15" MBP 2.2Ghz vs. 2.4Ghz

Hello all, I am trying to decide whether to get a 2.2ghz or 2.4ghz MBP. For now I know that the 2.2Ghz system would be more than enough for me, but I am worried about the games that are coming out in the future, there are some exciting new titles on the horizon (right now primarily Shadowrun) that I would like to run on my MBP using BootCamp, so I wonder if the 128mb GPU is going to become outdated soon. What are your thoughts? Will the 128mb GPU last the prospective lifetime of the system (hopefully 3-5 years at least) or will it only be a short time before the 128mb system will be invalid and the games will all require 256mb GPU's or more?

Thanks.

 

If games are important to you then go with the 256MB version. It will run futuer games better. The 128MB version can turbocache up to 512Mb or more but dedicated is better.

 

well 128 mb are outdated for some time now .If u wanna save money or think that 2,4 model is to expansive , think about this, u buy 2.2 model and ur happy and all that, u save 500 bux , some new game comes out and even if u re not hardcore gamer u will apreciate extra speed that 256 model provides, and then ull be wishing ,wishing , that u spent that extra 500 bux , but itll be too late .So if u are gonna play games than go 2.4 and ull be happy again

 

though the 200mhz extra wont be of much use other than hardcore number crunching or video encoding i voted the 2.4 because of the 256mb GPU which will help future proof your laptop for a few years to come atleast and will enable you to play games at medium settings if not medium high

 

The 256MB of VRAM gives you the most benefit in games when you run at 1440x900. From most of the tests and benchmarks I've seen, as long as you're running at a lower resolution, the actual performance differences aren't that great.

I would say that if you can budget for it, the one with 256MB of VRAM is still probably a safer bet for the future, but otherwise, if you get the base model MBP, as long as you don't mind running at lower resolutions, the performance will still be quite good.

 

If you can afford it, go for the 2.4 Ghz MBP by all means. But IMHO $500 dollars is too big a premium just for the 0.2Ghz CPU speed rise and 128MB GPU memory upgrade. My MBP runs most of the newer games without a hitch at near high settings and i expect it to run the next gen games also at medium settings without a hitch.

And if you want to run the games at top notch settings etc, look beyond the MBP towards gaming machines such as Alienware, Sager etc

 

I just cannot see the extra 500 bucks being worth it.

I want to game to and I guess I will just have to live with lower resolutions.

I guess I decided to buy the 2.2 one when I realized that with the $500 bucks I saved I could get a 26" or 32" LCD hdtv to game on as well as a 2gb stick of ram. That way I can turbo cache more anyways with 3gb ram, and the 128mb card wont hinder gaming all that much with so much ram to use.

So i was thinking:

2.4 < 2.2 + Huge Monitor + Extra Ram


just my thoughts

 

So with a mbp loaded with 4gigs of ram, the 128 vs 256mb video card wont make that much of a difference?

 

thats kinda what I am thinking. Its much cheaper too, and you have 4 gb of ram

 

It's funny, but every time someone compares the two, the comparison is between the 128 vs 256 MB RAM. I bet no one here would ever have even considered paying for a 2.4GHz T7700 if it was an independent choice. We'd be seeing a ton of 2.2GHz (or even 2.0 if that were an option!) laptops with 8600M GT w/ 256MB RAM

 

yeah i know its so ridiculous.... it should just be an opyion to go 256 in the 2.2 for like 100 bucks.

 

Nevar! Giving customers a choice is way too Dell-like.

 

hahaha i love the shifty.

i use it on my other forums

best gif evar!!

 

Definitely. I was appalled to see the absence of here.

 

Shadowrun? Get the 2.4 version.

Seriously, its sad people have to pay the premium for the 2.4 processor when they just want the 256 vRam.

 

yes, it is sad indeed, but whatever, screw it. I just couldn't live with the fact that I might get mad at myself when I wanna play some near future game and have to settle with less beautiful beach scenes (Crysis come to me baby) because there is not enough VRAM.
On the other hand, I only want and need one Computer, which has to be a laptop. I couldn't justify to buy a whole computer just for gaming!

 

Sure you could.

 

You both have a good point, Randfee, it's a pain to have multiple computers, especially if one is a Mac and the other a PC (unless your pretty computer Savvy and really want both), and it would be nice to be able to do everything on just one multi-tasking mac! At the same time Surfacewound has a point, the 500$ difference in price is almost 1/2 the cost of an ok gaming desktop (if you build it yourself). Well that's my two cents, but I love shiny toys so I'll take the bullet and get the 2.4ghz MBP and then save up to upgrade the GPU and Ram in my desktop :-D

 

this is how i think about it, im closely looking at getting the 2.2GHz MBP and upgrading the hdd to 160gb, so that makes the price difference between the 2 $600 (AUD) and all findings have found that there is only about a 10-15% difference only at higher resolutions. so $600/$2800= 21.5% difference in price for a 10-15% difference which is only at high resolutions.

so to me that makes me realise its not worth the money. 10-15% works out to be about 3-6fps in a game anyway.

hope i helped

 

i finally bought mine yesterday!!! 2.2 with teh 128mb card... im so pumped .. cant wait to get home and play with it more

 

According to post from Rob Art from barefeats.com


Quote:
"I ran Prey on both the 15" MacBook Pro 2.2GHz (128M VRAM) and 15" MaBook Pro 2.4GHz (256M VRAM). The settings were High Quality, 1440x900, 4X Anti Aliasing, and 4X Anisotropic Filter.

Under Mac OS X, the unit with 256M of VRAM was 3% faster (21.5 fps vs 20.9 fps).
Under Windows XP Pro, the unit with 256M of VRAM was 54% faster (46.2 fps vs 29.9 fps). "

Yeah, that test was at a 1440x900 but it shows me I made the right choice buying the 2.4 Ghz. That's no 3-6 FPS difference there. I never play games in OSX anyway.

 

Yeah, those seem to back up the general consensus, that when playing at 1440x900, the difference in VRAM becomes much more noticeable.

 

Yeah, that Lost Planet demo is playing rather well using XP on my 2.4 Ghz. It averages only about 21 FPS in the snow outdoors but it jumps quite a bit higher indoors. I am leaning toward buying the game.

 

I looked on Barefeets.com and couldn't find him saying this. Could you cite the url? Reason I ask is because I am currently deciding between the two also and that is a pretty big difference.

 

I think it might be from a forum post.

Either way, again, the consensus from almost every test I've seen is that the extra VRAM will give you more noticeable framerate differences when you game at the nativ 1440x900 resolution. At lower resolutions, the framerate differences are not very great.

So you have to ask yourself if you need to game at 1440x900, and if that is worth the extra cost.

-Zadillo

 

I still think it's the future games that are coming out that hold more sway over the decision, save the money now and risk not being able to play some of the games coming out in the next few years at anything more than bare minimum settings with slow frame-rates (this is a guess obviously nothing substantiated). That's my worry, I know it can handle whatever I need NOW with the cheaper model, but I'm worried that by saving the money I will be digging myself a whole when it comes time to buy the next gen. of computer games.

 

But... then people would know that you actually pay someting like $300 for the 0.2 GHz more...

Seriously, I agree Apple should offer the choice. But I guess they content raking in the $$$ with the 2.4 model..

I wouldn't get the 256M RAM because I really don't play games, and certainly not the latest and greatest. Don't have the time for it, my college days are over

 

The big thing is, Apple is very big about having specific price points for models. For the laptop line, it's not so much that they're about offering all these different configurations, as much as that they have specific price goals they want to keep for each iteration of the product.

For the PowerBooks and now for the MacBook Pros, that has generally meant a base model price point of $1999, and a mid-range model price point of $2499. So what they do is spec them out at each price point to have some core basic configuration (with some elements like RAM and HD that can be custom configured)....... so the end result usually is that the two big differentiators between the $1999 and $2499 model have been the CPU and CPU, the two elements which are generally not configurable.

So on one hand, yes, I would like to see some more options, but whether this would work with the way Apple is selling these machines is another question. The thing is, I think what people are probably hoping for is to just get the extra VRAM in the $1999 base model, but the reality is that if the $1999 and $2499 model both had 256MB of VRAM, it would probably mean that the higher cost model probably wouldn't sell at all, except to the people who just needed the extra CPU.

So no, it's not ideal - I think people would love it if Apple had the resources to do something like Dell does with their laptops, offering a single chassis and offering a wide array of configuration options. But I think at least with the way Apple currently does sell MBP's, they just aren't open to that kind of wide-open configuration.

-Zadillo

 

Apple absolutely has the resources to offer a highly configurable machine like Dell. On the other hand, what Apple doesn't have that Dell does have is volume.

Apple is afraid that if they offered more configuration options like Dell, that they would lose money, and they're absolutely right.

The way it is now, Apple forces you to pay that premium if you want the better video card. Of all the people that bought and are going to buy the 2.4GHz MBP, how many of them would have paid the $300 premium for 200MHz if it were a seperate choice? Probably very few of them.

 

$500 for an extra 128MB of VRAM?

 

Well, again, the big issue is that these kind of configuration options would require Apple to change how it manufactures the MBP. As it is right now, they can create a bunch of stock MBP's with the GPU's and CPU's already defined. If they made these completely configurable options, it would require a change in how they sell them.

It also might add to the complexity of manufacturing MBP's beyond what they already have.

Again, if you read my post above, my point is that Apple's current business model is oriented around having two core base models, at specific price points, and they define the specific set of configuration options for those two models. They aren't going to be changing how they do this any time soon, or making a machine like the Inspiron which can be configured with a wider array of GPU's and CPU's. It's just not the business they're in.

-Zadillo

 

Plus a larger HD and the 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo - extra 128MB of GDDR3 RAM and the 2.4 GHz CPU basically eat up the large bulk of that extra $500 in price........ heck, the CPU alone takes up a pretty large chunk of that.

-Zadillo

 

It would not be terribly difficult for them to change the process, an in general, having only one core model that can have various parts upgraded makes much more sense than having two.

What I'm saying is, the reason they have two is to increase revenue; they would not sell nearly as many of the higher-end/"upgrade" parts if they were optional, so instead they force it on you if you want anything better than the base.

Dell doesn't have to worry about this because they make up for it in sheer volume. Apple does not have that luxury.

 

The HD and the CPU "upgrade" are not worth either, that's why I boil it down to essentially, $500 for the VRAM.

 

That's how Apple does it.

Neat, a MacBook for $1000!

Oh wait, I need ram, the bigger hard drive and Apple Care. $1500.

I might as well get the MacBook Pro I guess, get the bigger screen and a video card. $2000.

Hmm, that's not really futureproof enough, I'd better get the 256MB VRAM. $2500.

Man, that's expensive, I'd better get the Apple care to protect my "investment." $3000.

By carefully placing undesireable elements at every step, you are always psychologically tempted to "upgrade" and a $1000 purchase notion turns into a $3000 purchase reality. I understand it from Apple's viewpoint, but I can't say I don't harbor resentment about it. I've always hated the way Apple organizes their product lines.

 

What happens when you get to the top of the line and still want to upgrade?

 

I think that is big mistake. I took a good look at a MacBook and MacBook Pro. I decided not to get one because I do not want to pay for a 2.2 GHz processor and I wanted the better 256 MB video card. I do not need it, but if I bought a laptop with a nice video card, I want the larger amount of dedicated vram. I think Apple could get more customers by increasing their flexibility and offering more options like video card, screen resolution and processor.

 

It should be:

15.4" MacBook Pro

[ ] 2.2Ghz
[ ] 2.4 GHz

[ ] 120GB
[ ] 160GB
[ ] 160GB 7200rpm

[ ] 128MB VRAM
[ ] 256MB VRAM

[ ] 1400x900
[ ] 1680x1050

But Apple gets away with it. They charge a decent enough premium, and they do not incur the expense of having to deal with customization. You'll eat what I fix, and you'll like it.

 

I think a 2.0 GHz processor should be an option and also offer larger hard drives like a 7200 RPM 200 GB or a 5400 RPM 250 GB hard drive. I would never want a hard drive that big, but it will be nice for customers that want to store large video files on their laptop.

 

Well that's the whole point. Apple almost has to do this, since, as I previously mentioned, they don't have nearly the volume of someone like Dell.

Still, their customization options aren't really any worse than others, like Lenovo (unfortunately, I've always wished you could customize Thinkpads as much as a Dell).

That's when you realize you need a PC.

I agree with everything except the hard drives. For the MBPs the hard drive options should be more like:

[ ] 160GB 5400RPM
[ ] 200GB 7200RPM
[ ] 250GB 5400RPM


There's really no excuse for not offering those on their "best" laptop.

 

I'm a bit sad they didn't offer the Hitachi 7k200 as well. Ah well. I'm undecided if I want to invest in one myself - it'd be a huge pain to take it out and reinstall the old one again every time I send the MBP in for repair.

 

Whatever on the specifics, it's the general idea - let me choose me components. None of this stuff affects the reliability of the laptop.

And whatever Apple can't do because of volume, they make up for with their industry leading margins.

 

Exactly, just like Porsche.

 

I get it, but again, this just isn't going to happen. Apple has already made the decision to have two basic price points: $1999 and $2499. They aren't going to be adding additional configurations beyond that (with configurable CPU's, configurable GPU's, etc.).

Clearly what people are looking for here is for the MBP to be like the Inspiron, a single platform that could be configured with any number of GPU and CPU options, or at least to be able to configure a GPU with more VRAM without the rest.

But that isn't going to happen. It means adding another product price point, and Apple's goal for years has been to keep the basic product line as simple as possible.

Apple didn't always operate like this though; in the 90's they had the opposite problem, as they sold a kajillion different configurations and models.

So yes, this isn't good for everyone, and Apple competes in a market alongside other companies like Dell, etc. who can offer what people are looking for if these spec differences are that important.

But frankly, no-one's perfect. I imagine a lot of people would love to configure a Dell Inspiron 1520 with a GDDR3 packing 8600M GT.

Or I might like to get an Inspiron 1520 with an LED-backlit screen; or maybe I want that Inspiron with a matte screen but a 1440x900 resolution (but nope, only available with 1280x800).

Each company has to set some limits on configuration options.

I think what people are upset with here is that they want the machine with the 256MB of VRAM, but they don't want to spend $2499 on it. But the only way Apple would possibly change would be if sales of MBP's dropped; if people didn't buy the high-end model because it was too expensive for them, and also didn't buy the low-end model because it didn't have the components they needed.

Of course, this isn't happening; we can all sit here and argue for ages about issues like this, but Apple is selling MB's and MBP's as fast as they can make them. Certainly it would be great to see more configuration options, etc. (and maybe even stuff like dedicated GPU options in the MacBook, etc.) but again, I don't think Apple's going to fundamentally be changing their business model any time soon.

And hell, look at the Asus G1S; that has even less configuration options than the MBP does.

Or HP; I wish HP made a dv6500 with an 8600M of ANY sort in it, but it isn't even an option with them.

Or look at the ThinkPad; they put all sorts of limits on what particularly you can configure various ThinkPads with as well. Maybe I want a certain combination of configurations and can't get it with one of them.

Everyone has their own limits, etc.

-Zadillo

 

They will paint your car any color you want. You just bring them in a color sample, and they will match it. They charge crazy money for this, but they'll do it.

 

These are easy options.

There's no need to make bluetooth, wireless n, integrated gfx vs. 3 different video cards or any of that, just open up what you already offer.

It really would not be that hard and the preconfigured models would still sell well, since you'd prolly have to wait several weeks for a customized model.

I know why they do it, I just don't like them for it.

 

yeah, but they won't put in any engine you want...

 

RUF and your local mechanic for that.

The 911 Turbo engine is about the "any engine I would want" anyhow... it's not like AMD has anything that competes with it...

 

RUF? Pshaw, just drop an E30 Eta motor in it ftw ok.

 

True. You get stuck with a six cylinder engine instead of a V8.