MacBook Pro 2.53 (2009) or Current 2.4 Base Model

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by lehman310, Apr 28, 2010.

  1. lehman310 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #1
    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
     
  2. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #2
    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.
     
  3. -Ryan- macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #3
    I'd go for the new one to get the new graphics card and battery. The .13 ghz difference will never be noticed.
     
  4. lehman310 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #4
    Nope. Both are 13"
     
  5. js81 macrumors 65816

    js81

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    KY
    #5
    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).
     
  6. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #6
    Yep. Must be on my confusing trip right now.

    Then go with the newer model, more battery life is worth the 130MHz less CPU power. You won't notice it while you browser the 6u or write documents or watch videos.
     
  7. Ash9414 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #7
    What would you specify as a CPU heavy application?
     
  8. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #8
    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.
     
  9. Ash9414 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #9
    Surely it won't make much difference in those applications anyway?
     
  10. spinnerlys Guest

    spinnerlys

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Location:
    forlod bygningen
    #10
    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.
     
  11. Ash9414 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #11
    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?
     
  12. Penn Jennings macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Location:
    Michigan
    #12
    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 :)
     
  13. dellar macrumors newbie

    dellar

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    #13
    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.
     
  14. lehman310 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    #14
    Ok I bought the 2.4 GHz macbook and I want to upgrade the Hard Drive before I begin use. I see that mine has a Hitachi harddrive but was wondering if this seagate will work with it as it is a very good deal. Also even if it does work, is seagate a good brand that works well. Thanks

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148374
     
  15. js81 macrumors 65816

    js81

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Location:
    KY
    #15
    I put THIS 640GB drive in mine.

    As you can see by the benchmarks, the 640GB is faster than the 500GB 7200rpm by a decent amount. RPM isn't always everything, particularly with larger 2.5" drives.
     

Share This Page