+1. You can upgrade RAM and disk later if desired. CPU and screen can't be changed. If budget is limited, I'd upgrade screen first, CPU second.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Macbook Pro - 2.2Ghz or 2.3Ghz?
- Thread starter Cabestar :)
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
+1. You can upgrade RAM and disk later if desired. CPU and screen can't be changed. If budget is limited, I'd upgrade screen first, CPU second.
interesting... on the one hand 2mb more cache is a lot (33% increase
) cache is the big unknown for me, i'm pretty sure the 100mhz are insignificant. on the other hand i didnt recognize any sagnificant performance difference with the 2009 models, i think it was the 2.4ghz (3mb cache) and the 2.53ghz (6mb)regards
lol wait i'll just give it a try...
you should wait for some serious benchmark and performance tests and they will come soon. but again i think the difference will be barely noticable...
Yes, there was a 3MB L2 cache difference. That made a huge difference in many tasks. However, now, we are targeting L3 cache, which should provide much better performance.
Have you ever suffered from buyers remorse? I ask cause its very prevalent in Mac purchases. If you have suffered it in the past, then get the 2.3, else the 2.2 is fine.
here i found an interesting 'cache related benchmarktest'. certainly no reference for the new macbook pros, but interesting to see the performance differences...
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cache-size-matter,1709-5.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/cache-size-matter,1709-5.html
Out of all the minor processor upgrades they have offered in the past .100mhz is the lowest I think.
I would put that $200 away for either ram, or put it towards an SSD one day. That is where you will notice the performance.
I'm resisting the fever to buy one right now. Usually in 6 months they bump up the speeds to 2.6-2.9, that's when I'll move in for the kill.
Save the money.
I would put that $200 away for either ram, or put it towards an SSD one day. That is where you will notice the performance.
I'm resisting the fever to buy one right now. Usually in 6 months they bump up the speeds to 2.6-2.9, that's when I'll move in for the kill.
Save the money.
Isn't it more than just .1 Ghz?
Isn't it more than just .1 gHz? Don't you get the Hyper Threading and Turbo Boost?
From the Apple website:
Turbo Boost 2.0 - a dynamic performance technology that automatically boosts the processor clock speed based on workload, giving you extra processing power when you need it.
HyperThreading - a technology that allows two threads to run simultaneously on each core. So a quad-core MacBook Pro has eight virtual cores, all of which are recognized by Mac OS X. This enables the processor to deliver faster performance by spreading tasks more evenly across a greater number of cores.
You can upgrade the processor in your MacBook Pro to the 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor, featuring 8MB L3 cache and Turbo Boost speeds up to 3.40GHz.
Isn't it more than just .1 gHz? Don't you get the Hyper Threading and Turbo Boost?
From the Apple website:
Turbo Boost 2.0 - a dynamic performance technology that automatically boosts the processor clock speed based on workload, giving you extra processing power when you need it.
HyperThreading - a technology that allows two threads to run simultaneously on each core. So a quad-core MacBook Pro has eight virtual cores, all of which are recognized by Mac OS X. This enables the processor to deliver faster performance by spreading tasks more evenly across a greater number of cores.
You can upgrade the processor in your MacBook Pro to the 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor, featuring 8MB L3 cache and Turbo Boost speeds up to 3.40GHz.
5% difference, fyi (note you must also account for the 8MB cache vs the 6MB in some way or another)... And I have the 2.3 GHz because I didn't have a choice and didn't feel like going through the hassle of waiting 2 weeks for a CTO and then having the off chance I'd have to exchange because it was faulty.
And the truth it I did get a faulty model... A dead pixel in the center of the screen, just exchanged it for another laptop. No biggy. Happy now
Not counting the gpu, but the 2.0 to 2.2 is worth considering as the turbo boosts are significantly higher on the 2.2 but from 2.2 to 2.3 it is very minor IMO. I say 2.2.
you get 33% more of this stuff too:
http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/652356-cache-important-not.html
http://www.overclock.net/intel-cpus/652356-cache-important-not.html
Set your priorities. 1st thing is upgrade to the HR AG screen, since that is the thing you'll be looking at most of the time using your mac, then if you can afford it, go with the 2.3Ghz.
It'll buy you that "piece of mind" that you got the latest and greatest mac hardware wise and maybe get you even a better resale value in the long run.
If the 2.3Ghz is out of your budget then just buy the 2.2Ghz one.
Which ever one you get you won't be disappointed cuz mac isn't only about hardware, Mac OS-X is the best thing you get with whatever mac you get.
100Mhz difference in CPU clock speed is not going to give you a much of a different user experience but a good and stable OS will.
It'll buy you that "piece of mind" that you got the latest and greatest mac hardware wise and maybe get you even a better resale value in the long run.
If the 2.3Ghz is out of your budget then just buy the 2.2Ghz one.
Which ever one you get you won't be disappointed cuz mac isn't only about hardware, Mac OS-X is the best thing you get with whatever mac you get.
100Mhz difference in CPU clock speed is not going to give you a much of a different user experience but a good and stable OS will.
One thing to keep in mind... if you plan to edit on Final Cut... which the new Final cut is supposed to be rolling out on the app store in June (fingers crossed)
The new Final Cut is scaleable, which will use ALL cores you have, so a quad means 8 virtual cores and will use ALL memory you have, and according to Mac World and OWC, the new MBP can top out at 16 gigs of ram.
I remember getting a software update with a tweak allowing that to be true. Sure it is touted or talked about, but for the new MBP you can put that much in them and make it sing.
If you edit lots of Hi-Res pics using the latest software, again the quad core and memory and with Lion on the horizon you can do some amazing stuff. If you will use it to surf the web, play videos and games.... not sure you need a 2.3 GHZ processor where a 2.2 will do. Just my two cents, for I am planning on getting the new MBP17 and for what I will use if for... the 2.2 with the 500 gig 7200HD will do just fine.
The new Final Cut is scaleable, which will use ALL cores you have, so a quad means 8 virtual cores and will use ALL memory you have, and according to Mac World and OWC, the new MBP can top out at 16 gigs of ram.
I remember getting a software update with a tweak allowing that to be true. Sure it is touted or talked about, but for the new MBP you can put that much in them and make it sing.
If you edit lots of Hi-Res pics using the latest software, again the quad core and memory and with Lion on the horizon you can do some amazing stuff. If you will use it to surf the web, play videos and games.... not sure you need a 2.3 GHZ processor where a 2.2 will do. Just my two cents, for I am planning on getting the new MBP17 and for what I will use if for... the 2.2 with the 500 gig 7200HD will do just fine.
Java's sentiments are right on...laptops don't upgrade well at all. If money is tight, I'd say do the CPU first. The screen is something I've seen sold on ebay as a complete replaceable component. The CPU will require you to nearly gut your laptop to upgrade. The rest is cake. I went 2.3ghz w/ AG-HR...and I'm loving it. My HDD is the standard drive, but there's no better value right now...and Ram is cheaper else where....
Hope this help...
Hope this help...
This is how I see it
Apple is not making much money on that particular upgrade from the 2.2 to 2.3 as some have stated; that is about the price difference buying the cpu by itself. However 6vs8mb l3 cache is very spiffy with the multithreading technologies we are just now seeing the beginning of. Who knows what producers will engineer on the software end of things in the next 2-4 years which is about how long I keep each 'pro' level mac should expect to be used by the average mac user (sorry to leave out those that update every cycle).
I think the decision to be as rational as possible falls down to this simple question:
Are you a heavy multitasker? And be honest. If you are working sophisticated apps in windows and macos at the same time then the added 2mb cache would be a blessing and future proofer for the laptop. If you are just opening safari, mail, blogging, listening to itunes and browsing pictures then you are not a heavy multitasker and the upgrade would be useless.
I'll use myself as an example as I will be purchasing a new macbook pro next month. I've opted for the 2.3 with or without hi-res screen which is my own quarrel since the uber gpu in these now is more than capable of supporting my big screen for anything graphic intensive thereby negating any use of the higher res native built in screen.
Think on it, and most importantly be honest with what your intentions are. Apple doesn't really leave things for their customers to question because practically all the new line is only different in heavy user audiences. Arguably, the 13" would do most normal functions just as well as the base 15" so you just got to pick out which will meet your intentions honestly and then dont regret your decision.
Hope my unscientific review is of use to somebody
Apple is not making much money on that particular upgrade from the 2.2 to 2.3 as some have stated; that is about the price difference buying the cpu by itself. However 6vs8mb l3 cache is very spiffy with the multithreading technologies we are just now seeing the beginning of. Who knows what producers will engineer on the software end of things in the next 2-4 years which is about how long I keep each 'pro' level mac should expect to be used by the average mac user (sorry to leave out those that update every cycle).
I think the decision to be as rational as possible falls down to this simple question:
Are you a heavy multitasker? And be honest. If you are working sophisticated apps in windows and macos at the same time then the added 2mb cache would be a blessing and future proofer for the laptop. If you are just opening safari, mail, blogging, listening to itunes and browsing pictures then you are not a heavy multitasker and the upgrade would be useless.
I'll use myself as an example as I will be purchasing a new macbook pro next month. I've opted for the 2.3 with or without hi-res screen which is my own quarrel since the uber gpu in these now is more than capable of supporting my big screen for anything graphic intensive thereby negating any use of the higher res native built in screen.
Think on it, and most importantly be honest with what your intentions are. Apple doesn't really leave things for their customers to question because practically all the new line is only different in heavy user audiences. Arguably, the 13" would do most normal functions just as well as the base 15" so you just got to pick out which will meet your intentions honestly and then dont regret your decision.
Hope my unscientific review is of use to somebody