Is MBP i7 2.66 that much faster than MBP 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by iClique.com, Aug 15, 2010.

  1. iClique.com macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
    #1
    Is the MBP i7 2.66 that much faster than MBP 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo? I'm using mostly Photoshop CS5 with filters which really slowed down my 2.4GHz. Is it going to make that much of a difference to go to a 2.66?
     

    Attached Files:

  2. appleguy123 macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
  3. Eddyisgreat macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2007
    #3
    lol

    the i7 2.66 will beat the snot out of a 2.4 C2D.

    The i7 will beat the snot out of a 3...what...3.2 ghz C2D and then some (turbo boost and the i7 is faster than the c2d at lower clock speeds.
     
  4. animan macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    #4
    Roughly 35-40% faster, hard disk speed and other things being equal.
     
  5. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #5
    Lets put it this way

    My 2.66 i7 8gig ram mbp beats my core2quad 2.4ghz 8gig ram 8800gt 512mb hackintosh in nearly every benchmark i throw at it

    Also makes my relatively new unibody plastic macbook seem slow
     
  6. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
  7. MikeinJapan macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Location:
    Tokyo
    #7
    You see I went from a 2.53Ghz unibody to an i7 and day to day there is very very little difference. When I compress video it is quicker bit only by about 10-15% max. The older C2D unibody MBPs still fly. I say screw the update and wait for a quad core MBP in late 2011.
     
  8. MikhailT macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    #8
    If those filters are truly CPU bound, you'll see a huge difference with the fact that i7 2.66GHz has HT (4 threads with 2 cores) and 3.3Ghz Max Turbo boost. If the filters take advantage of the GPU, then you're not likely to see any difference since it's the GPU that'll make the difference.

    You're likely to benefit more from 8GB RAM and a good solid SSD than the CPU. I recommend upgrading those two and then wait for next major update.
     
  9. ouimetnick macrumors 68020

    ouimetnick

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Location:
    Beverly, Massachusetts
    #9
    I just got a 2.4GHz MBP. Hearing this is sad. :( But my MBP is fast for me. But a Core i7 15" would be a dream come true for me... one day...
     
  10. MikhailT macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    #10
    Just be happy with what you have, if it works for you, than there's nothing to be sad about. It isn't that much faster for average daily operations. By the time you think your MBP has gotten slow for you, a i9 quad-core with HT will be out (8 threads).
     
  11. ouimetnick macrumors 68020

    ouimetnick

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Location:
    Beverly, Massachusetts
    #11
    True.I also like the size of the 13". Its nice and compact.
     
  12. iClique.com thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
    #12
    I'm doing a lot of layers and using filters such as Nik's Viveza, OnOne Filters, and Topaz Filters. Once I started using filters the system really slowed down... Too slow now! I've got a buyer for my 2007 MBP 2.4 for $800 so just debating whether to get a MPB 2.66GHz or splurge on a Mac Pro 6 Core 3.3. If the MPB 2.66 is significantly faster that should suffice for now until the Sandy Bridge chip comes out next year, and I'll do the Mac Pro then.
     
  13. MikhailT macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    #13
    I'd go with Mac Pro, you can scale it up to fit your needs.
     
  14. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #14
    Hell YES!!

    When I had the 2.4ghz core 2 duo I was constantly getting 85%-90% CPU usage but now with the i7 I don't get any higher than 28%. LOL.
     
  15. Reelknead1 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2009
    #15
    I'm currently using 395% of my CPU on my i7 but that is because i'm using handbrake. I can't imagine what it would be like on a core 2
     
  16. iClique.com thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2010
    #16
    So the i7 is faster for you at a lower CPU usage?
     
  17. llt macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
  18. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #18
    Yeap, its smoking fast.

    Its the first laptop I've ever used that really felt like a desktop replacement.

    I did manage the i7 to reach 35% in cpu usage today. :)

    But I do run out of RAM all the time. I'm always at something like 5mb or 10mb of free RAM. I need to up my RAM to 8GB soon.
     
  19. stefan1975 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    #19
    i'm betting you will see 5-10mb free as well after you upgrade to 8gb. you do know how *NIX handles RAM, right? do you have paging or swapping?
     
  20. I'mAMac macrumors 6502a

    I'mAMac

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Location:
    In a Mac box
    #20
    The i7 is faster at any usage at any point in time in the history of computing. If you still don't believe all of us this article can explain how and WHY the core i series blows the C2D's away.

    And just for some reference, the 2.4ghz core i5 is faster than a C2D 2.8 Ghz. They are just far superior.
     
  21. ccashman92 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2010
    #21
    The new graphic cards with dynamic switching is TERRIBLE. Do not buy any Macbook that uses dynamic switching. It slows down your computer like crazy. I beach ball randomly just searching the internet.
     
  22. I'mAMac macrumors 6502a

    I'mAMac

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Location:
    In a Mac box
    #22
    So just manually set it to be what you need. And I never beachball from graphics cards switching :confused: And to not buy any macbook that uses dynamic switching would mean the best you could get was a 13" MBP.
     
  23. MikhailT macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2007
    #23
    It's not the graphic chips that's terrible, it's a bug in the "switching" process. It's either driver issues or OS X. Apple should be able to fix this with an update to OS X.

    You need to download gfxCardStatus application and set it manually, it'll resolve all of your issues.
     
  24. iDisk macrumors 6502a

    iDisk

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2010
    Location:
    Menlo Park, CA
    #24
    Big Jump from duo
     
  25. cluthz macrumors 68040

    cluthz

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Location:
    Norway
    #25
    I went from a 2.2GHz MBP with 4GB RAM to a 2.4GHz i5 with 4GB RAM, huge difference!

    Also if you work with large documents I'd really get 8GB RAM, I'm often running out of RAM and then photoshop starts to crawl.
     

Share This Page