Which MBP 15" 2.2 or 2.4?!!
- Thread starter jamesybsu
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
just to put this out there - i will not be running and hardcore games, but I might play some, but am not to worried about having the graphics looking so real I will forget in sitting at a desk. Instead I will be using programs like photoshop, and some 3D rendering programs, however, I will most likely be doing my complete renderings on a school computer overnight on a networked render.
128, coupled with such a fast CPU will be fast as Hell for you, don't worry about it.
You'll find thousand of spurious "tests" and discussions out there in which kids strain to justify blowing all their allowance on the latest and greatest but most seasoned IT buyers recognize what's going on here - it's not as if the 2.2 isn't a gob-smackingly fast machine, it's just that it's a bargain whereas, comparatively, the 2.4 is not.
Where are you getting your info? I would like to see the 2:1 increase you are talking about.
The only real advantage of having the 256MB GPU is if you are planning on running a 30" Apple monitor. Doing this with the 256MB GPU will allocate 128MB of the VRAM to the external display. If this is something that you want to do, then that may be worth the upgrade. As far as gaming... I doubt there is anything that shows a 2:1 performance barrier between the two.
Jestered, I may be wrong but, having researched the Hell out of precisely this question before making my purchase, I want to point out that even the ibook had no problems driving an external 30". Unless we are taking, once again, about graphically-intensive games, the 128MB GPU is extremely capable of handling a 30" external monitor or even 2 x 24". Plenty of people were doing that even with the previous, less powerful video card.
Using external monitors is not a reason to get the 256MB unless you intend running very intensive graphics. Regular games will be fine on huge externals.
That is in fact what I was saying. I was not clear enough I guess. People keep talking about games and the 256MB GPU. I don't feel there is a real gain when gaming unless you are pushing a 30" display. The 2.2GHz, and as you stated, earlier laptops can push that display just fine. We are both saying the same thing.
I don't care what people buy... that is their decision. You were right about one being a good deal and the other not. Most people realize that the 2.2 with 128MB GPU is an extremely capable machine.
To whoever said that there were 2:1 increases between the two GPUs is not correct. Just because there is a 2:1 difference in VRAM does not mean you will see that in performance (not even close).
If someone wants to get the 2.4 and don't mind spending the extra money.... go for it. I didn't.
2.2 / 2.4 ?
not much of a diff i feel... and should i upgrade today, i would probably opt for the 2.2.
that said, about the 15"... wouldn't it be nice if apple offered the option of a higher res display like on the 17"... or just put it on the 15" standard? 'twould be the best of both worlds -'smaller/lighter' mbp and higher res and more screen space.
anyone else like that idea?
not much of a diff i feel... and should i upgrade today, i would probably opt for the 2.2.
that said, about the 15"... wouldn't it be nice if apple offered the option of a higher res display like on the 17"... or just put it on the 15" standard? 'twould be the best of both worlds -'smaller/lighter' mbp and higher res and more screen space.
anyone else like that idea?
Fair enough Jesteredl; I took you up wrong because of the first line: "The only real advantage of having the 256MB GPU is if you are planning on running a 30" Apple monitor."
It's just that I would have changed that to "The only real advantage of having the 256MB GPU is if you are planning to play a lot of graphically intensive games on a 30" Apple monitor... but for normal/photoshop/browsing etc usage, the 128mb will drive a 30" external monitor just fine".
I applaud your attitude regarding people who want to go ahead and buy the 2.4 ... go for it. Like you, I'm just pointing out that the real deal here is the 2.2, but people should spend their dough however they feel fit. God knows I've wasted a lot of cash on cocaine and Lebanese prostitutes
the Helix
macrumors regular
$ = yes
It seems to me that people who would write paragraphs about why the 2.2 MBP is a better buy are somehow either: 1) trying to convince themselves not to buy a 2.4, or 2) are trying to justify not having bought one.
ergo:
If you have the money, buy the 2.4 MBP.
If you don't, then it is the 2.2 MBP.
It seems to me that people who would write paragraphs about why the 2.2 MBP is a better buy are somehow either: 1) trying to convince themselves not to buy a 2.4, or 2) are trying to justify not having bought one.
ergo:
If you have the money, buy the 2.4 MBP.
If you don't, then it is the 2.2 MBP.
Erasmus
macrumors 68030
More VRAM should enable you to load larger textures into the graphics card, so it should enable you to push the eye candy sliders higher than you would normally.
Barefeats only used old games. They should have used Oblivion, CNC3, etc. These games would no doubt show much greater difference in speed between the 128 and 256MB cards.
Games out now have minimum specs of 128 and 256. I bet that Crysis, and maybe Spore, will require a 256MB GPU, simply because they have so many textures to load. You get the 128, and the textures go in system memory, and you will get serious performance hits.
If you want to keep your laptop for a while, and you can afford, it, go 2.4, if you don't or you can't, go 2.2. Don't base performance on old games, games that are probably CPU limited on the SR MBP anyway. If the game only has less than 128MB of textures on the highest settings, the 256 will offer no benefits. If it has more, it will.
Barefeats only used old games. They should have used Oblivion, CNC3, etc. These games would no doubt show much greater difference in speed between the 128 and 256MB cards.
Games out now have minimum specs of 128 and 256. I bet that Crysis, and maybe Spore, will require a 256MB GPU, simply because they have so many textures to load. You get the 128, and the textures go in system memory, and you will get serious performance hits.
If you want to keep your laptop for a while, and you can afford, it, go 2.4, if you don't or you can't, go 2.2. Don't base performance on old games, games that are probably CPU limited on the SR MBP anyway. If the game only has less than 128MB of textures on the highest settings, the 256 will offer no benefits. If it has more, it will.
Island, you want to run a graphically intense game on external monitors (you use the plural, so, how many are we talking here? two? three? Are you using the Matrox splitter?)
In that case, you are in a situation that might require a 256MB, just as I said above, but you have to admit your set-up is pretty unusual - most people would be using just one external monitor. For regular computing (i.e. Photoshop, office stuff, Web browsing etc), the 128 is fine for up to 1 x 30" or 2 x 24".
My understanding of World of Warcraft is that it runs reasonably well even on the Macbooks integrated graphics (there are videos of that on YouTube), so, the 128mb would no doubt handle it easily but, obviously, multiple external monitor is going to stretch that.
I must congratulate you on your fast work: the 2.2 was announced on June 11th, the build-time was initially 4 working days, add 2 working days for delivery, you managed to get it hooked up to all your monitors, test it adequately, contact Apple and arrange a returns number, get it collected, have it reach Apple, get your money refunded, order a 2.4, wait the 3 working days build-time on that model, wait 2 working days for delivery, hook the 2.4 up to your very many monitors, and run it through tests to see how much better it is than the 2.2.
That's a lot to fit into the 6 working days since the announcement. Well done.
Funny, I would have thought the folks who simply must buy the 2.4 would be more the personality-types who need to convince themselves.
Also funny that anyone would try to turn it into a "you're too poor" thing. I've noticed that people who blindly spend whatever money they have in their pockets never accumulate much of it.
If the 2.4 was another $100 more expensive, would you still buy it? You probably would, wouldn't you
the Helix
macrumors regular
Funny, I would have thought the folks who simply must buy the 2.4 would be more the personality-types who need to convince themselves.
Also funny that anyone would try to turn it into a "you're too poor" thing. I've noticed that people who blindly spend whatever money they have in their pockets never accumulate much of it.
If the 2.4 was another $100 more expensive, would you still buy it? You probably would, wouldn't you
Wouldn't you say that someone who is trying to save money is more conscientious about their money and so try to make sure that they use it prudently?
Whereas someone for whom money is no object are "spared" the "soul searching" and justifying because they typically can buy things without too much thought since money is not a problem for them?
For a lot of people (but certainly not all) who would buy the 2.4, money is not really too much of an issue for them.
Anyway, my 2¢
... even if it were $300 more, I probably would buy it!
poke4christ
macrumors member
I had the same question. I finally ended up splurging and getting the 2.4. The 2.2 is probably just as good, but I had the money and I wanted to make sure it lasted a long time. Now if it would just get here.
poke4christ
macrumors member
Wouldn't you say that someone who is trying to save money is more conscientious about their money and so try to make sure that they use it prudently?
Whereas someone for whom money is no object are "spared" the "soul searching" and justifying because they typically can buy things without too much thought since money is not a problem for them?
For a lot of people (but certainly not all) who would buy the 2.4, money is not really too much of an issue for them.
Anyway, my 2¢
... even if it were $300 more, I probably would buy it!
The thing is though that the two mentalities you describe really don't have that much to do with how much a person makes. Some people make 300 thousand a year and end up going 50k in debt every year. At the same time, you might get a person making 50k a year and going 10k in debt every year. Money always has a limit, people on the other hand don't.
Just because a person makes a lot or a little doesn't explain how they spend it. If you are wise with you money and don't go in to major debt (house and maybe car only). You can be set for life easy. I'm almost out of college and I'm going to make a goal of doing away with a mortgage by the time I'm 45. Also, I'd like to not go into debt for a car.
Yup ... Steve Jobs is all about detailrumor has... or so i've heard it said:
steve jobs looks for a bargain even when buying something like a fridge for his home.
BTW, just to wrap up this argument, we are ALL getting a beast of a machine for our money
im pretty sure im going to end up getting the 2.2, not only to save money, but I also need to get a bag and the applecare, at least eventually. Can I wait till like a little before a year to get the applecare instead of now. I assume its three years from the day you bought the computer, thus giving me two extra years basically.
mr_matalino
macrumors 6502a
You got it
Maybe a stupid question, but does the graphics card have anything to do with media playing? I would eventually get a blu-ray player and didn't know if the VRAM affect this?
poke4christ
macrumors member
rumor has... or so i've heard it said:
steve jobs looks for a bargain even when buying something like a fridge for his home.
That's not surprising at all. You don't get that far in life (espeially doing it as young as he did) being stupid. I'll be fiscal no matter how much money I make (though it would no doubt loosen the wallet). I take pride in and enjoy getting the best deal. If I think I could have done better, it bothers me.
You got it
Maybe a stupid question, but does the graphics card have anything to do with media playing? I would eventually get a blu-ray player and didn't know if the VRAM affect this?
From what I understand, Graphics cards do all the rendering to turn something from code to an image. This means that anything with a lot of detail and refreshing will be heavy on the card. That is why Video can be chopy with bad cards. However, it can also be because of the OS. For instance, my mom's 500 dollar dell that I loaded with Ubuntu does a better jobe of handeling some video than my AMD64 3400 system with a 128mb ATI card (windows). Sad really. My GPU in it might be going bad, but I think it's mainly the OS.
So to answer your question, yes a better video card would help blu-ray playback. In fact, you might need it to avoid it being chopy. HD is well, HD. You've got lot of informtion to decod and display.
island
macrumors 6502
It's amazing how fast things go when you buy and return to the Apple Store instead of dealing with online...
Oh, right, you got me, didn't think of thatIt's amazing how fast things go when you buy and return to the Apple Store instead of dealing with online...
ktbubster
macrumors 6502a
Back to the original topic.
Example:
I only have a 2.0 ghz MacBook pro core duo
I run photoshop, dreamweaver (the whole lot of the cs3 suite (as well as did photoshop 7 and the older programs up until a few weeks ago)) with no problem and have had the fan pop on about 2 times tops. I also use parallels with Solidworks without an upset either.
I run a 20 inch external fine.
I do not game however, but from what I gather so far, you don't game too hard, and our main focus is rendering and graphics work/design.
If this is the case, it seems that if I can do all the stuff you do on my "old" machine hehe then... the 2.2 sr c2d will do you AMAZINGLY and you can spend the extra bucks on applecare, or a bigger external for your rendering and graphics. You can always upgrade in 2 years or so to the next best thing... or even sooner as you find you may need more speed or vram if you start gaming more.
just my 2 cents.
Example:
I only have a 2.0 ghz MacBook pro core duo
I run photoshop, dreamweaver (the whole lot of the cs3 suite (as well as did photoshop 7 and the older programs up until a few weeks ago)) with no problem and have had the fan pop on about 2 times tops. I also use parallels with Solidworks without an upset either.
I run a 20 inch external fine.
I do not game however, but from what I gather so far, you don't game too hard, and our main focus is rendering and graphics work/design.
If this is the case, it seems that if I can do all the stuff you do on my "old" machine hehe then... the 2.2 sr c2d will do you AMAZINGLY and you can spend the extra bucks on applecare, or a bigger external for your rendering and graphics. You can always upgrade in 2 years or so to the next best thing... or even sooner as you find you may need more speed or vram if you start gaming more.
just my 2 cents.