Which Macbook Pro is more suitable for my video editing?

[jojo12]

I'm between the dilemma here which one to choose on the new macbook pro

This is my first option:
Intel Core2 Duo 2.4GHz, 2GB DDR3, 250GB HDD, DVD±RW, GbE NIC, WiFi, Bluetooth, VGA Nvidia GeForce 9400M, GeForce 9600m GT 256MB, Camera, 15.4" WXGA, Mac OS X version 10.5 Leopard ($1970)

This is my second option:
Intel Core2 Duo 2.53GHz, 4GB DDR3, 320GB HDD, DVD±RW, GbE NIC, WiFi, Bluetooth, VGA Nvidia GeForce 9400M, GeForce 9600M GT 512MB, Camera, 15.4" WXGA, Mac OS X version 10.5 Leopard ($2395)

I'll be doing a lot of video editing with my mac so I want to have faster perfomance and better video graphics. I'm just worried that the gap in the performance result is quite huge between two of them. Well, there is more to it. I've heard many people complaining about the glossy screen on new macbook pro. Is there anything else that I should know about the new macbook pro's weakness?

thanks.

 

[Jethryn Freyman]

Either would be fine, though the 4GB of RAM would definitely help if you do a lot of high bit rate editing.

 

[sal]

I've heard many people complaining about the glossy screen on new macbook pro

editors complain about the glossy screen or just people in general?

I am an editor and I have no complaints against the glossy screen. If you are doing some serious color correction, you are better off connecting an NTSC monitor to your MBP.

I guess the glossy screen can be a problem if you are planning to edit out in the park on sunny days. screen might be hard to see!

 

[tbae12]

either one would do well in your video editing. if you want to spend less than go with your first option and upgrade the RAM using third party RAM.
i'd say it depends on if money is an issue for you.

 

[DoFoT9]

the difference in CPU usage is minimal, an extra 100MHz is NOTHING. i would get extra 3rd party RAM, that would save you so so much money. 250gb isnt very large a HD, use the money you save on the RAM to get a 500gb internal laptop drive or a nice 1tb external.

 

[kid rock]

the 2.53 has DOUBLE the L2 cache of the 2.4, (6MB instead of 3MB) which gets information to the CPU much quicker, its a shame most people dont bother checking into these things before firing off incorrect posts

I would go for the 2nd option and get the more powerful graphics card, double ram and quicker CPU.


But either way you will be very happy with either, remember to let us know what you picked and why

Simon

 

[DoFoT9]

the 2.53 has DOUBLE the L2 cache of the 2.4, (6MB instead of 3MB) which gets information to the CPU much quicker, its a shame most people dont bother checking into these things before firing off incorrect posts

I would go for the 2nd option and get the more powerful graphics card, double ram and quicker CPU.


But either way you will be very happy with either, remember to let us know what you picked and why

Simon

well the difference isnt that great, the top two are your indicators. means about 3 seconds difference in MP3 encoding, or an extra 16 points in Speedmark 5... not THAT great..

 

[kid rock]

you add up all those seconds over the years of owning the mac and you will realise how much u time u will save

 

[Alucardx03]

I edit high-definition in Final Cut Pro with my 2.53 unibody and it works perfectly. Conversely, I also edit on my 2.2gHz MBP (mid 2007) and notice a very, very sizeable loss in performance. I would definitely go with the higher specs.

 

[Patriks7]

If money is no issue, obviously go with the 2.53. If you are a bit tight, get the 2.4 and upgrade to 4 GB RAM and maybe a 7200 drive or even SSD. I just got 4 GB Mushkin RAM (which supposedly is of really good quality) for 80$, but Crucial has it for 65$, but out of stock on NewEgg. HDDs are pretty cheap at 7200 RPM, and SSDs are still kinda not the best investment unless you got the cash