New base 13in mbp sufficient for raw photo precessing?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by mtkagan, Apr 29, 2010.

  1. mtkagan macrumors member

    Sep 29, 2008
    Hi guys. I just recently got a i7 imac to use as my main workstation to process my movies and raw photos via lightroom and final cut. I have a 2.33ghz 17in mbp from late 2006 that I want to replace as a portable solution while I am away from home to take notes and surf the web. I was thinking of selling my 17mbp and saving up a bit more cash and buying the base model 13in mbp. I do travel occasionally and want the ability to edit raw photos while away from home. Currently my 17in mbp runs adobe lightroom, but its extremely sluggish and not ideal to edit photos. The new base 13 mbp is only .07 ghz faster in clock speed, but the fsb and ram are all faster. Will I see any significant differences in my 2.33 17in mbp and the new base 13 mbp? My main question is will it run lightroom and photoshop with out the constant spinning beach ball? I was going to either get a 64gb wifi ipad or the 2.4 base 13in mbp. let me know what you guys think.

    edit: or will adding a ssd be a better route?
  2. jnc macrumors 68020


    Jan 7, 2007
    Nunya, Business TX
    this, beachballing is down to CPU waiting for HD to catch up. Faster drive, less wait times.
  3. Azathoth macrumors 6502a

    Sep 16, 2009
    In my experience, you only notice processor speed increase when it's 1.5x or more.

    I doubt you'll see more than a 10% overall improvement due to clock & bus speed.

    I'm struggling with Lightroom 3 beta 2 on a 1.66C2D (Win7) - takes 6-7s to zoom in on a 12MP RAW image from thumbnail.
  4. mtkagan thread starter macrumors member

    Sep 29, 2008
    So would you say between my current 17in mbp 2.33 ghz with a ssd vs a new 2.4ghz 13in mbp with ssd, which will perform better? The only drawback I can see from using my 17in mbp is that the ram caps at 3gb and the ram itself is slower. Will I see any real world difference in performance between these two setups?
  5. Ash9414 macrumors 6502

    Apr 25, 2010
    United Kingdom
    I would probably say the 13" with a SSD would be the better option, but since you're designing the 17" may show detail better/be easier to work on than the 13". Don't get me wrong, the 13" is great for portability, but it may be a little harder to work on the smaller screen.
  6. tekmoe macrumors 68000

    Feb 12, 2005
    If you are not planning to hook up to an external monitor, I'd say go with a 15" or even a 17". You will really appreciate the extra screen real estate down the road.
  7. gwsat macrumors 68000


    Apr 12, 2008
    I agree that there will be no discernable improvement in performance unless the processor speed is at least doubled. That's why the anguishing of some of the spec whores over Apple's (reasonable) decision to stick with the Core 2 Duo chip in order to increase graphics performance has left me shaking my head. The longer I own laptops the more clearly I understand that designing them requires a bunch of compromises, none of which are a concern in the desktop world. Although, I, too, nearly had a heart attack when I saw that Apple was sticking with the C2D in the 13 inch MBP, I soon figured out why they did so and agreed that it was the right decision.
  8. mtkagan thread starter macrumors member

    Sep 29, 2008
    Remember that I have my i7 imac as my main workstation. This computer will be mainly for school, surfing the web, email. However if I am away from home for extended periods of time I want the option to do my photography work. I just want a a machine that will perform better overall in real world use.
  9. mk1ap macrumors member

    Aug 22, 2009
    I would get a 15" if thats the case.
  10. PaulDCarlucci macrumors newbie

    Mar 1, 2010
    Heh, I'm running LR2 on a G4. They don't even make LR3 for my machine.

Share This Page