MBP 15'' Quadcore 2.0 vs 2.2 processor

[AmericanDreamer]

Is there really a big difference between the 2.0 and the 2.2 processor?

I am just looking for a laptop that can handle GNS3 which is very cpu intensive and also run itunes, Safari and haev a few other windows open...

Thanks in advance!~

 

[Wanderer509]

imo the biggest difference i believe is the gfx card. in terms of processors its nice, but the big upgrade comes from the gfx.

 

[AmericanDreamer]

Thanks for your reply =).

So the graphics card is the biggest difference?

If I don't do any video or photo editing, will I even notice the difference with gfx card?

 

[PurrBall]

If I don't do any video or photo editing, will I even notice the difference with gfx card?

If you play games or hook up multiple monitors you will.

 

[cluthz]

Maybe I've missed something, but it seems that it doesn't require that much CPU power. I do understand that more virtual routers will crave more tho.
Keep in mind the new MBPs has as much CPU power as last years workstations. What hardware do you have now? If you have an older Core 2 Duo I'd imagine that you could run 3x times as many.

The 2.2GHz is 10% more clock speed which usually will give you 5-10% better performance, depending on tasks.

System requirements of GNS3
OS
Windows/Linux/MacOS

CPU
Moderate CPU power is necessary. 1.5 It operates comfortably if there is GHz.

Memory
More than 1GB are necessary to change some number. When it operates Cisco7200 using much memory a lot, it is 2,3GB need. If there is little memory, the movement of router start / the stop becomes unstable. (A router starts partly or is not finished)

Operation language
Japanese, English, German, French, and Chinese, etc.

Necessary tool
GNS3 - GNS3 main body.(Dynamips, Dynagen, WinPcap, and cygwin have packaged it. )
CiscoIOS - IOS image file.

 

[AmericanDreamer]

Thanks for your replies....

I currently have the 2010 13'' 2.4ghz MBP.

I am running about 85-90 % cpu on this machine with GNS3 running (and that's without Safari or iTunes running in the background).

I was thinking that the quad-core would help a lot with the load.

Would you agree?

 

[superericla]

Thanks for your replies....

I currently have the 2010 13'' 2.4ghz MBP.

I am running about 85-90 % cpu on this machine with GNS3 running (and that's without Safari or iTunes running in the background).

I was thinking that the quad-core would help a lot with the load.

Would you agree?

Quad core would likely help quite a bit. How much it really helps is dependent on how well the program utilizes multiple cpu cores.

 

[thermodynamic]

imo the biggest difference i believe is the gfx card. in terms of processors its nice, but the big upgrade comes from the gfx.

Agreed. I recall reading the specs on both (6490 vs 6750, with the 6490-enabled Mac having 256M of RAM..) I chose the higher-end version. Photoshop's pixel bender effects will definitely make use of the dedicated RAM...

 

[cluthz]

Thanks for your replies....

I currently have the 2010 13'' 2.4ghz MBP.

I am running about 85-90 % cpu on this machine with GNS3 running (and that's without Safari or iTunes running in the background).

I was thinking that the quad-core would help a lot with the load.

Would you agree?

The new 2.0Ghz MacBook Pro scores about 9500 in geekbench, the older 2.4GHz C2D scores about 3700. Geekbench measures raw CPU speed and nothing more, so it should give you an insight over how much faster the new quads are compared to the C2Ds. The 2.2GHz QC scores about 10700

 

[adnoh]

go for the 2.0, it will be fine

 

[AmericanDreamer]

Will I notice that big od a difference with the quadcore 2.2?

I don't do any picture or video editing. I will primarily be using this laptop with GNS3, surfing the web, email, iTunes and etc.

I want to get a fast machine, that can handle cpu intensive programs and still be able to multitask (surf the web, listen to music) without beach balling...

Will I notice that big of a difference between the quadcore 2.2 then the 2.0 processor when it comes to how fast my programs up and etc?

If getting the 2.2 processor is the way to go, then I am all for it, but I am just trying to my research before I purchase.


Thoughts?

Thanks in advance!

 

[mulo]

2.0 or 2.2 doesn't really matter, what matters is the GPU coming with the configurations, the GPU coming with the 2.2 is 2-3x faster then the one shipping with the 2.0

 

[Macsavvytech]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Been answered many times but anyway, simple anwser is yes, when it comes to performance.
It is not just a CPU upgrade the GPU is much better too.
Day to day usage though, the answer is no, CPU upgrades don't typically affect day to day usage. My advice as has been advised before is to use the money saved and buy a SSD.

 

[bozz2006]

I agree with Macsavvytech. I was on a budget and for my uses I didn't think I'd get as much bang for my buck from the spec bump as I would from an SSD. So I got the base model 15" MBP and an Intel SSD and an optibay. I definitely made the right choice for myself.

 

[dusk007]

The CPU difference is quite low. base clock is 10% apart. Turbo 13% and neither difference is enough to truly feel the difference. If you don't compare benchmarks results or sit at your notebook with a stopwatch you will not notice. You'd have to compare them next to each other.

The GPU however is entirely different but only counts if you intend to play games on the MBP for anything else you truly don't need all that much GPU power no matter what marketing folks want to teach you. GPGPU is still not taking off and for all the stuff it is used now and in the near future it is doubtful a fast GPU makes much of a difference. The best example being the whole GPU accelerated encoding. Intel's integrated onboard GPU puts to shame everything that show up till now based on Nvidia and CUDA in both speed and quality.
If you do care for 3D performance though. The 6750 with 1GB GDDR5 doubles your frame rates over the 6490 64bit GPU and its meager 256mb VRAM. Don't believe people telling you 256 is enough. They say they play games maxed out and they run well not realizing that quite a lot of quality features are simply not available if you don't have at least 512mb VRAM. You simply cannot select them. The 6490 still does reasonably well though considering it is only a higher clocked 64bit budget card with only 32 5D shaders while the old 330M enemy 5650 had 80 5D shaders.