Why did the 2.66 GHz 13" MBP get a bad rap?

[Damers]

I'm in the market for a new MBP and was comparing the Macworld reviews (here) for the 2.4 GHz and 2.66 GHz 13" MBP. The reviews claim that the $300 price increase is hard to justify for the bump of processing power and HDD of the 2.66 GHz machine. However when I look at the benchmark comparisons the 2.66 GHz does look like it made some gains over the 2.4 GHz, specifically the speedmark is 8 points higher than the 2.4 GHz and some tasks (Mathemetica-Mark 7 and Parallels WorldBench 6 for example) showing good improvements. There is also a comment section (here) in which people are being nudged toward the 2.4 GHz MBP for the same reasons as above.

So I was just curious if anyone out there has had any experience with either of these machines or has any opinions on the subject.

/*Additional information about my case...
I'm going into my 3rd year of a physics degree, so price is fairly important to me. I would use the MBP for (besides everyday stuff) programming, numerical calculations and simulations (the odd game of HL2 to relax would be nice but it's not a dealbreaker). Portability is not that important as I don't bring my laptop to class. I don't do a lot of work with media so I thought the 15" MBP would be a bit overkill. I'm not opposed to the 15" MBP but it's price makes it a stretch but would pay-off if it lasted and proved to be more useful over it's lifetime. I was hoping for something that would be alive and current for 4-6 years (and be able to handle what I threw at it) and would carry me into a grad degree. Edit: my current machine is the early 2008 MB 2.1 GHz C2D w/ 1GB and a combodrive (booo)*/

Thanks!

 

[Ramphex]

there's a 2.66ghz 13"? lol

 

[kny3twalker]

The issue is your $300 could be better spent on a SSD or 8 GB ram depending on your needs.

If you are concerned about performance that much, then you should get a 15" (or SSD).

 

[johnnymg]

The issue is your $300 could be better spent on a SSD or 8 GB ram depending on your needs.

If you are concerned about performance that much, then you should get a 15" (or SSD).

This is good advice here. You'll get a MUCH bigger boost in real world performance with an SSD than with the paltry processor bump.

cheers
JohnG

 

[Beric]

Maybe because it's a ripoff?

What's .26 Ghz., honestly?

 

[Ronnoco]

Get the base 15" i5...it's the best bang for the buck on a budget...

 

[stefan1975]

the 2.66 is just $30 more expensive which makes it an apple cash-cow. At that price the base 15" is *MUCH* better with the core i CPU. in real life scenarios you will never ever notice the .26 difference.

 

[ste1164]

Get the base 15" i5...it's the best bang for the buck on a budget...

I agree I was going to get the 2.66GHz 13" model but i bought the base 15" it is much better value for money and is an amazing machine.

 

[Damers]

The issue is your $300 could be better spent on a SSD or 8 GB ram depending on your needs.

If you are concerned about performance that much, then you should get a 15" (or SSD).

Thanks, I hadn't thought about how a SSD would affect performance. Everyone is making a good case for the 15" MBP. Is it unreasonable to expect 4 years or more of good service from a 15" MBP? what about a 13" MBP?

 

[johnnymg]

Thanks, I hadn't thought about how a SSD would affect performance. Everyone is making a good case for the 15" MBP. Is it unreasonable to expect 4 years or more of good service from a 15" MBP? what about a 13" MBP?

Not unreasonable at all but it depends on how rough you treat it more than anything.

FWIW, I'd get the 13" if you're going to use it while traveling.

cheers
JohnG