pros/cons of a 2.7ghz cMBP over 2.3 or 2.6?

[nvrslp]

i'm a graphic designer(digital painter) needing a computer that can run photoshop smoothly in big resolutions. having owned and barely touched either macs or laptops before i'm taking the plunge for a mac laptop. ive got a few questions, bear with me if they betray my lack of experience, i would rather be sure considering how much ill be shelling out.

non-retina MBP 15" 2.7ghz
aftermarket: 16gb crucial RAM and 256gb crucial m4 SSD
would pop the stock hdd in an enclosure and have it external for storage.

rather than get the retina i am investing in a 24" dell ultrasharp U2410 monitor to use externally at home when i am working. i wont need the higher resolution apart from when i'm working and i would like to be able to upgrade it in the future if i needed to.

my questions are:
1. what are the advantages/disadvantages of a 2.7ghz processor considering i also have the option of a 2.3 or 2.6? as i understand it the SSD and ram will make a bigger difference, i have the money saved up so the price isnt an issue as much as the potential of overheating, or too much noise etc.

2. how much will running a macbook in closed (or even open) shell through an external + an external hard drive affect the battery / heating?

thanks.

 

[NewishMacGuy]

1. Not sure whether your work is processor intensive or not, but I would guess that the 2.3 will handle it just fine, so RAM and SSD will be more important for performance.

2. Not at all if you have a good stand (like the Book Arc).

3. I would guess that the native resolution of the MBP is higher than that of the Dell U2410. I don't think that there are any consumer or prosumer monitors available with "Retina" pixel density yet.

 

[nvrslp]

to my knowledge photoshop is processor intensive, to be specific i would be running it in high resolution painting with high res brushes on a few layers

im not too bothered about pixel density. i would prefer a bigger screen rather than having to squint to see the tiny ui . like i said i'm upgrading ram and ssd anyway so the question is just whether there is any point at all in going to 2.7ghz?

 

[TechZeke]

I can run photoshop just fine on a 2006 iMac. I've found that the 2.3Ghz does me just fine. The 2.6 is just the same processor with 300Mhz more speed. Not worth the extra cost to me. The only advantage of the 2.6 model is the extra video RAM, which in the end doesn't make much of a difference. 2.7Ghz has the advantage of the bigger cache, but considering that that with turbo boost you would get 3.3Ghz out of the 2.3 CPU anyway, get it only if really need the extra power.

 

[MaxPower72]

I have a 2012 i7 2.7 Ghz. with 16 Gb Ram and 2 Samsung 830 512 Gb
in Raid 0
my MBP is FAST and that extra 100 Mhz per core might save you 10 mins on rendering compared to a 2.6 for example. Not a great difference but I decided to go for the max I could get and I also got a very good deal so that's the main reason for my choice over the 2.6

 

[derbothaus]

Pro's: It's a couple percent faster.
Con's: Performance usually not worth the cost.

I have 2.6GHz (probably could have got by with 2.3GHz as they are all real close in performance)
2.3: 10,800
2.6: 11,850
2.7: 12,300
Laptops are hard to quantify because you are constantly in an idle state until it needs to work hard and then only enough to get the job done and then back to idle to save battery. How often you'll feel your money in action is a tough call.
And it can get plenty hot with GT650 running.
Better bet is to put that extra cash into a good sized SSD.