Hey,
I know there's tones of posts about this, I just wanted to know. Is paying 250 for the 2.3 instead of the 2.2 ? I know the graphics card is the same, this is just a slightly faster processor, Or am I wrong ?
Dave
Depending what you do, the larger cache will make a difference. I see a substantial difference with the 2.3 over the 2.2 that colleagues have when working large databases. For some users, getting the 2.3 is a waste of money, and for many people, the 2.0 is more than substantial if you aren't worried about graphics (which I am not but wanted the 8m 2.3 and figured why not get it all since I use my comp so much). Also, the CPU in the 2.3, the 2820QM as stated, actually costs about $200 more than the 2.2, making it a near $700 CPU. Least you know if you get it that it is a better value than the former C2D $200 'upgrades' that were literally like $20 from one chip to the other.
It seems the 2.3 is about a 5% performance over the 2.2...it may not sound like a lot but for computers that isn't anything to laugh at IMO, as a 30% speed increase is often hailed as being revolutionary. $250 for 5% speed increase IMO isn't too badly priced, especially since the CPU you are getting truly costs $200+ to buy. If you are on a budget, absolutely get the 2.2 or 2.0 as these things run circles around virtually any computer made to date and you won't be hurting for performance. If you don't mind spending a bit more, get the 2.3...either way however, get a SSD
I'm a student doing video editing 24/7, and I manage a lot of data daily. Think it's worth it ?
Spend the money somewhere else (screen).
Minimal speed difference. It will run hotter too under load. 5% speed difference is really not that much. Instead of something taking 1 hour to do it will take an hour and 4 minutes.
Use the money for the next computer.
When sandy bridge came out the most basic version i7 2630qm blew the socks off the most advanced previous version i7 940XM (for quad core processors). It was as good in the tests or better. The lowest quad core from the second generation beat the best quad core from the previous generation.
Ivy Bridge is supposed to be 20% faster than sandy bridge for computing the integrated graphics are to be 30% better.
But whatever, if you need it you need it.
If I really needed the horsepower, I would build a cheap desktop PC but this may not be possible.
Personally, yes. But I am biased as I also employ the theology of 'expensive computers will usually be kept for longer periods of time, so you might as well buy the most advanced parts that cannot be replaced to maximize the time it remains modern, hence theoretically extending it's realistic service life'.
For what I do, the 2.3 makes quite a difference, which I assume is related to the higher cache.
NO.
it's not worth it unless you're doing something that constantly maxes the processor.
those who can benefit:
-Engineers who work in AutoCAD or similar
-Film editors who spend a lot of time working in Premiere/Final Cut
-Audio professionals who work with dozens of audio tracks simultaneously
-Consumers who spend a lot of time encoding/transcoding audio/video
-Graphics professionals who work with Maya/3DSMax or similar
I might be missing a few niche communities, but that's really it. If you don't fall into one of those categories, you're wasting money by buying a faster processor. Don' do it.
The biggest upgrade you can make to any computer these days is by adding more RAM and a SSD drive.
you're wasting money by buying a faster processor. Don' do it.
Rock On!2.3Ghz it is.
+1
I have to agree with NickZac.
You know, about every time I see a post by NickZac I think 'that is exactly what I would have written'. Strange, either I am thinking more like you or you are thinking more like me (God, help you!).
-P