new 2.2ghz mpb vs. 3.3ghz mbp?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by glygly, Jun 15, 2007.

  1. glygly macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    #1
    Which chip would be faster? santa rosa 2.2ghz c2d or get a 3.3ghz? I'm not familiar with the santa rosas or the ghz war. Can someone point me out to benchmarks or shine some light into this. Thanks:confused:

    EDIT: sorry guys, I meant 2.33ghz c2d mpb . Can mod edit my n00b tittle pls. :eek:
     
  2. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #2
    Ain't no such thang as a 3.3GHz chip. 2.4GHz is the current fastest. I think a 2.6GHz is close to being released, IIRC. I doubt if Apple will offer it in the MBP.
     
  3. Zwhaler macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #3
    Lol where did you hear that there is a 3.3Ghz chip being offered in the MBP?
     
  4. hawaiian macrumors member

    hawaiian

    #4
    Well...to answer your question, the 2.33 GHz chip is faster. That having been said, it may not lead to better performance over all. If you are running a program that's processor intensive, then the 2.33 GHz chip will be faster, not noticeably I think though. However, the real benefit that lots of us were looking forward to was the increase in the FSB. That's supposed to increase the speed of interaction between the CPU and the hardware.

    Hope that helps
     
  5. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #5
    2.2GHz machine has an 8600M GT video card. It is more than 50% faster than the one in the 2.33GHz. The 2.2 can also take a maximum 4GB of RAM compared to the 2.33 which can take maximum 3GB.
     
  6. Butthead macrumors 6502

    Butthead

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #6
    That is a logical assumption as to what the OP intended :).

    50% faster GPU does not equate to 50% faster overall performance however, that distinction should be made. You might not notice much of a speed bump even with the GPU & minor increase of CPU clock speed as well as the FSB being a minor bump up to 800Mhz. It all depends on the kind of apps and file sizes you're working with. Some people will notice the speed increased, most would not be able to tell the differences if they were double blind tested on the 2 different sys. configurations
     
  7. glygly thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    #7
    Well i don't need a crazy graphics card, if i'm planning on using logic pro on this, or do i? Argg, choosing a mac is such a headache for n00bs like me. Anyone else got any idea on the new santa rosas 2.2ghz vs. 2.33 ghz? Much appreciated!
     
  8. Butthead macrumors 6502

    Butthead

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #8

    For the majority of users, the difference btw the SR 2.2 and Napa 2.33 is for the most part irrelevant & moot, too small a difference, even with logic pro.

    If you've got the money, go with the higher performance, more expensive model. But either way both MBP are slower than a Quad MP with a higher performance GPU. Will you perceive a hugd difference? Only you can say, as this is a subjective appraisal.
     
  9. NewSc2 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #9
    If you're just using it for Logic Pro, you won't notice a big difference between the two. If you're really that stressed out for performance, you'd get a Mac Pro. I use Logic and Ableton with my MBP and I rarely get it past 20-30% on the CPU.
     
  10. eXan macrumors 601

    eXan

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Location:
    Russia
    #10
    Sure, 2.33 should be slightly faster than 2.2, but when you take into consideration the faster frontside bus on 2.2, the ability to take 4 gigs of RAM, much better video card and truly 64-bit chipset, the new MBP comes on top.

    But if you are just using the machine for audio, they should be very similar in performance, you wont notice a difference in CPU speed, so just take the newer model and be happy :) Dont bother too much with your decision.

    Oh, how could I forget! :D Sure, Santa Rosa 15" MBPs also have LED screens!
     
  11. iW00t macrumors 68040

    iW00t

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Location:
    Defenders of Apple Guild
  12. Wolfpup macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    #12
    The new 2.2GHz CPU will almost always be faster than the old 2.33GHz. The 20% faster FSB is a much bigger deal than the loss of 6% clock speed. The new chips also have some other enhancements, including being able to clock the cores separately, and sort of overclock one while reducing the other if you're running a single thread that's hitting just one core hard.

    And of course the new ones can use at least 4GB of RAM (quite possibly more once larger DIMMs are available). And they have a massively better GPU, which may or may not matter much to you, but it's certainly a nice thing to have something that could conceivably last a few years longer.

    Oh, and of course the new backlighting that most people seem to prefer (and should theoretically last longer, not that CCFL doesn't last a long time.)

    There's no way I'd get the older 2.33GHz system unless it was discounted several hundred (at least) below the current 2.2GHz system.
     

Share This Page