MacBook Pro 2.5GHz vs. 2.8GHz. Worth the $200 more?

[UDigger]

Hi guys,

Thanks in advance your advisement!

I've been a graphic designer for about 5 years; using Photoshop and Illustrator, mostly at web resolution, but occasionally for print res as well.

However, I'm about to get into digital painting -- in Photoshop and ArtRage. I'll be working on canvases of at least 10" x 15" at 300 DPI; possibly larger in both canvas size and resolution.

In evaluating the new 15" MacBook Pros to have enough processing speed (no lags) to handle digital painting at hi-res, the MBP I'm looking at is already configured with 16GB of RAM, and a 2.5GH processor. The question is, is it worth spending an additional $200 to bump that up to a 2.8GH processor?

Will I see a noticeable difference in speed at 2.8? Or does it really come down to the RAM? (Also please keep in mind that the upcoming ArtRage 4.5 is 64 bit, and promised to be significantly faster to work on large canvases in print resolution.)

So, 2.8 worth going for? Or will 2.5 be more than enough, as-is?

Thanks again!

D

 

[yjchua95]

Hi guys,

Thanks in advance your advisement!

I've been a graphic designer for about 5 years; using Photoshop and Illustrator, mostly at web resolution, but occasionally for print res as well.

However, I'm about to get into digital painting -- in Photoshop and ArtRage. I'll be working on canvases of at least 10" x 15" at 300 DPI; possibly larger in both canvas size and resolution.

In evaluating the new 15" MacBook Pros to have enough processing speed (no lags) to handle digital painting at hi-res, the MBP I'm looking at is already configured with 16GB of RAM, and a 2.5GH processor. The question is, is it worth spending an additional $200 to bump that up to a 2.8GH processor?

Will I see a noticeable difference in speed at 2.8? Or does it really come down to the RAM? (Also please keep in mind that the upcoming ArtRage 4.5 is 64 bit, and promised to be significantly faster to work on large canvases in print resolution.)

So, 2.8 worth going for? Or will 2.5 be more than enough, as-is?

Thanks again!

D

The standard 2.5/16/512/750M variant will do you fine.

Bumping to 2.8GHz only gives you an unnoticeable increase, plus a larger cache.

They both score similarly in Geekbench 3.

 

[capathy21]

I think you'd be good with 2.5.

 

[UDigger]

Thanks all for your advisement!

D

 

[thunng8]

The standard 2.5/16/512/750M variant will do you fine.

Bumping to 2.8GHz only gives you an unnoticeable increase, plus a larger cache.

There is no larger cache