justify 2.66 or 2.93

[jjahshik32]

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! )

I encode 9-14gb of bluray movies before (never really cared for handbrake) but I've never seen it go above 98%.

Good God read my post first before quoting, I said under normal circumstances.

 

[JadedRaverLA]

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

LOL. Yeah... obviously I made up the 1% -- never seen a real statistic on this for an "average" user. Though I always have many apps running at any given time, the only time I've seen the processor working 100% within OS X was while doing video editing or media encoding (and this is on a 2.53Ghz processor).

FWIW though, my made up stat is absolutely correct for at least some users... Apple's battery life estimates can't be right for anyone on the entire planet.

 

[jjfcpa]

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.

Does the 17" MBP have an open slot for adding an add'l 4 gig of memory or do you have to buy 2 X 4 gig?

 

[kastenbrust]

Does the 17" MBP have an open slot for adding an add'l 4 gig of memory or do you have to buy 2 X 4 gig?

No you have to buy 2 x 4GB which is why Apples prices are fairly competitive. If you get the 4Gb option is comes with 2 x 2GB which i thinks a bit rude but hey thats life.

 

[MagicWok]

No you have to buy 2 x 4GB which is why Apples prices are fairly competitive. If you get the 4Gb option is comes with 2 x 2GB which i thinks a bit rude but hey thats life.

It probably works out cheaper for Apple, but you have to install in pairs to get dual-channel added benefits which is why it's 2x2GB and 2x4GB - gains of which is debatable too.

 

[raw911]

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.

Well I pulled the trigger. Just went on and got the 2.93 and 320HD @7200rpm with antiglare. Now the waiting game begins. Anyone order this late ? And did you get yours or date? Giving me march 11 - 18

 

[MagicWok]

Congrats!

I might be ordering mine this weekend, so will let you know how I get along with my order in terms of delivery

 

[mmalto]

Well I pulled the trigger. Just went on and got the 2.93 and 320HD @7200rpm with antiglare. Now the waiting game begins. Anyone order this late ? And did you get yours or date? Giving me march 11 - 18

march 11th-18th? wow, that's way longer then the 'ships in 5-7 days' on the website. i bet you get an email later saying it ships a week earlier then that.

 

[philips]

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.

IMHO 2.66 for photo editing should be sufficient. Rest depends heavily on software itself.

N.B. I have 3yo 2GHz dual core Athlon desktop which does RAW processing (GIMP/ufraw or RawTherapy) from my Oly E-520 without problems. Most of the time, I feel that it's reading 10MB RAW from disk is slowest.

I ordered 2.66 myself because generally from a laptop I first of all expect good battery life, not fast CPU.

On the side note, I'm generally buying Apple laptops for good build quality. Performance for portable system is quite low on my check list. In long term, generic PC laptops have quite bad survival rate. And most reliable PC laptops costs not less (and often more) than Apple ware. But with Apple I also get Mac OS X and stylish device.

 

[raw911]

yea i figured this will have to do me for quite a while - at least till the mac pro comes out

 

[Repo]

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.

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.

Maybe you should try reading the entire post and not just quotes before commenting.

He didn't say your processor only uses 1% of it's power most of the time. He said your processor isn't being used 100% MORE THAN 1% of the time you're actually using your laptop.

 

[WardC]

333MHz difference. In the old days this would be huge, I mean, I think the difference is greater than comparing a PowerBook 5300/100 to a PowerBook 5300ce/117.

I would guess it would be more like comparing a 2.16GHz MacBook Pro to a 2.4GHz Santa Rosa. A nice little speed jump, but you can still do everything on the 2.16 with ample RAM, and it's still snappy and fast. Your renders on the 2.93 are going to be faster, exporting video, converting formats, and processing audio files in iTunes/export, ect. All these processor-chugging operations that take time and full use of raw CPU will see a speed jump. I think Safari will still be snappy and fast no matter what, and Photoshop will scream on either machine.

Just my take.

 

[jjahshik32]

Maybe you should try reading the entire post and not just quotes before commenting.

He didn't say your processor only uses 1% of it's power most of the time. He said your processor isn't being used 100% MORE THAN 1% of the time you're actually using your laptop.

Ok I have missed read it and btw less than 1% that you'll be using 100% IS STILL way too exaggerated and low.

Also I've never could achieve my cpu to go at 100%, with heavy multitasking and everything I've thrown at it I could only get about 97%-98% at max from the cpu.

 

[Abstract]

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.

You didn't prove his point wrong, though.

He's probably right. Unless you're ripping DVDs all the time, or doing some sort of encoding, your computer and the graphics card doesn't hit 100% capacity. You can do a lot of work with just 20% cpu capacity, as you pointed out.

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.

Where did you read this? I'd like to read about it. I'm a bit surprised, since the difference between 2.0 GHz and 2.4 GHz seems to be around 10% according to a couple of trustworthy review sites.

 

[apple2E]

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.

Photographer and videographer? No question the 2.93. Render times will be worth it now and if you're not wild on buying a new laptop every year the extra speed will always help.

Anyone doing video should go with the the faster.