15" macbook pro 2.2 or 2.4??

Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Points
1
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
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
111
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Mini i7, MBP 2.2GHz, Hackintosh (retired)
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.
 
OP
C
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Points
1
re...

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
 
Joined
Jun 18, 2007
Messages
113
Reaction score
2
Points
18
Location
Athens / Greece
Your Mac's Specs
Macbook Pro 15,4" 2,2Ghz - Nvidia 8600GT - 2Gb Ram / iPhone 1st Gen 16gb
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. :D
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.
 
Joined
Jun 19, 2007
Messages
118
Reaction score
0
Points
16
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
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
270
Reaction score
4
Points
18
Location
New York, NY
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.
 
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
111
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
Mac Mini i7, MBP 2.2GHz, Hackintosh (retired)
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.
 
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
41
Reaction score
1
Points
8
Location
Chicago
Your Mac's Specs
Macbook Pro Core 2 Duo 2.2ghz 2gb DDR2 8600gt w/ 128mb vram
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.
 
OP
C
Joined
Jun 30, 2007
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Points
1
re......

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
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
270
Reaction score
4
Points
18
Location
New York, NY
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.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
178
Reaction score
4
Points
18
Location
Winter Park, Florida
Your Mac's Specs
15" MBP 2.4 GHz C2D 160 GB HDD 2 GB RAM
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.
 
Joined
Jul 18, 2006
Messages
238
Reaction score
6
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
iMac 17" Intel Core Duo, 2 GB RAM + 20" ACD
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?
 
Joined
Jun 15, 2007
Messages
270
Reaction score
4
Points
18
Location
New York, NY
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.
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top