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

i7 2.2 or 2.3

S

SureShot

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jul 10, 2008
13
0
Just curious if you guys think the upgrade is worth $250. I'm not really up on processor speeds so I was hoping there were some ideas from the users here.

I appologize if this has been asked too death but I tried doing a search for both "2.3" and "2.3 i7" but kept coming up empty.

Thanks guys/gals!
 
It seems the jump from 2.0 to 2.2 is much larger than the 2.2 to 2.3. Personally I would be happy with the 2.2 and save the $230.
 
If you're like 99.999% of users, you'd never notice the difference. You'd get much more of a boost from adding RAM or a SSD.
 
SureShot said:
Just curious if you guys think the upgrade is worth $250. I'm not really up on processor speeds so I was hoping there were some ideas from the users here.

I appologize if this has been asked too death but I tried doing a search for both "2.3" and "2.3 i7" but kept coming up empty.

Thanks guys/gals!
Click to expand...

What are your current uses?
 
GGJstudios said:
If you're like 99.999% of users, you'd never notice the difference. You'd get much more of a boost from adding RAM or a SSD.
Click to expand...

I agree and that's what I'm focusing on. Will be adding 8GB RAM. If my SSD in the marketplace doesn't sell I may end up using that one till I get a larger.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Well, my current uses are Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, usually Dreamweaver or Coda & HD Video Playback on a daily basis & Premier, After Effects, Lightroom & Cinema 4D on a weekly (or so) timeline.

I would consider myself a heavy user, this is why I asked if the extra speed the 2.3 would offer is beneficial for the money.

Thank you for the feedback all!
 
Just get the 2.2 and save yourself the money for other upgrades. The 2.2 is fast and the 2.3 is marginally faster, not $250 faster.

If you're asking yourself if the 2.3 will sell better in the future, no, it won't. By then, something MUCH faster will be in the market and the 2.3 will still only be marginally faster than the 2.2. Also, the people on Craigslist or eBay will not care about the CPU speed, they will just want the cheapest package that is affordable for them.
 
Pro users on these forums have even said that they would not pay the $250 for the 2.3. I think money would be best invested in a SATA III SSD or RAM.
 
I am totally one of those I gotta have mine bigger, better and fast than yours Mac guy BUT ... I bought the 2.2 and upgraded same day to 8GB of ram (cost something super cheap like $84 locally) and put in a Crucial C300 256 SSD and now I have bragging rights.

I just couldn't justify the jump in $ for the small extra in processor speed.
 
JodyK said:
I am totally one of those I gotta have mine bigger, better and fast than yours Mac guy BUT ... I bought the 2.2 and upgraded same day to 8GB of ram (cost something super cheap like $84 locally) and put in a Crucial C300 256 SSD and now I have bragging rights.

I just couldn't justify the jump in $ for the small extra in processor speed.
Click to expand...


I'm curious to know if TRIM is active after you put in your own SSD? Would you be able to post a screenshot? It would be greatly appreciated!
 
Since am going to play casual but still want some decent graphics i went with the 2.2GHz, i really thought about the 2.3 but now I saved 250$ and will get an update on RAM to 8GB :)
 
Optional processors are rarely worth it unless you're dealing with i5 to i7 or an Air where every MHz can make a difference, you're better off putting that money towards where it would count and that is memory/HDD/SSD. 2.2 is enough.
 
Well I think the processor update from 2.0GHz to 2.2GHz is worth it since it will also get you the better GPU :p

from 6490M to 6750M i think it's a big step as fas as i heard and read.
 
This is a quote from Lloyd Chambers in his Mac performance guide.


The 5% faster 2.2 => 2.3GHz CPU option is not worth the $250 upcharge for most users, since 5% is barely noticeable. However, the 2.3GHz option also offers a 1/3 larger cache (8MB instead of 6MB), and this can be helpful for programs actually using all four CPU cores



The bottom line is what programs you are using that use all 4 cores. For me it is processing Raw images in Capture One so i jumped all over the 2.3.
 
kappaknight said:
Just get the 2.2 and save yourself the money for other upgrades. The 2.2 is fast and the 2.3 is marginally faster, not $250 faster.
Click to expand...

I'd seriously bet ten thousand dollars most users couldn't tell the different in a test, period. Save the money.
 
The extra speed is only going to equate to maybe 10% faster in SOME cases. Frankly an SSD and/or 8GB of RAM are better ways to spend your money. If it's a choice between an SSD and the 2.3ghz processor, the SSD will make a world of difference over the processor upgrade. I didn't even give it a second thought when I ordered my 15" MBP with the 2.2ghz processor. That $230 was spent on upgrading to the 128gb SSD and 8GB of ram from another vendor and I still spent less than the cost of the upgrade!
 
Guy Mancuso said:
The bottom line is what programs you are using that use all 4 cores. For me it is processing Raw images in Capture One so i jumped all over the 2.3.
Click to expand...

Like some others I'm on the fence about the 2.2 of 2.3 processor. I was wondering if there is a way to figure out what programs use all four cores. Is that determined by the program or the computer depending on resources needed? Do programs like Aperture, Photoshop, FCP, After Effects, etc., use all four cores or does that depend on what it is those programs are doing? Will I see a difference when processing RAW photos in Aperture, where now with the computer that I have, it will bog down sometime to the point of freezing as it generates previews? Will the extra 2MB of L3 cache make a difference for graphics intensive programs?

Unfortunately, an SSD is not an option as I need at least a 500GB (7200RPM, of course) hard drive and the 512GB is not a option for me. I am considering a Seagate Momentus XT as I have good luck with that model on the current MBP I have.
 
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