how much faster?

[supaflyz]

Hey guys I'm a 24 year old college student. I'm currently looking at the macbook pro 13 inch model. Will their be a significant difference between the two? If not I rather save some money instead. Also can I ask you guys something about the processor. The new update ones comes with the I3 or I5 processor right? I know it will go faster but will it go that much faster?
I don't really need a laptop in a hurry, but my brother laptop screen is broken. You can only use it at home and cant carry it anywhere. I'm thinking of giving him my white macbook and buying the 13 inch model. If the update one going go a lot faster and a lot better then I could always wait.

 

[Hellishness]

depends on what you do. the next one will likely have i3/i5, but we don't know. for most tasks you will notice nothing.

 

[Black Mesa]

Depends

It really depends on what you want to use the laptop for, if it just for basic school assignments you will most likely not notice the difference between a C2D and a i3/i5, however for gaming or high end video viewing/editing there would be a performance difference.

The main issue is that not many people are willing to spend high-end costs for a "pro" product that is relativity outdated.

So long story short, if you NEED a laptop go for a refurb or try and get a good student discount, otherwise you should wait.

 

[swish2351]

Hey guys I'm a 24 year old college student. I'm currently looking at the macbook pro 13 inch model. Will their be a significant difference between the two? If not I rather save some money instead. Also can I ask you guys something about the processor. The new update ones comes with the I3 or I5 processor right? I know it will go faster but will it go that much faster?
I don't really need a laptop in a hurry, but my brother laptop screen is broken. You can only use it at home and cant carry it anywhere. I'm thinking of giving him my white macbook and buying the 13 inch model. If the update one going go a lot faster and a lot better then I could always wait.

Barely, we only want arrandale because it's new and will have more resale value later. Core2Duo is still VERY fast but arrandale is just a tad faster. There really won't be that big of a difference it terms of speed. Buy now. DON'T regret not doing it later.

btw, I don't get why people think C2D is so slow! It is fast!

 

[spaceballl]

Rather than speculate, here are your exact performance numbers.

 

[fibrizo]

Rather than speculate, here are your exact performance numbers.

Stop posting real facts and numbers. People on these boards rely on hearsay, opinions, gut feelings, higher gigahertz numbers, futureproofing and the word "Magical"

Actually I love that someone actually puts real info up also. Accordingly, the benchmarks show between 8%-45% improvement depending on what apps you're using.

 

[spaceballl]

Stop posting real facts and numbers. People on these boards rely on hearsay, opinions, gut feelings, higher gigahertz numbers, futureproofing and the word "Magical"

Ha ha ha ha you're so right. People always say things like "well are you a pro user?" or "if you're doing mostly XXX or YYY, then..." Just look at the numbers. Done.

 

[supaflyz]

Ok what is the summary of that result? I'm a complete noob on computer stuff so please be understanding. I don't know so I ask. Can someone please tell me so does that result reveal that the newer I series will be much faster than the current one?

 

[kny3twalker]

Ok what is the summary of that result? I'm a complete noob on computer stuff so please be understanding. I don't know so I ask. Can someone please tell me so does that result reveal that the newer I series will be much faster than the current one?

If you are a "complete noob on computer stuff", more than likely, unless you play video games, you will not notice any difference.

The other answer is be patient and wait. Do you need a new computer this week?

 

[DoFoT9]

Ok what is the summary of that result? I'm a complete noob on computer stuff so please be understanding. I don't know so I ask. Can someone please tell me so does that result reveal that the newer I series will be much faster than the current one?

ok so basically..

if you are dealing with video encoding, you will see a 26% increase.
if you are dealing with single threaded apps, you will see 38% increase.

if you like playing games, you will see a 130% increase!! :0

if you copy alot of files from here to there, you will see no (real) increase in performance.

if you just use word processors, safari, mail, itunes, facebook, youtube, etc, you wont really notice much of a difference unless you do them all together at the same time.

the other main concern is battery life. and guess what. THERE IS NO IMPROVEMENT IN BATTERY LIFE. so dont worry about that.

if you are still unsure, reply and tell me exactly what applications you will be using, and how intensely.

personally, i recommend save yourself the money!

 

[supaflyz]

Thank you DoFoto! What is single threaded applications? The applications I'm using is photoshop, microsoft word and powerpoint, a little excel. I also browse the internet, use itunes, and would like to play Star Craft 2. The only game that I play on the internet was Star Craft. Would like to play it on the macbook pro when Star Craft 2 comes out. Can the 2.26ghz macbook pro handle those? I don't do any video editing.

 

[nigameash]

You ll def notice a performance boost with photoshop on the newer models, but again "by how much" depends on how intensive the task is that you're performing

 

[DoFoT9]

Thank you DoFoto! What is single threaded applications? The applications I'm using is photoshop, microsoft word and powerpoint, a little excel. I also browse the internet, use itunes, and would like to play Star Craft 2. The only game that I play on the internet was Star Craft. Would like to play it on the macbook pro when Star Craft 2 comes out. Can the 2.26ghz macbook pro handle those? I don't do any video editing.

a large majority of 3rd party applications are single threaded. that means that they can only execute one thread at a time. its pretty technical stuff, so i wouldnt worry about it.

all you need to know is that single threaded apps give 38% increase, and multithreaded gives a >40% increase. those are pretty significant numbers - especially if you are using photoshop.

how heavily will you use photoshop? what effects do you use? what size projects do you deal with?

ill have a look at the performance of games for you, the newer computer will of course yield faster FPS. but the 9400M will still perform well with reduced settings.

 

[supaflyz]

I only go on photoshop to work on minor pictures and stuff. I'm not a pro at it at all. Wow 38% thats a lot. Yeah can you please look at it on gaming for me. I remember the old star craft didn't really have fantastic graphics. It was just a strategy war game. Really simple graphics when compared to other games.

 

[DoFoT9]

I only go on photoshop to work on minor pictures and stuff. I'm not a pro at it at all. Wow 38% thats a lot. Yeah can you please look at it on gaming for me. I remember the old star craft didn't really have fantastic graphics. It was just a strategy war game. Really simple graphics when compared to other games.

both computers will run the old game fine

but with SC2, the 9400M wont be able to run with higher settings, it will probably have to be set to "low" etc. the CPU speed doesnt REALLY come into play, but i always recommend the 2.53ghz model for best price/longevity ratio.

gaming benchmarks coming soon.....

 

[dudulang]

a large majority of 3rd party applications are single threaded. that means that they can only execute one thread at a time. its pretty technical stuff, so i wouldnt worry about it.

all you need to know is that single threaded apps give 38% increase, and multithreaded gives a >40% increase. those are pretty significant numbers - especially if you are using photoshop.

how heavily will you use photoshop? what effects do you use? what size projects do you deal with?

ill have a look at the performance of games for you, the newer computer will of course yield faster FPS. but the 9400M will still perform well with reduced settings.

hi, DoFot9, I have the same question about the difference between C2D and iX. I'm a college student of major electronics, and I use a lot the simulation of analogic circuit, numerical circuit. Is the any increase for this kind of software? Thanks in advance.

 

[supaflyz]

Thanks Foto!!! I'm just going to get the current macbook pro then. Being a college student and saving money through the economy is a must for me right now. Thank you for the advice and helpful information

 

[DoFoT9]

hi, DoFot9, I have the same question about the difference between C2D and iX. I'm a college student of major electronics, and I use a lot the simulation of analogic circuit, numerical circuit. Is the any increase for this kind of software? Thanks in advance.

hey there dudu

what sort of resources does the program use? just CPU/RAM usage im guessing? im going to presume that the software is multi-threaded and multi-cored, you will see some pretty nice improvements with the ix core over the C2D and i would recommend it if you can make the funds/wait for the new ones to come out.

Thanks Foto!!! I'm just going to get the current macbook pro then. Being a college student and saving money through the economy is a must for me right now. Thank you for the advice and helpful information

forgive me, i have been mistaken!!

link

intel 4500MHD benches 7,183, whilst the 9400M scores 13,929. quite a difference! that doesnt mean that the new MBPs will use just that discrete GPU - they will probably have a new ATi card, 4850, 4950 or something like that. which will beat the 9400M of course (probably by about 2x).

still though, i recommend the current MBPs im a uni student also, i understand the lack of funds!

 

[kny3twalker]

hey there dudu

what sort of resources does the program use? just CPU/RAM usage im guessing? im going to presume that the software is multi-threaded and multi-cored, you will see some pretty nice improvements with the ix core over the C2D and i would recommend it if you can make the funds/wait for the new ones to come out.




forgive me, i have been mistaken!!

link

intel 4500MHD benches 7,183, whilst the 9400M scores 13,929. quite a difference! that doesnt mean that the new MBPs will use just that discrete GPU - they will probably have a new ATi card, 4850, 4950 or something like that. which will beat the 9400M of course (probably by about 2x).

still though, i recommend the current MBPs im a uni student also, i understand the lack of funds!

You realize that's not the intel graphics integrated on the arrandale CPUs? And just curious where you saw a 35-40% increase in performance between an i5 and the equivalent core 2 duo? I read that was closer to 15-20% and most of the arrandales only achieve high 2 ghz/low 3 ghz in turbo mode.

 

[DoFoT9]

You realize that's not the intel graphics integrated on the arrandale CPUs?

i quick google told me that its the 4500MHD that is implemented in the ix mobile chips. am i mistaken? (again lol! its been a long day)

And just curious where you saw a 35-40% increase in performance between an i5 and the equivalent core 2 duo? I read that was closer to 15-20% and most of the arrandales only achieve high 2 ghz/low 3 ghz in turbo mode.

go back to post 5. read the annandtech information of comparisons of the C2D 2.53GHz and i5 2.53GHz CPUs. single threaded yeilds ~38% faster results, i forget the multi-threaded one.

those results would of course be for synthetic benchmarks

real world you are probably correct with your assumption for PS tasks and whatnot. video editing though i would assume that there is a 40% increase (it says 40% in the article).

take a read and correct me if im wrong please hate being wrong haha

oh also: the i5-540M @2.53Ghz TBs up to 3.06GHz

 

[highscheme]

go back to post 5. read the annandtech information of comparisons of the C2D 2.53GHz and i5 2.53GHz CPUs. single threaded yeilds ~38% faster results, i forget the multi-threaded one.

those results would of course be for synthetic benchmarks

real world you are probably correct with your assumption for PS tasks and whatnot. video editing though i would assume that there is a 40% increase (it says 40% in the article).

take a read and correct me if im wrong please hate being wrong haha

oh also: the i5-540M @2.53Ghz TBs up to 3.06GHz

"Photographers often like to carry around their work on notebooks so I thought I'd run our Photoshop CS4 script on the Arrandale and Core 2 platforms to see how they handled it. Surprisingly enough there was very little performance difference between the chips. The Core i5-540M was only 7% faster than the equivalently clocked Core 2. Not all of your performance gains are you going to be huge from Arrandale, but they have the potential to be (and most will be from what I've seen)."

 

[DoFoT9]

"Photographers often like to carry around their work on notebooks so I thought I'd run our Photoshop CS4 script on the Arrandale and Core 2 platforms to see how they handled it. Surprisingly enough there was very little performance difference between the chips. The Core i5-540M was only 7% faster than the equivalently clocked Core 2. Not all of your performance gains are you going to be huge from Arrandale, but they have the potential to be (and most will be from what I've seen)."

the last part backs up most of my statements

if they used an effect that was multicore/multithreaded, the differences would have been more around the 20-30% i indicated before

 

[dudulang]

hey there dudu

what sort of resources does the program use? just CPU/RAM usage im guessing? im going to presume that the software is multi-threaded and multi-cored, you will see some pretty nice improvements with the ix core over the C2D and i would recommend it if you can make the funds/wait for the new ones to come

now I use my 3 years old vaio with C2D 1.86, 2G ram. It takes me several seconds to build a graphe with about 10,000 simulation points.

 

[DoFoT9]

now I use my 3 years old vaio with C2D 1.86, 2G ram. It takes me several seconds to build a graphe with about 10,000 simulation points.

running vista i assume?

i also assume that it maxes out CPU when running this calculation? if thats the case, you dont REALLY want a computer that utilises HT because it doesnt do diddly-squat when CPU usage is >50% on the cores, but there are no laptops that dont have HT in the arrandale lineup i guess you're stuck there.

also, how much RAM does the application use? probably not HEAPS?

lastly, can the mac OS run your software?

 

[dudulang]

running vista i assume?

i also assume that it maxes out CPU when running this calculation? if thats the case, you dont REALLY want a computer that utilises HT because it doesnt do diddly-squat when CPU usage is >50% on the cores, but there are no laptops that dont have HT in the arrandale lineup i guess you're stuck there.

also, how much RAM does the application use? probably not HEAPS?

lastly, can the mac OS run your software?

Thanks.
Ram increases from 55% to 65% when I run the simulation. And yes, it's vista. The software is pSpice, I think there's an equivalent software for mac OS, and the usage of CPU and ram will be similar I think. My computer is so slow now, it takes me 2 minutes to boot up, after that I have to wait another 5 minutes for the opening of IE. Thatis why I want to buy a mac.