Which of the new uMBPs would you get for everyday use?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Radioman, Jun 14, 2009.

  1. Radioman macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #1
    Well I am probably not an unusual computer user, I don't game, I don't do high end video editing or 3D CAD.

    I think now is the time for me to upgrade from a late 2006 Merom 15" MBP. The new battery is probably what has swung it for me. In the past I have normally gone for the top of the line macs as I tend to keep them for 2 or 3 years, but I am not sure this is what I will do this time.

    For me the choice is from the following 15 inchers:

    1: 2.53, no discrete graphics.
    2: 2.66, discrete graphics (256MB)
    3: 2.8, 512MB discrete graphics and 6MB L2 cache

    In each case I would want the 500GB 7200 HDD, and if you do the sums the cost differential is not all that much between the options.

    My main use is email, surfing, MS office, photo editing (Lightroom) and some fairly low-end video editing (iMovie).

    Realising that often one goes for the 'best' just for the 'bests' sake, I wonder what I should go for this time?

    I am upgrading this time mainly for the battery life, increased trackpad functionality and because my old MBP is now battered half to death, so all out speed is not the number 1 consideration.

    How many of us buy the best and fastest machine for no reason other to know we have the best, even if we never need to use all that power?

    Which would you go for?
     
  2. Joruus macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    #2
    This probably isn't the right answer for your question:

    I for one will wait for Arrandale (dual core mobile cpu with hyper threading (4 instead of 2 threads)) which is a real performance boost over the C2D you could get for the last two years. Its the first real boost of performance since the original Intel Core Notebooks.
     
  3. MacAndy74 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Location:
    Australia
    #3
    #1

    Why buy more than you need and the 9400M is plenty fast enough for general OS X / Apps. :)
     
  4. Anuba macrumors 68040

    Anuba

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2005
    #4
    Trust me, you wouldn't. Real-world benchmarks show that Apple's stock 7200 rpm drive (Seagate 7200.4) is slower than their stock 5400 rpm drive (Hitachi TravelStar 5K500.B). For the tasks you listed, the 7200 drive has no benefits whatsoever. You get a slower drive that makes more noise and vibrations and sucks the battery dry faster. Adding insult to injury, the 7200 drive adds another 5-7 days of waiting for the computer to ship.

    Check out these charts...

    http://www.techreport.com/articles.x/17010/7

    ...and remember that dark red = stock Hitachi 5400 drive, green = stock Seagate 7200 drive (or its Seagate 5400 rpm sibling). As you can see, the Hitachi is faster in most of the tests, and in the few tests where the 7200 drive comes out on top, it's by a thin margin.
     
  5. Joruus macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    #5
    If you want Performance, replace the Optical Drive with a OCZ Vertex, install the OS on it and put the /Users Folder on the Internal Drive :p
     
  6. Radioman thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    Is that right? I upgraded the 160GB 5400 drive on my MBP for a Seagate 7200 340MB and noticed a helluva speed increase in 'everyday' use. What's changed?
     

Share This Page