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

Computation power of MacBook Pro comparison

A

Apfik

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Oct 18, 2009
17
0
Copenhagen
Hi All,
I am thinking of changing my MacBook (2008) for MacBook Pro 15" (2010 refurbished or 2011) and I would like to ask if someone can explain me what is the difference in the computation power between the models listed lower. I don't need to know that much details, I am more interested in just simple comparison since I don't understand the processors that much. It will be enough to say this one is 50% better then this one, etc. I know that sometime a comparison like this is hard but I am really interested only in the computational power since I have to run a simulations which take all available power sometime (mostly more than 95% on both cores).
Primary I would like to know what is the difference between my macbook and cheaper Macbook pro 15" models from 2010 and 2011 (option 2 and 3 compare to 1). Secondly it will be very useful for me to know if it is worthy to invest more for faster process (option 4 and 5 compare to 2 and 3)

1) MB 13.3/2.4/2X1GB 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM (2008)
2) MB PRO 15/2.4GHz or 2.53GHZ Intel Core i5/4GB (2 x 2GB) of 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM (2010)
3) MB PRO 15/2.0GHz quad-core Intel Core i7/4GB 1333MHz (2011)

4) MB PRO 15/2.66GHz Intel Core i7/4GB (2 x 2GB) of 1066MHz DDR3 SDRAM (2010)
5) MB PRO 15/2.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i7/4GB 1333MHz (2011)

Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.
David
 
Last edited:
DudeMartin said:
It would really help us to know what you do with your computer... because saying 50% faster isn't very helpful; 50% faster than what?
Click to expand...
I meant 50% faster then my old macbook. I use it offen just for regular things for which the speed is not relevant but sometime I am running quite heavy simulations (ray tracing).
 
entatlrg said:
Buy #3 or #5, #3 is the best 'value'.
Click to expand...

I guess that 2011 models are better then 2010, since they are newer with better processors, but how? much better they are? They are also more expensive compare to 2010 refurb models, so I would like to consider both price and power.
Thank you
 
Apfik said:
I guess that 2011 models are better then 2010, since they are newer with better processors, but how? much better they are? They are also more expensive compare to 2010 refurb models, so I would like to consider both price and power.
Thank you
Click to expand...
From some numbers I recall, I believe the low end 2011 13" compared favourably high end 2010 17".

If that is what you are looking for, go with the 2011 machines.
 
firesong said:
From some numbers I recall, I believe the low end 2011 13" compared favourably high end 2010 17".

If that is what you are looking for, go with the 2011 machines.
Click to expand...

I think you are right. I checked Banchmarking as simsaladimbamba posted, and 2011 are significantly better. So I am going for 2011 model.
Thank you
 
Apfik said:
since I have to run a simulations which take all available power sometime (mostly more than 95% on both cores).
Click to expand...

If whatever you do can take advantage of multithreading on 4 cores / 8 virtual corse, spring for the 2011 15".
 
Apfik said:
I guess that 2011 models are better then 2010, since they are newer with better processors, but how? much better they are? They are also more expensive compare to 2010 refurb models, so I would like to consider both price and power.
Thank you
Click to expand...

3 & 5 specifically are quad cores. The rest listed are dual cores. Simple as that in terms of needing CPU power the new sandy quads kick booty.
 
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