13in MBP 2.4GHz vs 2.66GHz

If you were buying a 13in MBP today do you think the extra money for the 2.66GHz is worth it? 2.4=$1200 and 2.66=$1500.

What your opinion? Its a $300 difference....Thanks!

 

Definitely the 2.4GHz. $300 for 266MHz of CPU speed and 70GB of HDD space is terrible.

 

yeah i was thinking that was a rip but i kinda wanted to do some mild-midrange gaming....

 

+1

The base 2.4 is a significantly better value for money. With the money saved you can get AppleCare (not directly from Apple) and a nice case, and down the road you can always upgrade the HD yourself. For the vast majority of people 2.4 C2D will be the same as a 2.66, with the added benefit of a tiny bit less heat and better battery life. It's a win-win.

 

The difference in gaming experience will be microscopic, if there's a difference at all.

 

hmmm interesting...wasnt even upgrading for the HD...just merely the processor....i really wished they used the i3 processors though

 

Unless you have a need to run CPU intensive apps frequently, the better CPU isn't worth a lick of difference. Even if you do it's marginal at best.

 

Go for the 2.4ghz.

 

Thats what I have heard, but like others have said, minute differences...

 

I went for the 2.66, and the only reason was because work paid for most of my system - also I like to future proof as much as I can!

 

I went for 2.66 myself. The principle reason? I already have a 2.4 in my MB and It felt kinda awkward spending so much to upgrade to the MBP without at least getting a processor boost also.

 

That is the kind of reasoning I would avoid.

 

I have the 13in unibody 2.4GHz and I'd kick myself in the before buying the new 13in. I'd be paying $1,500 for some battery, very minor CPU upgrade, SD card(meh), and a vid card thats weaker then the rest in the 13in market(besides intel integrated)


Not worth it in any way IMO. $999-$1,100 maybe, $1,500 I'd feel like I was raped.

 

are the C2D processors in the 13in the same ones as in last years? or are they like better?

 

They are the same. Apple didn't want to use Intel's integrated graphics, and Intel isn't licensing 3rd parties to make chipsets for their new Nehalem (Core i) chips. In order to use nVidia integrated graphics, Apple stuck with the older Core 2 Duo.

 

But is it the same exact C2D as last year...like last year you were able to get a C2D with 2.53GHz....is that processor better than this 2.4GHz?

 

Only in the fact it's .13GHz faster. The 2.4GHz is the same chip in the 2.4GHz Macbook from 2yrs ago.

 

If you upgrade frequently, I'd give another vote for the base model. They retain their resale value far better than the higher end models.

 

wow thats depressing...

 

Future proof with a C2D? Surely you can't be serious.

 

Why was my post deleted? lol

 

Well battery life and screen have improved hugely.

The old 2.4 Macbook had a 45% gamut screen with poor contrast, the Macbook Pro 2.4 has a 72% gamut iirc and very good contrast.

 

Those are too separate models. The standard MacBook retains it's rather poor-quality screen, while the MacBook Pro has (to my knowledge) always had a better screen. Quoted battery life for the 13" MBP has increased by about an hour or two (it's hard to find the quotes for the old models) though, I believe.

Edit: Here's a review showing the differences between the MacBook and MacBook Pro screens. The contrast and viewing angle difference is...not insubstantial, to say the least. I also see the MBPs have inherited Chiclet keyboards at some point, ewww.

 

This is a good review that includes detailed measurements:

Notebookcheck: Review Apple MacBook Pro 13 Mid 2009 2.53 GHz

As far as I know the Macbook Pro 13 2009 and 2010 use similar quality screens.

 

"I am serious... and don't call me Shirley."


2.4 isn't any less future proof than the 2.66 ... but yes, the C2D is still a good processor that will be great for many years. Just cuz something exists thats newer/better, doesn't mean older things are not good anymore.

 

I am having a hard time finding reviews that I trust. Can some of you new MBP 13" owners type up reviews?

I am thinking of selling my MBP and getting the 13"
- the 320m is about as fast as my 9600m GT but requires no switching
- the battery is better
- its a bit lighter to carry around

I only wish they would make a matte version. I'd like to confirm that the miniDP carries audio like the new 15"

 

What is it exactly that you would like to know? (except the miniDP)

 

I'm really bad at writing reviews...

the 320m seems as fast as the 9600GT previously used, but thats because the 9600GT was a bit under-clocked. The whole machine runs MUCH MUCH cooler and quieter.

the battery is awesome.

its definitely smaller and easier to cary around than my 15"er

I don't use HDMI, but the spec page from Apple states the thing about HDMI adapters on all the 2010 MBPs. It doesn't really say anything about audio on any of them... but I'm sure it works.

 

I'd like to know the peak underside temp under load. I think iStat for the dashboard will report that temp.

When I turn on my 9600m GT my 15" gets too hot.

And just surfing the net, how long does the battery last?

That's OK, your contributions to the community are way bigger than hardware reviews!

 

Laptopmag got 7:48 while surfing the web on Wifi. Very impressive.

Under heavy use I would expect around 5 hours.

 

when Apple advertise the time of battery, you just minute 25% of the total will be the actual time using