Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacBook Pro 2.53 (2009) or Current 2.4 Base Model

L

lehman310

macrumors member
Original poster
Mar 10, 2009
49
0
I can get the old MacBook from 2009 with the 2.53 GHz Processor open boxed for the same price as the current 13 inch 2.4 Ghz. So I was wondering if the extra .13 GHz outweighs the better graphics chip and battery. Thanks

EDIT: Also they are the exact same price
 
The difference is the display, 15" vs 13". Other than that, you won't see that much computing difference, unless you have to use CPU heavy applications all the time.
 
I'd go for the new one to get the new graphics card and battery. The .13 ghz difference will never be noticed.
 
lehman310 said:
Nope. Both are 13"
Click to expand...

No question about it - get the new one. The graphics are FAR superior in my experience. I really only play two games, Age of Empires III and Bioshock, both under Windows. With my new MBP I can play both at full resolution with all options turned on; my iMac at work has the 9400M and I'm lucky if I can get 1024x768 and medium graphics to play OK.

EDIT: I will add this, too - the battery is a bit hyped up. Oh sure, you can get 10 hours and yes, you can get it with the screen on half brightness and wifi on and browsing... but that'd better be very simple browsing (no flash, java, etc.) and it better be the only thing you're doing. Word processing seems to get this type of life, too. For example, I was typing a paper the other night for 3+ hours and only used 12% of my battery. The battery IS an improvement, but you have to be gentle to get the full capacity - for comparison, my buddy regularly gets around 6 hours on his previous gen 15" MBP (w/9400M) with the screen just 3 notches under full.

Be warned, though - if you plan to use Windows, the battery life stinks (in comparison). While I can easily get about 7 hours in OS X, I can only get a bit over 4.5 in Vista (yeah, I know... Vista).
 
Ash9414 said:
What would you specify as a CPU heavy application?
Click to expand...

Ones that need all the CPU power they can get to calculate whatever they calculate. The most common example are video encoders like Handbrake or Compressor, but since there are other fields of computation out there and the OP didn't state what her or his field might be, I chose to make a general statement.
 
spinnerlys said:
Ones that need all the CPU power they can get to calculate whatever they calculate. The most common example are video encoders like Handbrake or Compressor, but since there are other fields of computation out there and the OP didn't state what her or his field might be, I chose to make a general statement.
Click to expand...

Surely it won't make much difference in those applications anyway?
 
Ash9414 said:
Surely it won't make much difference in those applications anyway?
Click to expand...

Not much, but it will and if time is relevant (like minutes), then the faster CPU might help. I often had to wait longer using another slower CPU with some renderings, and had I used a faster one, there would have been less pressure. But 130MHz are negligible 99% of the time. Or 75%, or whatever other number I can make up.
 
spinnerlys said:
Not much, but it will and if time is relevant (like minutes), then the faster CPU might help. I often had to wait longer using another slower CPU with some renderings, and had I used a faster one, there would have been less pressure. But 130MHz are negligible 99% of the time. Or 75%, or whatever other number I can make up.
Click to expand...

So there's not much difference between 2.4GHz and 2.66GHz then? I will doing school work with Office and iWork, browsing the web (all the normal stuff), perhaps some casual gaming (Sims 3 etc), and perhaps ripping a few DVDs on Handbrake. What model would you suggest and how much difference is there?
 
This one isn't even close.

Open box = risk. You have no clue what the opened system has been through or why it was returned.

The newer system has a slightly faster CPU but much slower GPU. Plus, the design lessons learned from the 2009 model have been built into the newer model. The newer model has better battery life.

Frankly, I'm don't even know why you'd consider the older model for any reason except a noticeable discount :)
 
I ran a 2.53Ghz Mac mini late 2009 against a 2.4Ghz Macbook late 2008 (same specs 4GB DDR3 RAM) - guess what - no difference. Even Geekbench put them about the same. I through a 7200RPM in the Macbook and it made more of a difference to performance than the clock speed difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back