I have 2600$..2.2 or 2.4 deal?? opinions?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by XheartcoreboyX, Jul 28, 2007.

  1. XheartcoreboyX macrumors 6502a

    XheartcoreboyX

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    #1
    so all i have now is 2600$..thats what exactly a 2.4 mbp cost here (no discounts or whatever)..shall i get a 2.4(256vcard)2600$ or 2.2(128 vcard)2000$..im really really confused...the most expensive laptop i got costed 1700$(a windows laptop)..so i dont know what to get...i always like to get the best thing..but maybe 2600$ is a little too much..i dontknow..
     
  2. techlover828 macrumors 68020

    techlover828

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    #2
    what are you planning on doing on the computer?
     
  3. MacPossum macrumors 6502

    MacPossum

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    #3
    I went for the 2.2GHZ model because I really don't think the leap in processor speed or the vRAM is worth the $500 price tag. What are you going to be doing on the MBP... it may depened on that.

    Either way, it's been said many times; the chances of the 2.4GHZ model running something the 2.2GHZ model can't in a few years are very slim.
     
  4. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #4
    I completely agree. When I bought it was 1.5ghz to 1.67. The 1.5 did not come with the 128 mb vcard option from what I could tell and the 128mb vcard was important to me so I got the 1.67. That said. If i were buying right now and I had $2600. I would buy the 2.2. I also do not see how there could be such a huge jump in speed from the 2.2 to the 2.4. I could be wrong, but in the end, I'd say prove it.
     
  5. techlover828 macrumors 68020

    techlover828

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    #5
    my thoughts exactly, .2GHz is not going to make a huge difference and neither is the graphics card, but let us know what you're planning on running on it.
     
  6. XheartcoreboyX thread starter macrumors 6502a

    XheartcoreboyX

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    #6
    Random use, web surfing,chatting,imovie video editing,watching movies,listening to music(all i have is 9 gig of music),photos,microsoft office,maybe games(i sold my ps2 and getting a ps3 soon probably..no computer can have the same video quality right?!)..thats it..i wonder if the extra vram would make a difference in video and images quality? or just games and professional video/3d editing?
     
  7. techlover828 macrumors 68020

    techlover828

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2007
    #7
    I'd personally go with 2.2GHz. Your not really doing too much where you would need that extra speed.
     
  8. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #8
    Get the 2.2.

    The graphics card is used for something like iPhoto, but the 128MB is way more powerful than necessary for that.

    It's not used in video editing at all.

    And unless you're trying to run the games on the highest settings possible, you will also be fine. The 8600M GT is a beast, whether 128 or 256MB.
     
  9. klharper macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    #9
    Well, TV technology is far "behind" LCD monitor technology, so really, computer monitors is where its at. The most expensive HD TV's resolution is usually less than what is available on a 17" MBP.. take that, Mr. HDTV :D:apple:. That means pixel pitch is far greater on a computer monitor... but granted, it probably scales equally, or with an edge to the computer monitors, as you don't want to be watching a 70" TV at 2 feet away like you do on a computer monitor haha, but more like 15-20 feet. So don't think you've been spoiled by the ps2+TV technology... an MBP will look much sharper, and sleeker!

    But yea, the 2.2 will be more than enough for your needs. Personally I will be going for the 2.4 when I look into buying, but that is mainly for longevity concerns and audio applications - essentially right now, the extra HD space, processor power, and VRAM does add up to nearly $500, so its not a horrible markup. But then again industry standard pricing isn't always very logically fair, in the consumer mindset, either. Even so, however, it's really not *necessary* at the moment. For all of your matters, you could have very comparable results with good MacBook setup, sans the gaming perhaps.
     
  10. XheartcoreboyX thread starter macrumors 6502a

    XheartcoreboyX

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    #10
    thanks guys for your resonse ;),
    well i been in like 4 computers stores today..noticed that 99% of the laptops(Toshiba-HP-Compaq-Dell-Siemens) got the 256mb vcard...which makes me thnik that the 128mb vcard will be something from the past in 1 or 2 years.. thats not good i bet >_> ....
     
  11. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #11
    It's not about the memory size, it's about the type of graphics processor used.
     
  12. XheartcoreboyX thread starter macrumors 6502a

    XheartcoreboyX

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    #12
    eh yah right...my brother's hp laptop vcard is 256mb..and my laptop is 128mb but the games work better on mine..so i think your right:eek:
     
  13. Zel macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    #13
    yeah the amount of memory is not as important as the type of video processor, and I'd bet none of those had something as good as the 8600 regardless of videoram.
     
  14. XheartcoreboyX thread starter macrumors 6502a

    XheartcoreboyX

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    #14
    Yup they do have Geforce..but i didnt check the model number..
    -out of topic- why matte is the best?! =P
     
  15. MacPossum macrumors 6502

    MacPossum

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    #15
    A LOT of the computers in those computer stores (BestBuy, CompUSA and others like it I assume) use budget video cards with 256MB vRAM. It looks good on the little info paper, but a 8600GT with 120 vRAM is going to out preform most of them.
     
  16. MacPossum macrumors 6502

    MacPossum

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2007
    #16
    Your thread will be turned into a glossy v matte war very soon because of this :p That being said, matte is far superior.
     
  17. XheartcoreboyX thread starter macrumors 6502a

    XheartcoreboyX

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    #17
    well theres already MANY wars about that started in the forums XD
    and the result is:-
    *most use in home(no too much light): glossy screen.
    *most use in lighty rooms or on the way or for professionals: Matte screen.

    so,lets go back to topic:is there any games in the present doesnt work with the 128mb vcard?!
     
  18. Zel macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    #18
    its not about not working, and it is a technicality, you need to understand texture memory.

    Artwork has to be loaded into the video ram to be drawn to the screen, artwork like the paint on the sides of models or the texture drawn on the surface of walls or water. These are loaded when the game starts because you cant see anything without it. Not all of them fit, because modern games have gigabytes of art files, but you only need to have as much as you can see at one time and the game will intelligently swap out and back when things will not be used. (the badguys from level 5 dont have to be rendered during level 3). Having more vRam will give you a smoother experience. A good example is Oblivion where indoors and outdoors have different art files, so having the 256 will make transitions smoother.

    Also, a big impact is the fancy graphical settings of Antialiasing and anisotropic filtering. These expand textures to look nicer and smoother, not framerate wise but in a single screenshot. They also then require 2x or 4x more texture memory, and you hear about big videocards being able to play whatever game on 'max settings' because it can handle that.

    the 128 and the 256 have the same gpu so they draw the same speed, but the 256 can do it with more antialiasing and smoother between 'rooms'.

    For professional work, like some kind of 3d AutoCAD, that 256 videoram will allow you to have twice the complexity on one project with no slowdown. The software called Motion does this as well.

    so 256 isnt actually faster, but it is still better :)

    Edit: I almost forgot to get to the point; There are no games that will run on 256 but will not run on 128, theyll just be capable of being prettier under 256.
     
  19. kellen macrumors 68020

    kellen

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2006
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #19
    You could wait until there are the 2.4 refurb MBP's. Should be 200-300 less.
     
  20. XheartcoreboyX thread starter macrumors 6502a

    XheartcoreboyX

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    #20
    thanks!!!! i read it all and i understand the benefit of the extra vram,but probably i will still go with the 2.2 model as i dont want to spend too much money.
    i dont live in the states,and even if i did,i wouldnt buy a used item especially a laptop XD
     

Share This Page