justify 2.66 or 2.93

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by raw911, Feb 24, 2009.

  1. raw911 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    #1
    Trying to convince wife [and me] would the 2.93 grant any major differences. I am a photographer and videographer .. i would be using my nikon D3 with a wireless transmitter sending raw photos to lightroom and editing if needed using CS4 and also digesting footage from sony xd cam using FCP and also adobe after effects. Been using older mbp 2.33 and it does slug sometimes but would like to get opinions of those here what their take on the 2 options would be.
     
  2. alexbates macrumors 65816

    alexbates

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2008
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    #2
    2.66 should be fine unless you really want the 2.93GHz. What you will need though to keep it running fast though is 4GB of memory. You can get that from OWC for much less than you can buy it from Apple.
     
  3. Moriarty macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2008
    #3
    The new 17 inch MBP already comes with 4GB.

    Unless you were referring to his old computer.
     
  4. mforce300 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    #4
    I do a lot of architectural rendering work where processor calculations are very important. Faster clock speed will allow me to do these renderings much faster.

    Also I plan to sell this computer when the i7 based macbook pros eventually become available. The better the specs are on this one, the more I'll be able to sell it for....
     
  5. NATO macrumors 68000

    NATO

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    #5
    You're right, but would a potential buyer be willing to spend £178 more than the 2.66GHz for the 2.93GHz version a year from now? I'm thinking perhaps not. Personally though, I think the 2.93GHz is a good investment if you're planning on keeping the laptop for a few years.
     
  6. raw911 thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2003
    #6
    Yea this would be my last laptop for a while. Will consider the mac pro once it comes out tho. Also I been buying AppleCare forever and never had to use it so I'm thinking on passing. But just my luck. Well you know. To keep expense down.
     
  7. xoggyux macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    #7
    I'd go for the 2.66Ghz, remember is less than 300Mhz difference between them, and the price difference is up to $300. I'd also stick for 4gb for now since 8gb upgrade could cost up to $1200 (at apple, ~$800 at crucial etc) and it will probably will be half the price within the year, also with current software 8Gb will not offer a significant difference. I'd go, however, for an SSD drive ~128Gb, apple sells them for $300, however if you feel comfortable opening the laptop then buying it online at some other store (e.g. amazon.com or newegg.com) could save you $50 and you would end up with an extra drive (your 320Gb internal drive) which you can make external with an enclosure and have up to 400Gb total. SSD would boost your booting speed significantly, the time the programs take to load would be reduced as well, and I am guessing photoshop will take great advantage of it.
     
  8. kastenbrust macrumors 68030

    kastenbrust

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Location:
    North Korea
    #8
    Buy Applecare on Ebay in a years time just before your 1 year warranty runs out, you'll get it for 50 to 80% less than Apple sell it and much cheaper in a year anyway. Anyone who doesn't just enjoys burning money.
     
  9. NATO macrumors 68000

    NATO

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    #9
    I definitely wouldn't skip Applecare if I were you, you know that the one time you don't buy it, you'll have some problem which will end up costing you a fortune!

    My old 15" MacBook Pro (Rev A, 2.0GHz Core Duo), which is probably about 2 years old now - the battery on it recently dropped to about 77% with 177 cycles on it, Applecare immediately sent me a replacement which arrived today. It's things like that which make me buy AppleCare every single time, it's worth it financially, and you don't have to fight with them to get stuff fixed, which I'm sure can't be said for a lot of extended warranties!
     
  10. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #10
    I'd get the 2.93ghz just because its that much closer to 3.0ghz.
     
  11. mforce300 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    #11
    Well, for me it will work out just fine. I got the 2.93 upgrade for free after some educational pricing magic. I really do plan to sell this at the same price i paid or more....
     
  12. Patriks7 macrumors 65816

    Patriks7

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #12
    Haha, that's the best excuse in ages :p With a good SSD and 8 GB RAM, a 2.93 should fly!
     
  13. Pagga macrumors 6502

    Pagga

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2009
    Location:
    Closer to the Artic circle than I like to be
    #13
    It will only be a fraction faster. Some say 10%, but it will vary with CPU demanding progs or not. Photo Shop is, as mentioned, first and foremost a RAM demanding prog.
    I think what is not being said here, is that the 17" product is aimed for a specific class of computer loving, high end hugging nerds. Apple knows this crowd will be succers for the extra minimal upgrade. Where as 13" and 15" buyers probably won´t.

    P
     
  14. kastenbrust macrumors 68030

    kastenbrust

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Location:
    North Korea
    #14

    Actually if you check the benchmark threads done on the 17" so far, you'll see the ones with the 2.93 CPU are performing about 25% faster than those with the 2.66 cpu, noone has come up with an explanation yet but the benchmarks speak for themselves. Personally i think its something to do with the Open GL but we'll see.
     
  15. Kronie macrumors 6502a

    Kronie

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    #15
    If you can afford it, why not just get the 2.93? I couldn't, so I just bought a stock model with a 2.66.

    Lightroom will render previews slightly faster (that's the only reason I wanted the 2.93) and you will render video slightly faster. How much faster? Probably not that much, maybe you will shave 30 seconds off of a DVD.......
     
  16. NATO macrumors 68000

    NATO

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2005
    Location:
    Northern Ireland
    #16
    As much as I wanted the 2.93Ghz model, I really couldn't be bothered waiting weeks for the delivery when my local store had the 2.66GHz one today :p My main reason for wanting the 2.93GHz one though was much like jjahskik32's... 3.0GHz is a psychologically satisfying clock speed :)
     
  17. P90Xfit macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2009
    #17
    wow laptop have come a long way! lol I remember the old days, 300mhz, 20GB HD, and 256MB RAM! :D
     
  18. MagicWok macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #18
    You can upgrade the RAM/HD, even optical drive or swapping that out for a 2nd internal HD.

    But you can't upgrade the CPU in the future unless you buy a whole new logic board. If you can afford it, go for it ;)
     
  19. jmark macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    #19
    I would describe the real-world difference between 2.66 and 2.93 gHz as "incremental", and probably not worth the $300 to the vast majority of users.

    Another factor in favor of staying with the default is the possibility of the 2.93 gHz version running hotter.

    Much more likely to be worthwhile (in terms of speed) would be upgrading from the standard 5400rpm drive to either 7200rpm or SSD.
     
  20. harry454 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    #20
    you would be fine with 2.66, the extra cpu speed, wont make much difference
     
  21. JadedRaverLA macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2008
    #21
    Unless you do CONSTANT HD video editing on the machine, you'll probably use the full speed of your processor less than 1% of the time you're using the machine.

    2.66 to 2.93 is a roughly 10% speed upgrade for that 1% of the time your processor is running at full throttle on both cores and costs about $300 extra. Unless the alternative is lighting 3 hundred dollar bills on fire just to provide yourself 90 seconds of enjoyment I would think you could come up with a FAR better use of the money.
     
  22. MagicWok macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #22
    Ok, people are really getting ridiculous on these forums. Really? 1%? So for 99% of my whole ownership, the CPU will never reach full speed?

    Yes, the speed difference is probably of no effect to the OP, but don't make up ridiculous numbers like 1%.


    However, raw911, most in this thread are right. The speed difference will most likely not make much noticable real-world difference for you. What will, will be to save the money and invest in an SSD once prices fall mid/late this year hopefully. That'll make much more of a difference, one that you will notice with use ;) My earlier point still applies though, however the SSD will be a better investment.
     
  23. kastenbrust macrumors 68030

    kastenbrust

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Location:
    North Korea
    #23
    Someone obviously doesn't understand how processors work....:rolleyes:
     
  24. jjahshik32 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    #24
    Lol, less than 1% on normal circumstances is a bit too exaggerated.

    I'm surfing the web on my 15" 2.53ghz unibody mbp with 12 tabs opened on safari, ichat, transmission uploading some files, downloading stuff from unison via usenet stuff, listening to music and checking email and I see my cpu jumping anywhere from 3-16% constantly.
     
  25. kastenbrust macrumors 68030

    kastenbrust

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2008
    Location:
    North Korea
    #25
    try encoding a movie using handbrake and you'll reach 100%

    anyway on a lighter note: 70% of statistics are incorrect. (yes this includes Apples battery life estimates! :p)
     

Share This Page