Which Macbook pro 15"?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by Madalena T., May 19, 2011.

  1. Madalena T. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 19, 2011
    #1
    Hello,

    I'm new to this forum, and website, and I tried to find the answers for my questions all over the web but couldn't, or at least not completely, or with the most easy answers (English nor Computer languanges are my main).

    I'm thinking of buying a Macbook Pro 15", but I'm divided between which one is the better (in my price range) and (in language for dummies) the main differences between them. Thing is I previously owned a Macbook 13" but it was stolen about two weeks ago and I need to replace it. Fast. And this time I'm going pro.

    So I'm divided between the Macbook Pro 15" Core i7 2.66GHZ 500GB hard drive 4GB memory and the 15" 2.2GHZ (possibly the 2.3) 750GB hard drive 4GB memory.

    Thing is, the 2.66GHz i7 is in my research about 400$ cheaper, and that is a lot of money for me.

    What I would need to know is if its worth it. What is the difference between a Core and a Quad-Core? Because the cheaper is Core but has 2.66GHz and the most expensive is only 2.2GHz.

    Well can anyone explain me, the dummie I am I mean, with which should I go with please?

    Thank you so much in advance.
     
  2. eternlgladiator macrumors 68000

    eternlgladiator

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Location:
    Twin Cities
    #2
    Well since you're set on a MBP I won't ask what you plan to use it for directly. Instead lets look at the differences. The 2.66 i7 is a dual core while the 2.2 i7 is a quad core so that's your main difference there. I wouldn't go for the 2.3 upgrade. Odds are its not worth it for you. The quad core i7 will hand processor intensive processes like encoding video. This doesn't mean the dual won't handle it well too but the other will be slightly faster. The difference in HDD's really shouldn't matter much. You can upgrade the 500 to 750 without breaking a sweat.

    The biggest difference between these two is the thunderbolt port on the 2.2. If you plan to buy thunderbolt peripherals for then that's the obvious choice but if you can live without it then I'd got the 2.66 and use the 400 saved on the following.

    128GB SSD (about 250)
    8GB RAM (about 80-90)
    optibay for the stock 500GB drive if you don't need the optical drive or you can buy a case for the stock drive and use it as an external.

    The 2.66 with those upgrades should match up better than the 2.2 in general use and would only get beat on certain encoding or processing runs where you processor is the only bottleneck.
     
  3. Vantage Point macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #3
    ...and the 15" 2.2GHZ (possibly the 2.3) 750GB hard drive 4GB memory.

    If you go with the new quad cores then I would suggest getting the base model, 2.2 not the 2.3, and also getting the base 500gb hard drive. For the price of the hard drive upgrade you can buy a faster 7200rpm 750gb hard drive and use the original one as a back up. I use the WD scorpio black - see my blog post and it much faster than the slower apple stock drive. This upgrade will not violate warranty, same with doing your own RAM upgrade.

    If you want to save money consider a 15" refurb base 2010 as they are real bargains, at least in the US. Then upgrade hard drive and ram as needed
     
  4. Madalena T. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 19, 2011
    #4
    Ok, so I shouldn't go with the 2.3. Then I won't. The price tag is not that attractive either, so it was good to hear that.

    Let me explain it further. I'm from Portugal, and the macbooks here are crazy expensive, so I'm buying one in the US. Thing is they are a lot cheaper in there so even the most expensive will stay way behind the cheaper in here, so although money is important I don't want to miss on the best pick for that.

    I do work with photoshop and will in the near future work with final cut to edit film. But since I was working in a 13" any upgrade will be heaven.

    With this said, although money is always important I need to be smart here, and I need your help getting there. I understood what you said, but thing is since I don't know much about the internal part of a laptop its still not so clear for me. I can understand it all but although you might find it impossible to tell me to chose this or that, I would be mostly welcome you would do that! :)

    Can you set clear why I shouldn't go with the 2.3?

    For what I see Amazon is selling the 2.66 for 1,799$ and the Apple Store is selling the 2.2 for 2199$. Are you telling me the extra 400$ are not worth it? Or should I go with the 2.2 with the 500GB 7200rpm?

    Thank you again!
     
  5. Vantage Point macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    Location:
    New Jersey
    #5
    Can you set clear why I shouldn't go with the 2.3?

    For what I see Amazon is selling the 2.66 for 1,799$ and the Apple Store is selling the 2.2 for 2199$. Are you telling me the extra 400$ are not worth it? Or should I go with the 2.2 with the 500GB 7200rpm?

    Thank you again!


    The reason not to bother with the 2.3 is the performance boost is far less than the price difference. Ideally you would want at least 10% faster for 10% more/higher price. The money you save is best put towards a future Mac.

    Take a look at this somewhat confusing chart of benchmark scores for Macs. It shows a 2010 MBP with a 2.66 scores about 5564 - remember the 2010 CPUs have only 2 cores. Now the 2.2 2011 MBP's, which have 4 cores, score 10045 while a MBP with the 2.3 scores 10,304 - that's only about 3% faster so not worth it. But, compared with the 2010 models the difference is huge, almost 2x faster. Of course that is because it is the next generation processor and has 2x the number of cores. The difference will ONLY be realized on certain operations like video editing, NOT browsing the internet. If you plan on doing much video work that difference is big. For everyday stuff there is no difference.

    My 2010 has the 2.4 CPU and I also owned a 2010 13" with a 2.4 C2D processor. The model i have scores about 5000 which is about 50% faster than the older CPU's used in the previous 13". This means no matter what you buy the difference will be huge compared to what you had. In my case, in 2010 I bought the base 2.4, as the 2.53 was only 5% faster and the 2.66 was 15% faster (and runs hotter). My money was better spend on the base model and adding more ram myself as well as the hard drive. Both are easy to upgrade and there are plenty of videos to show you how.

    Hope that helps
     
  6. fat jez macrumors 68000

    fat jez

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Location:
    Glasgow, UK
    #6
    that 2.66Ghz machine is last year's model, which is why it's $400 cheaper. It's a dual core i7. The 2011 2.2Ghz is a 4 core i7. The graphics are also better on the 2011 model, if you want to play any games.

    Both machines are fast, but the 2011 is going to be faster overall. I doubt you will notice a difference between a 2.2Ghz processor and a 2.3Ghz processor.
     
  7. jmpnop macrumors 6502a

    jmpnop

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    #7
    High res. anti glare screen is highly recommended for editing (Photoshop, Final Cut, etc). The refurbs usually have low res. (1440X900) glossy screen. The performance difference between 2.2GHz and 2.3GHz isn't significant, so spend that money on screen which is more important. If you're buying refurb, look at ones which have high res. screen (1680X1050).
     

Share This Page