Switching From E7300 2.66Ghz Pc to 2.53Ghz MBP. Is This A Downgrade in Performance??

Hi, im thinking of buying a 2.53Ghz 13 Inch Macbook Pro. Im going to be switching from a E7300 2.66ghz Core 2 Duo PC with 2gb of Ram and Windows Xp. I need something a bit faster then my current configuration and was wondering if the 2.53Ghz Macbook Pro with 4gb of Ram would do me justice. I will be using it mostly for music production, using Propellerhead Reason software, and of course internet use, and HD video. Would I get better performance Switching to the 2.53ghz Macbook Pro?

 

The MBP is faster than your laptop, and the difference should be noticeable especially when processing HD video. Whether the difference is sufficiently significant is arguable, however.
If you're going to be using Windows anyway, I would recommend you get a Dell or HP with a Core i7, which would give you much more performance than the MBP.

 

Actually i plan on just using Mac OS..but i will install windows along side it...Could u explain how the Macbook pro is faster? thanks.

 

No actually based on the specs alone it is slower.
You should only buy a Macbook because you want OS X because otherwise most other Windows based laptop is much faster because the Macbook haven't really refresh for a long long long time.

 

The T9400 is a faster CPU than the E7300. And the MBP has faster and twice the amount of RAM than gregv03's current laptop. So unless I'm missing something gregv03's mentioned, the MBP should be faster.

 

Budding read that wrong I think (although he might be inclined to call any Mac faster than any PC ), but there wouldn't be any difference in terms of computational power - both would be pretty much the same, with the Mac slightly (and I mean *slightly*) slower.

You could get the same gains by throwing in more RAM into your desktop and re-loading it with Windows 7 64-bit, provided your software is compatible / can be upgraded. You could also put a better video card than the Mac in there for video work. So I guess it's about whether you want OS X, and whether you want something moveable.

Budding, I know how you are but it's a P8700 which is about neck and neck - but still slower - with the older desktop CPU. A T9400 is actually notably slower than an E7300. And besides, we're talking desktop vs laptop.

 

Looks like I forgot that the latest 2.5Ghz MBPs have the P8700 as opposed to the T9400 which was in the previous range. So in terms of raw processing speeds, the PC would be slightly faster. And, although the MBP does still have faster and more RAM, it will be bottlenecked by the HD.

Therefore, I stand by my original recommendation and would suggest a Core i7 laptop if gregv03 plans to mainly use Windows. Otherwise, if portability is not a major concern, an iMac with a Core i5 CPU would be perfect for his needs in OS X. However, if both OS X and portability are required, then there wouldn't be much choice other than the MBP.

Also, I would strongly advice members not to resort to insults, no matter how slight, especially towards the moderators of the forums.

 

I call that "pulling a K-TRON"


Anyway, yes your PC is faster, as I have already said in your other thread, it(E7300) has been overclocked over 4ghz.

But you wouldn't be able to really notice the difference unless you overclock.
And then again, there is nothing stopping you from overclocking the notebook.

 

If you really want a Mac laptop, and can wait... I'd wait for the next refresh of Mac laptops before deciding, they could be i5s and i7s. If you really need something now and can live without OSX, there are other laptops out there with more raw horsepower, if thats what you are needing.

 

Seems to me he should figure out whether he needs to do the most power-consuming element of what he wants to do on the move.

Basically, what does he want a laptop for. Running Windows on a Mac is a compromised experience, although many are bamboozled by the shiny machines - and perhaps having no decent machine beforehand - into believing it's a genuinely viable option. So if he wants a Mac, it should be for OS X - which involves rebuying software as well as a cost implication.

If he just wants to pep up the experience, he'd have to spend significantly more on a laptop to experience a genuine speed gain too. On the other hand, if he's just looking to add a low-power mobile element to his setup then a CULV ultraportable might be just as viable, for example.

 

Depending on what he's doing. Sometime the HW have more impact, HD, ram, video in particular. And some Applications run faster on Mac than PC and vice-versa.

 

this is funny. i'm actually considering building up a budget pc. It will have the following config:

intel core2duo e7400 @ 2.8ghz
4gb ddr2 800mhz ram
asrock motherboard with the intel x4500 gpu (the pci express 2.0 slot will be empty for the time being)
250gb ide hdd (pulled from my old pc)
dl asus dvd writer (pulled from my old pc)
pci wifi adapter
new tower (Standard cheapest one)

the total cost is approximating the $300 price point ($290 to be precise)

The reason of my building it up is that my old dinosaure (p4 1.8ghz, 512mb ram) is becoming too slow. I need something to be able to cut the cloth for 5 more years.. i bought my dinosaure in 2003 and it was quite a high specced pc at that time. Now i've gained in maturity and i'm able to custom build my pc. Once i get some money, i will definitely buy some decent gpu for that thing.