The difference between the 2.4GHz and the 2.66GHz MacBook Pro, a big difference?

I do professional photography and occasional games, I wasn't certain whether the difference in processor was huge or not, are the extra £300 justified? Thanks.

 

I'd say no, but you're going to want to look at benchmarks to decide for yourself.

I'd recommend googling for Anandtech's 2010 MBP reviews. as I recall, they compare the various CPUs.

 

use the money for the hi-res screen instead

 

No, that one costs £800 more I'm affraid

 

10% difference.

100mph vs 110mph.

50mph vs 55mph.

 

Is it a necessary boost for pro photo editing?

 

No, i had the MBP 2.4 and was really considering the 2.66 but you will hhear this answer a lot. Save the money and buy an SSD. Really, after i put in a 128 gb ssd, the computer got insanely fast when i put back the stock HD, it was unbearable. the 2.66 is not worth $300 premium definitely. if its the same price then yeah. The most i would pay extra for that boost is like $50 if that.

 

No.

It would only really be felt when video/audio transcoding. Depending on how big the project is, it can shave real time off the clock. but otherwise, you'll be *significantly* happier by putting that money towards an SSD.

that's the real difference-maker.

 

+1 for 2.4ghz and an ssd

 

Performance difference between the 2.66 and 2.4 same generation cpu's, as noted above, are on the order of less than 10%.

You can do some math and figure out how much faster things would be for various tasks, and then decide whether the time reduction is worth the price difference ... you're talking on the order of seconds (for CS5 filter edits on RAW images) to a couple of minutes (video encoding), in many cases.

If you remain undecided you must then answer for yourself - is that change in your workflow worth the price you would pay?

 

Any guesses as to what processor might feature in the 13" refresh? i3?

I'm holding out on buying until I know.

 

I'd like to see a Core-i3 in the MBP13 as well. At the moment the C2D that Apple has in the current version of the MBP13 works quite well for my needs (running Windows 7 virtually, and playing SC2 and WoW).

If Apple manages to squeeze in a Core-i5 into the MBP13, then I'll immediately switch to that to get Turbo-Boost support.

 

Placing the i3 into the 13 MBP will require that Apple change the graphics solution to either integrated Intel (unlikely) or a dual GPU system like the 15"/17" lines (highly unlikely). The i5 will almost certainly never reach below the 15" line, since that is a performance part and the 13" MB/P models are considered more consumer rather than professional models by Apple marketing.

They're quite likely to stick with the nVidia gpu solution for at least the next round of refreshes to keep the superior graphics performance it provides, which would mean still C2D cpu in the 13" line.

 

Since they see the air as the future, I see the next MBP a bit more streamlined, no optical drive, and a decent to good GPU and CPU...

 

I also smell pulling the optical drive so they can have space for intel + dedicated graphics autoswitching

 

they won't pull thd optical drive unless they're going to include a USB optical drive in every box. too many people use iMovie for them to jettison it.

that being said, it could be wrong. anything can happen.

 

I use iMovie but ... I don't see how that has anything to do with Optical Drives..

 

I assume people like to burn their movie creations to...

...optical disc. to play back in their optical DVD players. no?

(full disclosure: I've never used iMovie nor do I have an optical drive in my MBP. Just conjecture for me...I assume your average Mac user ocassionally burns CDs and DVDs and would be confused about how to watch their movies on their TV without a built-in optical drive)

 

I've used iMovie several times.. and never once did anything with it that required an optical drive.

making movies doesn't mean making DVDs.

 

If you're going to use this computer for professional photography then you should really consider something else. The most important thing you can have for professional photography is color reproduction. A Monitor with at least an 82% Adobe RGB color gamut and a 100% sRGB color gamut.

Macbooks and macbook pro's (sadly) are built for average consumers and for that reason their color reproduction is not suitable for serious photo editing.

An ISP panel display with proper color reproduction is worth more to a photographer than pretty much anything else.

I'm not saying don't get the laptop though, that's your call. (but know you'll need a good external monitor if you want to use it for serious photography) You won't notice a difference between the processors at all.

 

IPS panel

im going to agree with this as well. I spent my weekend installing IPS equipped laptops into a professional photography envireonment. they were amazed that they can have the quaity of a $2K external display on the move.

 

I think you guys are overstating the importance of IPS for photography greatly.

I do professional work on my MBP all the time. Most of the photographers I know aren't working on IPS displays either. No, the MBP display is not the best of the best (still reserved for the XPS16, Precision, old Vaio AW290s and HP Elitebooks), but it's MUCH better than most laptop displays. the matte display in particular, which is the one best for people who work with graphics and print (no black or white crush or "enhanced" contrast screwing up things like we see with the glossy screen).

At this point, I've found that proper color calibration for the display and printer being used is significantly more important than having a higher quality display. I think 3D artists and CAD types benefit from IPS displays much more than photo guys. If he wants a Mac, I'd recommend he get one with an IPS display and pick up a Spyder 3 or Eye-One Display color calibrator.

he can always get an external IPS monitor if he deems it absolutely necessary.

The only way he gets a better display than the MBP matte screen is if he goes with a workstation computer, which would kill his mobility for most intents and purposes (substantially less battery life) or if he goes with an XPS16 (also half the battery life), as far as I know.

 

Is there much difference in terms of heat/noise between the two processors?

 

Only at full load, as the voltage multiplier will be (slightly) higher; the lower voltage multipliers will be identical between them. Not more than 2-3C difference, I would expect, and only at load.

CPUs don't generate noise . It's the fan, but there shouldn't be any discernable difference between the two of them.

 

but...as it stands, using CCC and WinClone requires 2 very small steps once both are configured.

 

What are MBPs like in terms of fan noise? My previous laptop (Clevo) and current (Vaio) were/are pretty damn noisy, even when just browsing the internet. I know it depends largely on what you're doing but still, I'd like something quiet for once .

 

when Idle you won't here it, in a dead silent room (and I mean dead silent), you can just barely hear it, and I have very good hearing.

 

Well that certainly sounds like an improvement on my old and current laptops!

My old one I could hear from the room next door when the fans were really working hard, and my current one even when idle is clearly audible.

 

Check out this website, Mobile Processors - Benchmarklist - Notebookcheck.net Tech. Here you can select and compare the different processors.

I personally like to check the speed for calculating superpi with 2m because it gives an idea of how fast the cpu is through comparison. According to the website, I noticed that the speeds for the MBP CPUs are:

1) I7 - 640M (2.80) - 31.1s
2) I7 - 620M (2.66) - 32.7s
3) I5 - 540M (2.53) - 36.2s
4) I5 - 460M (2.40) - 37.6s

If you do the math, between 3 & 4 and between 1 & 2 the difference in speed is negligible. From 4 to 1 you gain about 18% speed and from 4 to 2 (which is what you asked) you gain about 13%. Is it worth it? It really depends on what you do. But if you average all the tasks that you do in a day I bet even the 18% gain is negligible.