MBP 2.4 vs MBP 2.5? or wait?

[cazlar]

A MacBook 2.4 can run Photoshop and Dreamweaver just as well as any other 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo machine.

AFAIK, while this is true, there are rumours that CS4 will be GPU-accelerated. If these pan out, the MBP could pull ahead of the equivalent MB in Photoshop performance in the future. It is only a rumour though

 

[dukebound85]

I'm sorry, but IMO a macbook would not be nearly enough for him. Do you really think that a macbook has enough GPU power to run photoshop, and dreamweaver at the same time. It's barely enough for photoshop alone, and it's painfully slow just running photoshop.

Don

um photoshop (CS3 at least) does not rely on the gpu....

plus i use photoshop ALOT on my mb and have NEVEr had an issue..

please stop spreading misinformation

 

[dukebound85]

I was looking to play some games from time to times like the sims2 or age of empire 3 something similar to that but not too computer hungry.
Would the 2d graphics handle that on XP os while running Mac os?

i can play halo (not on highest settings but easily playable for me) on my mb with the gma950. the new x1300 should be better for graphics as well

 

[dukebound85]

Where do you get these "makes no difference" assumptions from? They're certainly not based in reality, that's for sure.

The difference is not just 0.1 Ghz. The difference is in the CPU cache. 3 Mb on the 2.4 vs. 6 MB on the 2.5.

That's a *huge* difference, particularly when it comes to tasks like photo editing. It will be immediately noticeable with the very image you edit in Photoshop. Anyone who says otherwise has never actually compared the two (i.e. they're full of BS) and has no grasp on the relationship between hardware and performance.

Don't believe me? Go google up some benchmarks - doesn't even have to be laptop benchmarks, PC benchmarks will prove the point. Now find the numbers for a 3 MB CPU and compare them to a 6 MB CPU of similar clock speed. The difference is not slight.

Personally, I wouldn't even consider the 2.4. It's a waste of money when for $500 more, you can double your CPU cache (on top of the other upgraded bits). If you're set on the 2.4, you might as well save a few bucks and drop down to a regular Macbook 2.4 - it's the exact same CPU!! IMO, the only reason to get the MBP over the Macbook is for the 6 MB CPU (and discreet gfx, if you need that).

depending on his usage is the key here. some people cant afford the money for an upgraded system. by your logic, anyone who runs photoshop should pay 4k+ and get the best computer you can get since obviously it will run better

but for everyday things, you cant tell a difference
resource intense stuff? of course you will be able to

and im not full of bs, i have a quad core 3 ghz and a dual core 2 ghz and for internet and stuff no difference. only difference is for intese apps and thats why i have the quad core

bottom line: you get what you can afford and even the 2.4 mbp will not be slow

 

[Wotan31]

depending on his usage is the key here. some people cant afford the money for an upgraded system. by your logic, anyone who runs photoshop should pay 4k+ and get the best computer you can get since obviously it will run better

Not at all, my point was that the Macbook 2.4 will perform *exactly* the same as the MBP 2.4 in non-GPU-accelerated apps. They use the exact same CPU, exact same chipset, exact same memory. My logic here says to buy the cheaper Macbook 2.4, as there's no computing advantage when compared with the MBP 2.4.

but for everyday things, you cant tell a difference
resource intense stuff? of course you will be able to

and im not full of bs, i have a quad core 3 ghz and a dual core 2 ghz and for internet and stuff no difference. only difference is for intese apps and thats why i have the quad core

Gee oh wise one, master of the obvious, *of course* for general internet browsing "and stuff" there's no appreciable difference. Don't need any benchmarks to tell us that. But general desktop usage and internet browsing was not the question here was it? Suggest you go back and read the opening post in this thread - the intended apps are Photoshop and Final Cut. Are you insinuating that these are not CPU intensive applications??

bottom line: you get what you can afford and even the 2.4 mbp will not be slow

No, that is not the bottom line. The bottom line is getting the best "bang for your buck", not buying the most expensive machine you can afford. If you can afford the MBP 2.5, by all means, get it - it will be *significantly* faster at the intended apps (again, those are Photoshop and Final Cut).

Here's my point (once again) If you cannot afford the MBP 2.5, you might as well save a few bucks and drop down to the Macbook 2.4 because it performs *identically* to the MBP 2.4 but costs a lot less.

 

[skye12]

Other World Computing (OWC) has a nice quicktime video on installing ram
and harddrives into a MB. I did it myself a month ago and its easy.

You need a 000 phillips to remove the L bracket and the heads are really small.
Have to put fairly good pressure on screws before you try and turn so you don't strip 'em. Got mine at Sears for about $3.00.

4GB kit going for around $95 right now, though many think ram prices will
again be going up SOON.

 

[lhotka]

um photoshop (CS3 at least) does not rely on the gpu....

plus i use photoshop ALOT on my mb and have NEVEr had an issue..

please stop spreading misinformation

CS4 (as the poster said) will use GPU acceleration - it's been demo'ed. Performance improvement on large files (>500MB) is dramatic - minutes become seconds. Small files won't have much improvement.

Plus Snow Leopard and/or 10.7 are supposed to enable general programs to leverage the GPU. There is, and should be, a performance and capability difference between the MB and MBP given the price difference. The GPU is one big piece of that.

For 80-90% of the people, they won't see a difference. For the rest of us though, a MB just isn't enough horsepower.