early 2011 2.3 vs new 2.4

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Imaroxstar, Oct 28, 2011.

  1. Imaroxstar macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2011
    #1
    Which is the better processor? one is slightly faster, however, the 2.3 has the 8mb of cache.

    What do you think?
     
  2. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #2
    It will hardly make a difference with facebook and youtube, if that's what you're asking.
     
  3. szolr macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Location:
    London, UK
    #3
    I didn't realise that actually. So I've got 8 MB of L3 cache on here compared to 6 MB on the newest base end one? But to be fair, I don't look at the new Macbook Pro and regret not having the 2.4 GHz processor massively. I do feel a bit envious of the 500 GB hard drive though-I could have done with the extra 180 GB of space. But 320 GB's enough-it just means I can't install all of X Plane and keep quite as many films on here. ;) :cool:
     
  4. Imaroxstar thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2011
    #4
    Using that line of thought...if I am editing video, and rendering for you tube, you don't think processor speed makes any difference?
     
  5. szolr macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Location:
    London, UK
    #5
  6. JT123, Oct 28, 2011
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2011

    JT123 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    #6
    Yes he is definitely right 2.3 has 8 and 2.4 has 6. Also Apple have neglected to mention that the 2.4 and 2.5 don't support Intel HD Graphics. This could possibly mean, that with no graphics switching the battery life of the refreshed Pro's could suffer seen as it will constantly be using the discrete graphics card.

    Does any one else thing this is a weird move? Cutting the L3 Cache and the HD Graphics on a Supposedly newer/better CPU.

    Also the older 2.2 Model (according to Wikipedia), had the 2720QM which does have the HD Graphics, but now has the 2675QM that I can't even find on Intel's website.

    What is going on?

    Edit: hang on is Intel HD Graphics 3000 a separate chip to the CPU.
     
  7. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #7
    That's NOT what (s)he said.

    You will never notice a difference between a 2.3 and a 2.4 i5 if all you do with the MBP is use facebook and watch youtube. Even if you are doing extensive rendering, the difference will be all but invisible unless you're doing such big renders that you should really be doing them on a quad-core or a Mac Pro.
     
  8. JT123 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    #8
    You will only really notice it if you put sit next to the computer with a stopwatch. GeekBench will not even really some a difference as it fluctuates by ~300 points. So no rendering and 360p/480p/720p for 10mins max will not be any better.
     
  9. alust2013 macrumors 601

    alust2013

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2010
    Location:
    On the fence
  10. chrfr macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2009
    #10
    They do in the MBP. It's quite possible Apple has access to a different version of the CPU than is listed- they have in the past.
     
  11. Imaroxstar thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2011
    #11
    I am sorry - it is for the 15" - i7.

    ----------

    I get that. I was trying to play along with him, as I know he was jabbing me.
     
  12. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #12
    Ah! My bad, then!

    :)
     
  13. kaydot macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    #13
    So rendering videos for YouTube won't benefit from the processor upgrade. In which use cases will I notice the difference?
    When I render at 1080p? If I render 30 minute long videos? I have on occasion rendered 30 minute to 1 hour videos for YouTube, and I thought these operations were CPU limited.
     
  14. Naimfan macrumors 68040

    Naimfan

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    #14
    Put it this way: The newer 2.4 might shave a couple of seconds off your render time. In real world terms, at least to me, that's meaningless when set over the time required for such a render in the first place.
     
  15. GuitarG20 macrumors 65816

    GuitarG20

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    #15
    Hold up a sec. They definitely do; otherwise Apple wouldn't still be shipping with switching graphics. It's possible Intel is making a separate version for Apple if the normal one doesn't support it, but they definitely do support switching.
     

Share This Page