Do I need the 2.2GHz or will the 2GHz do?

[thedistrictline]

I would like your guys opinions on whether I should spend the extra money on getting the 2.2GHz 15" MBP or if the 2GHz will be enough for the tasks I will use it for, I am getting the HD screen update regardless.

The main tasks that are graphics heavy will be Photoshop/Adobe suite applications and Final Cut Pro. Do you think the 256Mb of graphics memory on the 2GHz will run fine or will I need the 1Gb of the 2.2GHz to avoid any overworking issues.

Thanks a lot, making the purchase next week via the US store + Bundlebox so informed opinion appreciated soon thanks.

 

[adnoh]

Get the best spec you can as you do a lot of cpu intensive tasks

get the 2.2ghz cpu and the upgraded gpu
if money is an issue, go with stock hd and RAM then upgrade later when you have more monies

also, you may want to consider the high res screen

 

[ovrkast]

When deciding on the purchase of my new MacBook Pro I contemplated heavily on which to select as well. In reality, the difference between the 2.0 vs 2.2 are probably too miniscule for the typical consumer to notice. Like you I do heavy post-processing of RAW files within Lightroom 3, further manipulation with Photoshop CS5, and vectoring of graphics in Illustrator CS5 without any lag or hiccups. My system blazes through all those intensive graphic applications without fail.

I think the difference between the 2.0 and 2.2 would be a matter of seconds in terms of speed. If you're more focused with what I mentioned above, then the 2.0Ghz will suffice just fine and you can save that extra $500 for the upgrade in 8GB RAM (which will help you better multi-task), and an SSD for further performance.

The 2.2Ghz model would benefit mostly gamers as it utilizes the higher-end graphics card for 3D rendering.

 

[michael.lauden]

I would definitely go with the 2.2GHz upgrade. It will do a little 'future proofing', and will give you some extra performance.

While it may not help as much as 8GB of RAM - that's the kinda thing you might want to invest in. 8GB of RAM is pretty cheap and getting cheaper (it's the price of the 4GB of RAM I bought in early 2009).

If it were up to me - buy the 2.2GHz if you can afford it. Would be worth every penny IMO

 

[Kyzelios]

I'd recommend the 2.0 GHz base model, as there would be little difference between the two for the tasks that you will be performing.

 

[Looon]

You aren't going to notice 200mhz difference lol

 

[mike2732]

You aren't going to notice 200mhz difference lol

But you WILL notice the GPU difference. (mostly in gaming)

 

[skier777]

I would like your guys opinions on whether I should spend the extra money on getting the 2.2GHz 15" MBP or if the 2GHz will be enough for the tasks I will use it for, I am getting the HD screen update regardless.

The main tasks that are graphics heavy will be Photoshop/Adobe suite applications and Final Cut Pro. Do you think the 256Mb of graphics memory on the 2GHz will run fine or will I need the 1Gb of the 2.2GHz to avoid any overworking issues.

Thanks a lot, making the purchase next week via the US store + Bundlebox so informed opinion appreciated soon thanks.

I think this upgrade would be more important than the 8GB ram or an SSD. Those you can always add on later, but the 1GB graphics card could be important for photo editing etc.

 

[Eternal 28]

Im undecided also, should I spend the $300 more and get a the high end or just save $300 and get a low end since I do not play any games. Ovekast said his low end blazes through photo applications fine.. What about video editing on the low end? I'm kinda leaning towards the low end...

 

[Rob9874]

The 2.2GHz is 10% faster than the 2.0GHz. You should expect a 10% performance improvement. I went with the 2.0, and will upgrade to 8GB RAM soon. Might not be the fastest laptop on paper, but the fastest I've owned!

 

[nebulos]

as has been mentioned, the CPU difference doesn't seem too dramatic, but the GPU difference DOES. the question is, who, other than gamers will notice?

damned if i know. and i haven't had much luck finding out.

... though my concern is more 3D animation/design and video. i have to guess the base would be fine for the even craziest photoshop use, but, I DO NOT KNOW THINGS ABOUT THINGS.

good luck!!!

 

[Jethryn Freyman]

The 2GHz model has a WEAK 64 bit graphics card, the 2.2GHz model has a pretty good 128 bit graphics card.

If you want extra graphics performance go for the 2.2GHz.

 

[grahamnp]

The 2.0 also doesn't have hardware support for AES-NI, no support right now in OSX but that might change with Lion. Not a huge thing to most but worth mentioning I think.

 

[57004]

The 2.0 also doesn't have hardware support for AES-NI, no support right now in OSX but that might change with Lion. Not a huge thing to most but worth mentioning I think.

And also doesn't support VT-d which would be very helpful when VMWare Fusion starts supporting it (of course only if you use that kind of thing).

By the way I was reading that Lion does support AES-NI, for its completely revamped FileVault which supports full disk encryption (the whole drive, not just the home folder). Not sure where I saw that though, might have been an unconfirmed rumour.

 

[ovrkast]

But you WILL notice the GPU difference. (mostly in gaming)

But he's not referring to gaming.

 

[ovrkast]

The 2GHz model has a WEAK 64 bit graphics card, the 2.2GHz model has a pretty good 128 bit graphics card.

If you want extra graphics performance go for the 2.2GHz.

The graphics card is neglible for tasks like photoshop/aperture/final cut. You will only notice the difference in performance if you are playing games that rely heavily on 3D rendering, or 3D modeling applicaitons. The OP only mentions about graphics editing which the 2.0 model will be more than sufficient.

 

[vincenz]

Spend the extra money. If you do graphic intensive work, it'll pay off in the long run.

 

[ovrkast]

Im undecided also, should I spend the $300 more and get a the high end or just save $300 and get a low end since I do not play any games. Ovekast said his low end blazes through photo applications fine.. What about video editing on the low end? I'm kinda leaning towards the low end...

Most of the posters on this forum are gamers. If you are asking about the difference between the two "processors", then you will not notice a difference in real world computing. Now, if you are asking about the difference between the two "models", then yes, you would see a nominal difference pertaining to gaming, 3D rendering and the like since the higher end model has a 1GB of video memory.

Trust me...I use Photoshop and Illustrator CS5, Lightroom, and Final Cut Pro heavily and my system never lags. I would highly recommend upgrading to 8GB RAM as those applications mentioned will rely on that for caching, and the fast SSD will only enhance your performance bracket. GOOD LUCK!

 

[alust2013]

CPU- little difference period. Only things that would make a difference are video encoding and transcoding, but not by a huge margin.

GPU- much bigger difference, however, unless you are doing gaming or 3D modeling, not much noticeable.

 

[ovrkast]

CPU- little difference period. Only things that would make a difference are video encoding and transcoding, but not by a huge margin.

GPU- much bigger difference, however, unless you are doing gaming or 3D modeling, not much noticeable.

Exactly!

 

[Eddyisgreat]

Most of the posters on this forum are gamers.

No they aren't. I'm not (that's why I have a ps3). Most MBP users are "graphic artists", "photographers", "music producers", "video editors" or some derivative thereof. It seems like everyone these days has Creative Suite CS5, Logic Studio and Final Cut Studio.

 

[leman]

Don't forget that Intel CPUs have turbo boost (dynamic on-demand overclocking). On average, the 2.2 model will be clocked about 15% faster than the 2.0 model. For CPU-intensive tasks, the difference is rather noticeable.

 

[AppleNewton]

I would have gotten the 2.0Ghz model had it had atleast 512MB of GPU memory. as it will it into the system memory if doing heavy graphic usage.
And I switch between graphic editing, aperture and final cut so it comes in handy and plan to game alot more with the upgraded machine.

The 2.2Ghz has a great cpu and much better GPU as others have stated and should be able to handle everything you throw at it seamlessly.

But even the base model can do photoshop quite nicely and run a few games but not great at high/max settings

 

[Morgan71]

Hello... i posted this in another thread but did`t get any responce so i try here...I am planning to buy a new 15" MBP for Lightroom and Photoshop CS5 with RAW files and Logic Studio and soft synths,and i am planning to use a 27" cinema display with 2560x1440 resolution as a eksternal display at home. Which configuration should i go for. Do i need the best configuration 2.2GHz with amd 6750M with AG or should i go for the 2.0GHz prosessor with amd 6490M with AG? The different is $500 here in norway.

I have heard that the new LION will need som more resourses than Snow Leopard and because of that i should buy the MBP with the best displaycard.
I planning to keep the MBP for at least 6 years.

 

[thedistrictline]

My current computer (Core 2 Duo iMac) has 256 MB of graphics memory and runs fine, I think I will save the money for a Crucial upgrade or summin'