Answers to the annoying MBP 2.26 vs 2.53 thread.

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by winsorbeach, Nov 11, 2009.

  1. winsorbeach macrumors newbie

    winsorbeach

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    #1
    After getting laughed at for posing this question again and searching the other Mac Rumors threads that are filled with contradictory advice, I did some research to help annoying future inquirers:

    From PC World: Compared with each other, the new 2.53GHz MacBook Pro was just over 12 percent faster overall than the 2.26GHz MacBook Pro. The 2.53GHz laptop was about 21 percent faster at Photoshop and Cinema 4D.

    Some of this performance difference is due to the 2.53GHz system's additional RAM; to quantify the difference, MacWorld leveled the playing field by adding 2GB of memory to the 2.26GHz model, bringing it up to 4GB, which is the standard configuration for the 2.53GHz version. Most of MacWorld’s tests, which are run one at a time, don't benefit much from additional RAM, and the underwhelming two-point improvement in the Speedmark score bears that out. The biggest performance difference with the additional RAM was in our Photoshop suite times, which improved the 2.26GHz MacBook Pro's score by about 10 percent.

    The main counter argument from the threads seems to be, "Save the $300" and buy a SSD (Solid State Drive)"... and indeed an Intel 80 GB X25m SSD can be had for less than $250 and easily self installed: http://www.google.com/products/cata...ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBkQ8wIwAw#ps-sellers

    This combined with 4GBs ram will produce a much faster machine but raises crucial disk space issues... is "80GBs enough?" for less than $500 you can score an Intel 160 GB X25m, but now you're blowing up the price range and getting well over $1500.

    Conclusion: For the extra money the stock configuration of the 2.53 gives you a noticeable speed improvement that will run pretty much everything except graphics intensive games and serious industry level multi application photo shopping and video editing.

    The upgrade to the super fast SSD remains a tantalizing future option with prices continuing to fall.

    If you plan on doing no video editing or serious multi-application photoshopping or graphics intensive gaming... the 2.26 is PLENTY of machine.

    thoughts? Comments?
     
  2. cababah macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Location:
    SF Bay Area, CA
    #2
    Good post, thanks for the info but I doubt it will stop the emergence of the dreaded "2.26 vs 2.53 13" MBP" threads. :(
     
  3. polaris20 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    #3
    I agree. I have the 2.53Ghz, but I could have done fine with the 2.26Ghz. It's probably because I have a 2.4Ghz MBP for work, and couldn't bring myself to have a slower personal machine. Stupid, I know.

    As for the SSD, I just really don't trust them at this point. There are articles every week it seems from Slashdot, Ars, etc. that say there's an issue with this, an issue with that. I'll wait awhile until they figure things out.
     
  4. winsorbeach thread starter macrumors newbie

    winsorbeach

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    #4
    buy now or wait?

    the other key question to be considered is the age old "buy now or wait?" especially with the growing likelihood of an MBP upgrade in 2010 including such tasty improvements as high res screens and Arrandale chips. This will also result in reduced prices on present configurations... so does the "If you need it, its worth it." argument still hold? I'd say yes, bc the release date of the whole improved MBP package could be six months + out, price changes are unknown (the new machines could be priced higher and historically Mac doesn't mark down older machines by more than a couple of hundred bucks... so is waiting six months worth that?) and 13" shoppers for the most part are not super tech/gear heads. They are looking for portability and performance....something the present gen machines deliver to more than adequate standards.

    For those who NEED to wait. You know who you are. For the rest of us, the tasty treats of the future will only continue to get tastier.
     
  5. Morn macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    #5
    That's impressive and probably will make more of a difference than SSD.
    I mean who really cares if you save 2-3 seconds on loading photoshop and Cinema 4D or loading an image. But how long it takes to render a 3D scene or apply effects, that's what really takes minutes and hours.
     
  6. harperjones99 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    #6
    You know my old laptop with less than half the specs of this one did all normal everyday tasks fast enough I was never sitting there frustrated...by comparison my MBP is a rocket. I don't use high powered graphics suites or anything so can't compare but those things are always going to be pressing the limits of hardware. I agree with you 100% unless you are going to be doing very intensive tasks and for work etc I can't see getting hung up over these things.
     
  7. Demosthenes X macrumors 68000

    Demosthenes X

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    #7
    12% sounds impressive, but if you consider it in absolute terms, it's not a big deal. For example, a filter that takes ten seconds to apply on the 2.26GHz machine would take 8.8 seconds on the 2.53GHz machine. Hardly groundbreaking.

    If the question were rendering large HD video files the difference becomes more ... but who's doing that on their 13" MBP?
     
  8. winsorbeach thread starter macrumors newbie

    winsorbeach

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    #8
    I actually do video editing on mine bc I travel alot and shoot footage that I post on a travel blog that I need to edit and upload ASAP. So I don't have the luxury of using a home computer. There really is a breaking point between stuttering and seamless video editing and of course storage issues when its HD... a fifteen minute video can eat up 20GBs. for that reason I am opting for the 2.56ghz 4GB 250GB set up. But I agree that people need to be realistic about what they're using machines for... web browsing, word processing, iTunes and iPhoto (which is 99.9% of the people out there) would be fine on a Macbook. I also use the Firewire for audio recording through an Apogee Duet into Garageband and my Canon HD video in.... so these are necessary components.

    There is of course the "allure" of having the best and brightest new toy so there are people who are always going to splurge for something they don't need just bc they can't live with "second best" or outdated. So when asking "Should I wait for the next gen?" take a long look at yourself in the mirror and ask why am I waiting? For necessary, empirical reasons or to satisfy a materialistic/consumerist urge? As has been pointed out here many times, there will always be something better right around the corner and even if you buy a Mac now, you will be in the market for the hottest new thing eventually anyway and it will be better than what is available six months from now.
     
  9. dan5.5 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #9
    this should be stickied... someone should put together a good FAQ.
     
  10. m85476585 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    #10
    It sounds like it's 12% on single core tasks and nearly 24% on dual core tasks.

    Other threads people need to stop duplicating:

    "My 13" MBP CPU is 90C, is it overheating?"

    "Should I upgrade to X GB of RAM"

    "Best 500 GB hard drive" (this one is kind of legitimate because there are some problems with the WD Scorpio blue and Seagate 7200.4, and there isn't really a clear answer.)

    "what should I upgrade"

    "Help I spilled X on my MBP, how can I lie to Apple and get them to fix it under warranty"

    "9400 vs 9600"

    "Battery already at 97% health after 3 weeks, is this normal"

    "Battery suddenly dropped to 67% health, what to do"

    "Should I wait or buy a MBP now"

    I think that sums up about 3/4 of the threads on this forum.
     
  11. m85476585 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    #11
    Apple wants you to buy the upgrade, even though there isn't that big of a speed difference, because they make more money. If you are making money off the blog, then you can probable justify the expense of the 2.53 to encode videos a bit faster. If you are just doing it for fun, ask yourself if the small speed difference is really worth the extra money.

    Someone really should write a FAQ. I might do it if I ever have some free time.
     
  12. winsorbeach thread starter macrumors newbie

    winsorbeach

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    #12
    an important point to remember is that the "upgrade" from 2.26 to 2.53 does not cost $300 bc you are also getting the upgrade from 2gbs to 4gbs RAM and 160gb HDD to 250gbs HDD. So to figure the exact expense subtract the optional upgrade prices of RAM and HDD. It comes out to more like $100. So is it worth $100 for the .26 GHz. That seems a far less pressing question than the whole $300 debate.
     
  13. winsorbeach thread starter macrumors newbie

    winsorbeach

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    #13
    BTW -

    Got a good laugh from the useless thread list, Matt. Very funny.
     
  14. cfitz7111 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2008
    #14
    +1 on that. There are a lot of new people to the Mac, and as such should have an easy to use and find FAQ on the current model lineup. Just because a question has been posted before is not new to regulars, it is new to them, and should be answered just like the questions we all had when we came to the Mac, be it 1984 or 2009.
     
  15. winsorbeach thread starter macrumors newbie

    winsorbeach

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    #15
    I was just about to pipe in again and make this same point. I really benefitted from the process of debating and researching this whole thing and now feel very confident about my decision on what machine to buy. I know for you regulars this is brain dead stuff, but CPUs and SSDs and all that garbage is just Yiddish to us newbies. I feel smart now and by golly... people like me! (Stuart Smalley) :)
     
  16. vant macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #17
    .

    Not everyone wants a 250GB HD, most would prefer a 500GB or an SSD.

    So check out this build:

    2.26
    4GB RAM = $90
    7200RPM (Stock is 5400RPM) 500GB = $110

    And you still come in $100 below the 2.53.

    2.26
    4GB RAM = $90
    X25-M 80GB = $240

    For $30 over the 2.53 you place yourself in SSD land. The land of 1-2 second shutdowns and instant app launching.
     
  17. winsorbeach thread starter macrumors newbie

    winsorbeach

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2009
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    #18
    Does the X25 also run programs faster? IE video editing, photoshop, etc? And if so, what would be the best/safest/most affordable way to store files and applications that otherwise would've stayed on the HDD? I have a WD Passport 500GB but am leery of trusting that thing with my life. I've heard of the option of using an SD card to store and boot OSX? Are there any online options for storage? And is it easy to move the stock hard drive over to the optical drive bay and hook it up and then run the DVD/CD WRW as an external?. I've read mixed opinions on this too.

    Thoughts?
     
  18. bmstrong macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
  19. vant macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2009
    #20
    SSDs essentially speed up anything related with the hard drive. Things such as loading images, preloading environments for games, saving, etc.

    I'm not sure about video editing, but in photoshop you can expect to see an increase in saving files, and loading files. There is an increase in performance when performing functions such as rotating and applying filters, but those are definitely not as noticeable.

    Most people with SSDs who require more storage use an external hard drive for data storage due to the SSD's lack of space. I've used external hard drives with great success, no failures.

    You can use an SD card to install OSX, I'm not sure about booting. You wouldn't need it for booting however if you had an SSD as it would be much quicker.

    Online storage is not good right now because it takes too long to upload/download. Apple offers MobileMe.

    Replacing your superdrive with an HD is not too hard. There are guides all over. It requires a purchase of an adapter to fit your HD (Optibay).
     

Share This Page