MBP 2.8 or 2.53?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by peskaa, Nov 9, 2008.

  1. peskaa macrumors 68020

    peskaa

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
    #1
    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?
     
  2. mattyb240 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    #2
    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!
     
  3. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #3
    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.
     
  4. dwsolberg macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    #4
    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.
     
  5. peskaa thread starter macrumors 68020

    peskaa

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
    #5
    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!
     
  6. firstapple macrumors 6502a

    firstapple

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    #6
    Yea, your money is best spent on other features... better HD, RAM, etc
     
  7. peskaa thread starter macrumors 68020

    peskaa

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
    #7
    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.
     

Share This Page