Mojodan]

Bump. Sorry if I am pushing this point too far and nobody is responding because there are comparison threads all over this forum, but I think there are some questions here that I cannot find answers to elsewhere.

namely: What sort of impact could this decision have on the long term value / useability of the machine? especially since this chip is deemed as being 'behind the times'. Also, what does a 400 point difference of geekbench score really mean?

If this is all covered elsewhere, could somebody please point me to where?

 

[man02195]

Bump. Sorry if I am pushing this point too far and nobody is responding because there are comparison threads all over this forum, but I think there are some questions here that I cannot find answers to elsewhere.

namely: What sort of impact could this decision have on the long term value / useability of the machine? especially since this chip is deemed as being 'behind the times'. Also, what does a 400 point difference of geekbench score really mean?

If this is all covered elsewhere, could somebody please point me to where?

I don't think you'd feel the difference between the 2.4 and the 2.66. You can start with the 2.4/4/250 and later upgrade the hd with a 500 or 1000 and use the 250 as a backup drive.

 

[MacVibe]

I say save your money and get the 2.4. The 2.66 is not that much better and in all honesty, if the 2.4 gets bogged down in your music production, so would the 2.66 and then it is time to move to a desktop system.

The Apple store has a 2.53 for $1189, or at least they did earlier. So, to them, the 2.4 with better battery and graphics is worth $10 more. If the cpu speed is a big deal for you you could just get the refurb.

 

[ttran88]

2.4 is good enough for you. i ahve a 2.26 and i produced a few songs and there was hardly any lag.