MBP 2.8 or 2.53?

[peskaa]

So, I'm looking to pick up a new MBP in the next few weeks, but I'm not sure whether to drop the money on upgrading to the 2.8Ghz CPU over the 2.53Ghz.

I work in photography, using Aperture 2.0, Photoshop CS4 and some other management tools (which won't be that taxing, seeing as they run on a 2.0Ghz C2D desktop). At home I use an 8-core 2.8Ghz Mac Pro.

In the UK, with HE discount (doing a Masters) the upgrade comes to about £210 to get the 2.8Ghz (I'll be getting a 320GB 7,200rpm and replacing it with a 256GB SSD when they reach the right price). Money isn't really an issue, but I don't want to spend it if the actual performance increase is minimal.

So. 2.8 or 2.53?

 

[mattyb240]

I'd say pretty minimal.

You may gain seconds in rendering times. But nothing much else.

Besides you have your mac pro to do all the donkey work!

 

[ucfgrad93]

I doubt you will notice much of an increase with the 2.8 over the 2.53. If it were me, I'd save the money for something else.

 

[dwsolberg]

Considerations

You may not know this, but the 2.8 processor uses more energy than the 2.4 and 2.53 processors, so the 2.8 is going to have a negative effect on heat and battery life. If I were you and wanted speed, I'd spend my money on 6 GB of RAM and then faster/larger hard drive before upgrading the processor.

 

[peskaa]

Negative impact on battery life is quite important - thanks for that! I think I'll stick with the 2.53Ghz model then and look at the 6GB of RAM upgrade. £210 in the bank, ka-ching!

 

[firstapple]

Yea, your money is best spent on other features... better HD, RAM, etc

 

[peskaa]

Yea, your money is best spent on other features... better HD, RAM, etc

Well, I was going for the 320GB 7,200rpm drive anyway, which is the fastest Apple offer. Any more than that I see as pointless though, as this *is* a road machine with a 4TB Mac Pro back home for the real archiving.