MacBook Pro 2.0 vs 2.2 (Please Read! :D )

[fruitycups]

hello macrumors!

Im planning on selling the 13" pro and go to a 15". But im stuck between two models.

If i go base, than my budget allows me to upgrade the ram to 8gb (from another source of course), buy a momentus XT, buy the incase sleeve, and also include the high res glossy option.

if i go 2.2, i'll probably go barebones everything. I just have a set price that i don't want to go over so this decision has tradeoffs.

the 2.2 has the fantastic graphics card. i really don't play anything except the sims but my "what if" side makes me wonder what happens if i really want ot play games. What if i suddenly get into PC games. hasen't happened in the first 21 years of my life but who knows. I might like starcraft 2 haha. one things for certain, i would be playing sims 3 with alot higher settings than what im using right now.

the power from 2.0 to 2.2 makes NO difference to me (i don't do those types of tasks that take advantage of that) so it only comes down to video card difference.

ah, after typing this out, it makes me realize how stupid it is sacrificing all that stuff for a better card but i might as well still get some opinions!

 

[GermanyChris]

hello macrumors!

Im planning on selling the 13" pro and go to a 15". But im stuck between two models.

If i go base, than my budget allows me to upgrade the ram to 8gb (from another source of course), buy a momentus XT, buy the incase sleeve, and also include the high res glossy option.

if i go 2.2, i'll probably go barebones everything. I just have a set price that i don't want to go over so this decision has tradeoffs.

the 2.2 has the fantastic graphics card. i really don't play anything except the sims but my "what if" side makes me wonder what happens if i really want ot play games. What if i suddenly get into PC games. hasen't happened in the first 21 years of my life but who knows. I might like starcraft 2 haha. one things for certain, i would be playing sims 3 with alot higher settings than what im using right now.

the power from 2.0 to 2.2 makes NO difference to me (i don't do those types of tasks that take advantage of that) so it only comes down to video card difference.

ah, after typing this out, it makes me realize how stupid it is sacrificing all that stuff for a better card but i might as well still get some opinions!

I think of it as future proof, really you're right IMHO a SSD would do you better than a faster processor or better graphic's.. That was my choice at least.

 

[ABadSanta]

I was honestly in the same exact boat. I was choosing between the two models, and i'm the type of guy who always wants the latest and greatest.

I eventually chose the 2.0 ghz model, because it was hard for me to justify the significant price difference.

I actually did exactly what you did, i got the base model, upgraded to 8 GB of G Skill DDR3 from newegg, and went for the high res anti glare display.

My suggestion would be to simply get the base model. I mean, you're getting a quadcore i7, and your computer will already be at the top percentile of computers out there today. That money going for the 2.2 ghz model would go to great use upgrading RAM and the SSD (you'll definitely notice a huge difference with both of those upgrades).

 

[Dark Void]

i'd recommend the high end if you are concerned with gaming at all - the 1gb card will help out a lot there. otherwise, if it is not a concern, simply go for the base model and spend the rest on your upgrades as you intend.

 

[jbjones85]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_8 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E401 Safari/6533.18.5)

I went base hi res anti glare and spent the difference on 8 gb ram a SSD and a few other small things. No regrets here.

 

[2hvy4grvty]

If you're not going to spend another cent on this laptop, ever, go with the base model. You get a much more "complete" package.

HOWEVER, everything you mentioned (with the exception of high res screen) is a self-serviceable part. That's to say, when your budget allows it, somewhere down the line, you can upgrade RAM, or upgrade SSD, or buy that case. There's no rush.

BUT, if you go with the 2.0 model, and decide later that the GPU wasn't enough. Sorry, but you're SOL.

 

[majohnson]

2.0 vs2.2

I just got 15" MBP its the 2.0 w 4 gbs of ram. Its a nice laptop so far. The forum was helpful getting me up with Bootcamp & Windows.

 

[tombubi]

i'd recommend the high end if you are concerned with gaming at all - the 1gb card will help out a lot there. otherwise, if it is not a concern, simply go for the base model and spend the rest on your upgrades as you intend.

I agree.

 

[Nielsenius]

If you're not trying to go all out due to budget issues, then I would go with the 2.0GHz and get a nice SSD. A SSD will make your boot time, app launches, and file reads/writes crazy fast. For most people, going from a HDD to a SSD is much more significant than getting a faster processor. The processor is already good, so 2.0GHz vs. 2.2GHz isn't too significant in most cases. Upgrading the RAM from 4GB to 8GB is only worthwhile if you're using a virtual machine or using pro-like apps that require lots of memory.

 

[Performa636CD]

Basically what 2hvy4grvty said. Go for the 2.2 for the graphics card. You can upgrade the RAM and HDD later on. You can "future proof" a graphics card only when you buy the laptop, not after.

 

[Durious]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

Basically what 2hvy4grvty said. Go for the 2.2 for the graphics card. You can upgrade the RAM and HDD later on. You can "future proof" a graphics card only when you buy the laptop, not after.

Yup 2.2 and upgrade when you can its amuch safer and future proof option

 

[fruitycups]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)



Yup 2.2 and upgrade when you can its amuch safer and future proof option

i agree with the other parts but the high res screen can only be added in the beginning. im weighing if a graphics card is more important than the high res screen. so in reality its going to come down to playing the sims on high vs looking at the screen everyday.

who knows though, maybe i'll be able to convince myself that the high res isn't important.

 

[awer25]

i agree with the other parts but the high res screen can only be added in the beginning. im weighing if a graphics card is more important than the high res screen. so in reality its going to come down to playing the sims on high vs looking at the screen everyday.

who knows though, maybe i'll be able to convince myself that the high res isn't important.

Don't get anything but hi-res IMHO.

 

[aluren]

If you never played a pc game ever, why are you worried about that now? even if you want to play game, medium settings would suffice since it doesnt seem like you fall in the hardcore gamer category to require a 1gb video card.

Base 15" plus SSD plus 8gb ram plus high res screen would be my recommendation.

 

[s1nfoxgl]

Not trying to hijack the thread but I'm having a similar problem. I play SC2 fairly often and I am always on and off for WoW but I dont intend to run windows on my MBP once I get it. So would the low end 15 still be a good choice? I already ordered 8GB of RAM from Newegg during the 4th of july sale which only costed me $50. Might get a SSD down the road.

 

[alust2013]

@OP, I'd get the low end model. The 6490m is way enough to run Sims 3 at good settings. If you for some strange reason get into PC gaming, you would do yourself far better later on building a gaming PC for pretty cheap.

 

[2hvy4grvty]

I don't mean to start a mac vs PC debate, but I thought I'd clear up a few misconceptions.

The 6750m in the high end MBPs isn't some super high end card that only hardcore gaming enthusiasts can enjoy. Far from it. In fact, it's little more than a slightly above average mobile vid card on the grander scheme of things. It's a fraction above the very minimal that most people look for in a video card. An average card would be a nvdia 540m GT/ATI 6630m, and the 6750m is only one step above it, equivalent to a 550m GT. It is the GDDR5 variation though, which gives it a push over some 550ms that are equipped with GDDR3.

HOWEVER, as a basis of comparison of just how accessible it is: an HP DV6t can come equipped with a sandy bridge quad core, 6 gb of ram, 1080p screen, 750 gb HDD, and a superior 6770m GDDR5 for under $950. A quad core, 8 gb, Lenovo Y570 comes with a similar 555m GT GDDR3 card for $850. A weaker 540m GT, found on lower level Acers/Asuses can be had for $600. These are VERY accessible cards that moderate PC users own, and by no means an enthusiast card or a hardcore gamer card. $900 is by no means a large sum to spend on a notebook, well within, even below the average that many users spend.

On the professional work side of things, the 6750m is almost a below average card. ATI has lack of CUDA support, which mean CAD and similar applications would run quite a deal worse than their nvidia counterpart. In addition, the 6750m is a mainstream card, unlike the Firepro M5950, a professional card. What that means is it lacks the professional drivers that enable CAD optimizations a la GPU.

So, if all of this is going past your head, here's a short recap: Apple gimped out on gfx cards this year lowballing the base model with a 6490m, which is a below average card that can be found on $500 PCs. The 6750m is about on mark with Apple's other MBPs, settling in at the "slightly above average" area upon release, as with the 330m GT before that, and the 9600m GT before that.

I know we're all Apple users and are fully prepared to shell out $1500-$2000 for the "Apple experience", but do yourself a favor and at the very least, not disillusion yourself. 6750m is a very respectable card, great for everyday purposes. A hardcore gamer card it is not. The 6490m is a "multimedia" card, not even worthy of the discrete name.

If you ARE a gamer, the 6750m isn't remotely enough. You'll have to step up to a regular gamer card like the GTX 560m, which surprisingly only goes for ~$1100 in the PC world. The next step up, the 6970m/GTX 485m should run you ~$1650. Then there's SLI/CF configurations, but we're getting ahead of ourselves. Long story short, 6750m is middle pack, not high end, not hardcore.

 

[Dark Void]

stuff

i was reading this and was going to suggest a gtx card if hardcore gaming of current games was the desire, but you pretty much covered everything. good post.

however, "gamer" is a subjective term, and "hardcore gamer" even more so. a "gamer" can be someone who simply plays a low-end game a lot, such as world of warcraft on lower settings or a similar low-end mmo or even an older fps, and thus could be considered "hardcore," whatever that details. to me, it basically means someone plays a lot and dedicates a good amount of time to it. thus, the 6750m could be find for that "hardcore gamer" in that case.

although it's not really going to run games currently being released too well as you are getting at. they may be playable of course but nowhere near up to snuff at max, high, or even med settings.

 

[2hvy4grvty]

No, from a hardware perspective, duration matters not. "Hardcore", or any synonymous semantic, references the kind of games you play and their requirements.

It's really deceiving that, to label someone who plays Counterstrike for 12 hours a hardcore gamer, and someone who dabbles a couple minutes with the latest and greatest a casual gamer. Terms are often used improperly; what good would a casual/hardcore differential be if they DIDN'T refer to how demanding the games were? Pretty worthless terms.

General rule of thumb: 6750m should be good for most games on high (900p) for the next 2 years, then medium for the next two years after that (720p), then low from there on out. The 6490m starts off 2 years behind, so expect medium gaming (720p) for the next year or two, then low from there on out for about a year. Then it's dunzo with regards to playing the new games.

By comparison, a GTX 485m is good for some games on ultra for two years (1080p), then high for the next three years after that (900p), then medium if the card's still alive, which it shouldn't be.

 

[Performa636CD]

I understood the OP's dilemma as more about future proofing and less about hardcore gaming. Today's hardcore gaming or graphics tasks might be "medium" gaming and graphics tasks 4 years from now.

 

[Dark Void]

No, from a hardware perspective, duration matters not. "Hardcore", or any synonymous semantic, references the kind of games you play and their requirements.

fair enough. if you look at it from a hardware perspective then you are right. it's still subjective though, i'm sure i'm not the only one that views it as a time played or duration thing.

you're not any more/less "hardcore" if you're playing wow on ultra or low with the same fluidity of gameplay for the same amount of general time in my opinion. you just spent more on your hardware.

 

[Mobius 1]

the price difference is worth to get a better GPU, more HDD space.


srsly a 6490M should not be used for a $1800 notebook

should have a 6870M at the 2.0 and a 6970M at the 2.2

 

[ninja2000]

I don't mean to start a mac vs PC debate, but I thought I'd clear up a few misconceptions.

The 6750m in the high end MBPs isn't some super high end card that only hardcore gaming enthusiasts can enjoy. Far from it. In fact, it's little more than a slightly above average mobile vid card on the grander scheme of things. It's a fraction above the very minimal that most people look for in a video card. An average card would be a nvdia 540m GT/ATI 6630m, and the 6750m is only one step above it, equivalent to a 550m GT. It is the GDDR5 variation though, which gives it a push over some 550ms that are equipped with GDDR3.

HOWEVER, as a basis of comparison of just how accessible it is: an HP DV6t can come equipped with a sandy bridge quad core, 6 gb of ram, 1080p screen, 750 gb HDD, and a superior 6770m GDDR5 for under $950. A quad core, 8 gb, Lenovo Y570 comes with a similar 555m GT GDDR3 card for $850. A weaker 540m GT, found on lower level Acers/Asuses can be had for $600. These are VERY accessible cards that moderate PC users own, and by no means an enthusiast card or a hardcore gamer card. $900 is by no means a large sum to spend on a notebook, well within, even below the average that many users spend.

On the professional work side of things, the 6750m is almost a below average card. ATI has lack of CUDA support, which mean CAD and similar applications would run quite a deal worse than their nvidia counterpart. In addition, the 6750m is a mainstream card, unlike the Firepro M5950, a professional card. What that means is it lacks the professional drivers that enable CAD optimizations a la GPU.

So, if all of this is going past your head, here's a short recap: Apple gimped out on gfx cards this year lowballing the base model with a 6490m, which is a below average card that can be found on $500 PCs. The 6750m is about on mark with Apple's other MBPs, settling in at the "slightly above average" area upon release, as with the 330m GT before that, and the 9600m GT before that.

I know we're all Apple users and are fully prepared to shell out $1500-$2000 for the "Apple experience", but do yourself a favor and at the very least, not disillusion yourself. 6750m is a very respectable card, great for everyday purposes. A hardcore gamer card it is not. The 6490m is a "multimedia" card, not even worthy of the discrete name.

If you ARE a gamer, the 6750m isn't remotely enough. You'll have to step up to a regular gamer card like the GTX 560m, which surprisingly only goes for ~$1100 in the PC world. The next step up, the 6970m/GTX 485m should run you ~$1650. Then there's SLI/CF configurations, but we're getting ahead of ourselves. Long story short, 6750m is middle pack, not high end, not hardcore.

I really think you are short changing the 6750m. Yes it is no 560m, but it is a very capable card, much better than a 5650/5730 it replaced.
Firstly I have the 17" and it can easily clock above 800/1000 which takes it above a 6770m and I can also undervolt with my overclock settings so it remains cool.
Secondly, as I have the 17" my native is 1920x1200 and I have been able to play all the following at native res with high settings (but no AA or AF)
BFBC2
COD BO
MOH 2010
SC2
DOW2
Shogun 2
SupComm2

I havent turned on my gaming rig in over a month. I am sure I will find some games in the future it will struggle with, but I will just drop from native to 1680x1050 which still looks good

 

[Mobius 1]

apple needs to have same pricing as alienware's M- series

 

[dagamer34]

I think we are all missing the point that unless you have a space issue, buying a PC is always better for gaming because you can upgrade the video card (a FAR more cost-effective way to get better performance). Some cheap $400 PC + $150 GPU will run CIRCLES around any Mac that you get.

Let's do a price comparison on desktop video cards:

This is the best video card Apple sells, an ATI Radeon HD 5870 for $450: http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC743ZM/A?fnode=MTY1NDA5OQ&mco=MTg2OTU0NTI

And this is what you can get for just $350 in the PC world, an ATI Radeon HD 6970, AMDs 2nd best video card: http://www.amazon.com/Radeon-XFX-69...IZ5A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309874264&sr=8-1

Now I know that was for desktops and we're buying a laptop here, but while Apple builds a quality laptop, seeking high-end GPU performance from them is a fools game and everyone knows it.