Performance on a 2.4 MPB

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by odog402, Jun 4, 2008.

  1. odog402 macrumors member

    May 26, 2008
    That new apple deal has got me salivating. I might go into the apple store the same day to pick up a new iphone and a MPB (my checking account hates Apple)

    My only main concern is the actual performance of the MPB 2.4 ghz. I'm reading the CNET review and some of the performance tests had the MPB outperformed by the macbook 2.2 ghz :confused:

    I'm scared because the CNET review has me thinking that the MPB is slow and it's a way better buy to get the regular macbook.

    What do you guys think? Am I overly concerned and the 2.4 MPB is good enough? Or should I save a buck and get the macbook?
  2. neilhart macrumors 6502


    Oct 11, 2007
    SF Bay Area - Fremont
    Well you can find a reason not to buy anytime. The 2.4Ghz machines that I have owned (three MBPs) have all met my expectations on speed and the current 17" is at 4GB of memory and 250GB hard drive and always waiting on me. Humm...

  3. Phillyzero macrumors regular


    May 1, 2008
    Well in that link
    CNet Review if you scroll down to the performance things, the Macbook (2.4 GHz and even the old 2.2) outperforms the MBP in pretty much every aspect, I'm not sure I quite understand what's happening either.
  4. kgeier82 macrumors 65816

    Feb 18, 2008
    i wouldnt believe anything on cnet these days.

    You want reviews?, at least for macs.

    oh and is my other "PC/Mac" offering.

    ive had 2 of each, MB and MBP through the last few years. Each time, the MB has felt snappier. Seems backwards to me.
  5. Michael CM1 macrumors 603

    Feb 4, 2008
    They mislabeled the MBP in their charts (there isn't a 15.4-inch MacBook) at the bottom and whine and biznitch about an SD card reader. They apparently have some uber-PC nerds reviewing stuff. I don't know how much I'd trust their reviews on such things (yet I trust them on other gadgets).

    The deal could be that there are bottlenecks in the motherboard/logic board chipset that a faster CPU can't totally make a big difference in. iTunes encoding is pretty much a CPU-based deal, as is HandBrake encoding. I'm pretty sure that none of the tests they did actually test the bonuses that come in the MBP, most importantly the video card. You can't benchmark extra hard drive space or a larger/better display, so a lot of the cost can't be measured in such a way.

    As for the SD card reader, GIVE IT UP PEOPLE. I have seen this in another review before. What if you buy an SLR camera that doesn't use SD? Waste of space and money. You can find 100 billion different multi-format card readers at any store, and you can find some that go in the PCI-Express slot that are a little more expensive.

    As far as the extended warranty, I have made one call to Apple for tech support. I took one in to The Apple Store three years later for a power supply replacement that was done in a day. In other words, you pretty much don't need extra support. If you buy something that works, well, it works.

    Oh yeah, the original question. I like the MBP because it's bigger, has a better graphic card (I have a hatred for "shared memory"), and is made of a better material. But it's not worth the extra $ if you don't use "advanced" applications. Don't buy an MBP if you are just a Word-Safari person unless you really want that bigger screen.
  6. odog402 thread starter macrumors member

    May 26, 2008
    I was afraid of that. So if I'm running 5 tabs in firefox with my itunes on xp with bootcamp, you think it'll be better on the regular macbook?

    I think I still would go with the MBP if the difference is marginal. I LOVE that 15" screen
  7. Michael CM1 macrumors 603

    Feb 4, 2008
    Apple could probably make a killing if they made a 15" MacBook. 13.3" is severely small in my opinion. Keep that as an option for cost reasons, but have the option. Some people just don't need the extra juice but do need that display. Maybe ol' Steve will help you out next week.

    By the way, if you qualify for an education discount, get yoself a free iPod Touch.
  8. Phillyzero macrumors regular


    May 1, 2008
    Seems you're right, scroll down on Mac World's review page and the give a much better comparison.
    Mac World Table
  9. futuremac macrumors member

    Jun 2, 2008
    Melbourne, Australia
    The 2.4 in the cnet review is the older 2007 chipset, the 2008 2.5 (or 2.4 if you read the title) uses the Penryn chipset. I wouldn't trust cnet.
  10. odog402 thread starter macrumors member

    May 26, 2008
    Ah...good point.

    I think I'm gonna wait till after Monday (just in case) and pick up the 2.4 mbp.
  11. burningrave101 macrumors 6502

    Mar 4, 2008
    The 2.4Ghz MBP is more than fast enough for anyone looking to purchase a laptop for anything outside of serious gaming since the 8600m GT isn't the fastest card for some of the latest GPU heavy games.
  12. ascender macrumors 68020

    Dec 8, 2005
    I've just replaced a black Macbook with a base MBP and the MBP is noticeably "snappier" in every way. Both machines had 4Gb RAM and both cope(d) with anything I can throw at them.

    My view is at the moment, any of the Mac laptop range makes a great purchase and should last you for a very long time unless you really need something specific from the higher end models.
  13. Bobioden macrumors 68000


    Sep 23, 2007
    I just did the same thing. Going from a Blackbook to a MBP. Speed wise I think they are about the same. Both with 4gb of ram. I am still amazed that the 2" difference in screen size makes such a difference. Especially with 50+ year old eyes. :)
  14. Watabou macrumors 68040


    Feb 10, 2008
    United States
    Don't you mean MBP?:rolleyes:

Share This Page