New To Mac-Forums?

Welcome to our community! Join the discussion today by registering your FREE account. If you have any problems with the registration process, please contact us!

Get your questions answered by community gurus • Advice and insight from world-class Apple enthusiasts • Exclusive access to members-only contests, giveaways and deals

Join today!

 
Start a Discussion
 

Mac-Forums Brief

Subscribe to Mac-Forums Brief to receive special offers from Mac-Forums partners and sponsors

Join the conversation RSS
Switcher Hangout The place for switchers to discuss their new machines, and how to work with OS X. General support can be had here for newbie stuff, like "How do I restart my new iMac?" :)

15" macbook pro 2.2 or 2.4??


Post Reply New Thread Subscribe

 
Thread Tools
careyw

 
Member Since: Jun 30, 2007
Posts: 7
careyw is on a distinguished road

careyw is offline
hey...

i am planning on purchasing a macbook pro.

due to financial restraints, i find myself unable to purchase the 17", but am instead left with the question... should i go for the 2.2 ghz or 2.4 15"??

if i go the 2.4 i gain...
.2 ghz clock
40 gig hdd
128 mb more dedicated video

the doubling of dedicated video would be expecially important to me as i am purchasing a macbook pro to use final cut to professionally edit film....

so ... while it would be great to have these upgraded specs, is it worth the extra $700 or so?? i would love to have the 2.4 but i just can't decide if its worth it as i would struggle for the extra $700 somewhat

thoughts? comments??

cheers

carey
QUOTE Thanks
flowrider

 
flowrider's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 14, 2007
Posts: 111
flowrider is on a distinguished road
Mac Specs: Mac Mini i7, MBP 2.2GHz, Hackintosh (retired)

flowrider is offline
for the money and if you're going to edit professionally I would say get a desktop system instead. You just can't beat the power of a desktop especially when editing/rendering video.

But otherwise I think you've answered your own question about the benefits of the extra video ram.
QUOTE Thanks
careyw

 
Member Since: Jun 30, 2007
Posts: 7
careyw is on a distinguished road

careyw is offline
yes however portability is a big issue for myself, i really need my system to be portable, not a desktop, makes it a lot more useful as i am not always editting at home.

but yes i had thought that myself with the extra 128 vid ram... but does anyone know how well the 2.2 would run with just the 128, ie how important is the upgrade? could u get away with the 2.2?

cheers

carey
QUOTE Thanks
cheez

 
cheez's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 18, 2007
Location: Athens / Greece
Posts: 113
cheez is on a distinguished road
Mac Specs: Macbook Pro 15,4" 2,2Ghz - Nvidia 8600GT - 2Gb Ram / iPhone 1st Gen 16gb

cheez is offline
hello to all thats my first post.
im a switcher for 2 days now and im a happy macbook pro 2.2ghz owner.
im a 3d modeller and i also work with after effects photoshop and that stuff...so far my macbook pro seems to be perfect...
i agree that the best choice is a desktop and not a notebook, i also wanted portabillty so i bought a macbook pro.
i had the same problem trying to think which macbook is best for me...and i think i did the right choice...nvidia 8600GT that this machine got its awsome and very very powerfull and i think u will be great with that.
but oh well this is ur choice...only u know which mac fits to you better...im just telling that im sure you will not having any problem with ur work buying the 2.2 version.
QUOTE Thanks
elbolao23

 
elbolao23's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 19, 2007
Posts: 118
elbolao23 is on a distinguished road

elbolao23 is offline
personally i dont think that .2 difference and 128mb extra ram are worth 500$, but thats my opinion..like everybody else said, its your choice, with that extra 500 bucks i would go get an iPhone if i were you, that way you'll have two extra cool gizmos, or a Video Apple, the big ones, and u still got money left over, for like idk costumizing the mbp with skins and stuff....thats what i would do if i had the money

QUOTE Thanks
Title27GT

 
Member Since: Jun 15, 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 270
Title27GT can only hope to improve

Title27GT is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by flowrider View Post
for the money and if you're going to edit professionally I would say get a desktop system instead. You just can't beat the power of a desktop especially when editing/rendering video.

But otherwise I think you've answered your own question about the benefits of the extra video ram.
Actually I must completely disagree with you. Mac Pro MAYBE, but the MBPs are much more powerful than the iMacs.
QUOTE Thanks
flowrider

 
flowrider's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 14, 2007
Posts: 111
flowrider is on a distinguished road
Mac Specs: Mac Mini i7, MBP 2.2GHz, Hackintosh (retired)

flowrider is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Title27GT View Post
Actually I must completely disagree with you. Mac Pro MAYBE, but the MBPs are much more powerful than the iMacs.
Sorry I should have been more clear. I meant the MacPro. I think the iMacs are large unportable laptops in a way because they have no upgradeability.
QUOTE Thanks
physco827

 
Member Since: Jun 16, 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 41
physco827 is on a distinguished road
Mac Specs: Macbook Pro Core 2 Duo 2.2ghz 2gb DDR2 8600gt w/ 128mb vram

physco827 is offline
http://www.barefeats.com/rosa03.html

2.4ghz with the 256mb of vram only performs on average 5% better in 3d applications. Not worth the $500 bills.

I got the 2.2ghz all because of the benchmarks.
QUOTE Thanks
careyw

 
Member Since: Jun 30, 2007
Posts: 7
careyw is on a distinguished road

careyw is offline
mmm interesting...
sounds like most people think that the extra $$ wouldn't be worth it. does anyone know wat apps would benefit from the extra 128 ram?does anyone have final cut and can vouch that it runs fine with 128mb? say if u have final cut, motion, compressor running at the same?
cheers
carey
QUOTE Thanks
Title27GT

 
Member Since: Jun 15, 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 270
Title27GT can only hope to improve

Title27GT is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by flowrider View Post
Sorry I should have been more clear. I meant the MacPro. I think the iMacs are large unportable laptops in a way because they have no upgradeability.
I agree.
Apple defenitely is planning an iMac upgrade soon. It's common sense. It's unlike Apple to have their main consumer desktop line SO far behind their Laptop line. At this point, even the MacBooks have caught up with the iMacs.
QUOTE Thanks
killedbyinterne

 
killedbyinterne's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 13, 2007
Location: Winter Park, Florida
Posts: 178
killedbyinterne will become famous soon enough
Mac Specs: 15" MBP 2.4 GHz C2D 160 GB HDD 2 GB RAM

killedbyinterne is offline
If you're going to be using the entire Final Cut Pro 2 Suite then I would go for the better video card. Motion ,for example, is a very graphics heavy program and would benefit from the added VRAM. I plan on using my MBP for the same applications and am going for the 2.4 model.
QUOTE Thanks
Sandwichman

 
Sandwichman's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 18, 2006
Posts: 238
Sandwichman will become famous soon enough
Mac Specs: iMac 17" Intel Core Duo, 2 GB RAM + 20" ACD

Sandwichman is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Title27GT View Post
I agree.
Apple defenitely is planning an iMac upgrade soon. It's common sense. It's unlike Apple to have their main consumer desktop line SO far behind their Laptop line. At this point, even the MacBooks have caught up with the iMacs.
Except they have no dedicated graphics card... and much smaller screens, even using the smallest (17") one as a guide. The MacBooks are perfectly fine machine, but the iMacs are simply a trade-off- do you want portability or power/screen real estate?

Sitting, waiting, wishing...
QUOTE Thanks
Title27GT

 
Member Since: Jun 15, 2007
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 270
Title27GT can only hope to improve

Title27GT is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sandwichman View Post
Except they have no dedicated graphics card... and much smaller screens, even using the smallest (17") one as a guide. The MacBooks are perfectly fine machine, but the iMacs are simply a trade-off- do you want portability or power/screen real estate?
I think the MacBook is a perfectly powerful machine. Keep in mind that most mac users are not gamers and graphics really doesn't matter to them. In that respect, the screen size is perfect, because with it sitting directly in your lap it looks more like a 15-inch screen.
QUOTE Thanks

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe


« AIM Problem | Downloading Mac apps onto a PC »
Thread Tools

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Macbook Black vs Macbook Pro brinasty Apple Notebooks 9 04-28-2007 01:17 PM
Half-Life 2 on a Macbook Pro vandal31593 Apple Notebooks 10 07-07-2006 02:18 AM
Macbook Pro 17" is actually cheaper than 15" imaging Apple Notebooks 5 06-04-2006 03:01 AM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:35 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
X

Welcome to Mac-Forums.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

New members like you have made this community the ultimate source for your Mac since 2003!


(4 digit year)

Already a member?