Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Film Prof · Oct 17, 2008, 11:28 PM

Simple question. Is it worth $270 to upgrade from 2.53 to 2.8 on the new MBPs?

Film Prof · Oct 18, 2008, 12:25 AM

Anybody?

I'm going to plop down the money -- well, the credit -- soon, as my current MBP is crippled from a wine spill.

Is it worth it to spend the extra $270 for the extra speed? Will I even notice it if I'm just an average computer user who occasionally does some graphics intensive stuff when I teach film courses?

MikeD · Oct 18, 2008, 01:12 AM

when you say 'average', I would say 'no' get the 1.53 instead. I personally got the 2.8 because it would just keep me from upgrading maybe a few more months. You would probably see about a 10%+ speed increase or so. The way I look at it is that snow leopard will be coming out and of course will need slightly more power, so I'm future proofing my machine. You just need to weigh if that kind of thing is worth the $270. I was in the same boat as you - for about 10-20 minutes and then made up my mind and ordered. I sorta reasoned, that I was already spending a whole lot already, I may as well just upgrade the processor! I mean, tax alone was already going to be half that cost already!

issa · Oct 18, 2008, 01:32 AM

For the average user who will only perform intensive graphic operations on occasion, as you describe yourself, I would venture that you will find no real difference in performance. Beyond that, the rationale for the upgrade to 2.8 GHz is more for emotional satisfaction, much as MikeD describes.

That's my two yen's worth, since so few people are jumping in to comment. Enjoy your new machine!

Simon · Oct 18, 2008, 03:36 AM

Yep. The "average" user will not notice a significant difference. Even purely-CPU dependent tasks will see a maximum 10% improvement.

That said, the upgrade could increase the longevity of your MBP and it might increase the resale value as well.

Personally I'd decide based on my funds. If you have enough money to spec it decently and then still have some left over go for 2.8. If you're on a tight budget you'd be better off putting that money into more RAM, a bigger/faster disk, etc.

issa · Oct 18, 2008, 03:50 AM

Originally Posted by Simon

That said, the upgrade could increase the longevity of your MBP and it might increase the resale value as well.

Simon sums up well the two points I originally typed before sweeping them under the carpet as potential points of value from which one might derive emotional satisfaction.

Originally Posted by Simon

Personally I'd decide based on my funds. If you have enough money to spec it decently and then still have some left over go for 2.8. If you're on a tight budget you'd be better off putting that money into more RAM, a bigger/faster disk, etc.

Sounds like a solid approach to me.

ghporter · Oct 18, 2008, 08:41 AM

For speed, I'd simply go with the faster 320GB drive. Obvious differences in "average user" app performance are quite unlikely with the modest difference in processor speed. However, I'm with Simon on the long term utility of having the faster processor (and drive). My 2006 MBP is still going strong, but with Tiger it's got some speed issues, probably attributable to its 5400 RPM drive rotation speed. Because of that, next spring/summer, I'm planning on upgrading to a much larger, faster drive.

Film Prof · Oct 18, 2008, 03:23 PM

I was already planning on upgrading to the 7200rpm drive, since it's something like $45 to upgrade. And I think 320GB will last me awhile, since I've yet to fill the 160GB on my current MBP.

I'm going into debt for this, as it was an unplanned purchase. My current MBP is from November of 06, and still serves me well.

You've all give me some things to think about. Thanks.

infobhan · Oct 19, 2008, 02:52 PM

I was thinking of getting the 2.8 Ghz upgrade. The price is not what's stopping me, though. It's the fact that the 2.8 Ghz processor is a T9600 while the 2.53 is a P9500. Who cares? The T9600 is a 35W processor while the P9500 is a 25W processor. The 2.8 Ghz model will run hotter and will have worse battery life. It's not a worthwhile tradeoff in my mind for a small increase in performance. I have a first generation MacBook Pro and the heat makes it really unpleasant to use on the lap.

Simon · Oct 19, 2008, 03:36 PM

So do we have confirmation they're using the P9500 rather than the cheaper T9400 in the 2.53 GHz model?

issa · Oct 19, 2008, 03:51 PM

Originally Posted by Simon

So do we have confirmation they're using the P9500 rather than the cheaper T9400 in the 2.53 GHz model?

I can't verify what is being discussed, but threads on other forums seem to suggest that it is the T9400 and not the P9500.

kylef · Oct 19, 2008, 05:49 PM

Clock speed isn't everything. The upgrade from 2.53 to 2.8 (a meager 170MHz) would be noticed minimally even under intensive applications - memory is the key thing if your clock speed is decent (which even 2.1 is) and 1066MHz DDR3 will surely perform well.

You may see a difference in 300MHz, under intensity, but anything <200MHz gap you shouldn't be paying much extra at all unless the architecture / cache is better.

Karim · Oct 19, 2008, 08:42 PM

Originally Posted by kylef

Clock speed isn't everything. The upgrade from 2.53 to 2.8 (a meager 170MHz) would be noticed minimally even under intensive applications

Are you using on of those defective P4's for your calculator?

2.8 - 2.53 = 270 mhz

BTW, I *always* order the fastest configuration of laptop. It will last you the longest, assuming there isn't a major form factor or processor family change. And, there WILL be a processor family change next year.

I ordered a BTO 2.16ghz first gen Macbook Pro. I am only now upgrading to a 2.8 because it will represent when everything is accounted for, a 50% increase in performance. That is my minimum bar to change...

Film Prof · Oct 19, 2008, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by infobhan

I was thinking of getting the 2.8 Ghz upgrade. The price is not what's stopping me, though. It's the fact that the 2.8 Ghz processor is a T9600 while the 2.53 is a P9500. Who cares? The T9600 is a 35W processor while the P9500 is a 25W processor. The 2.8 Ghz model will run hotter and will have worse battery life. It's not a worthwhile tradeoff in my mind for a small increase in performance. I have a first generation MacBook Pro and the heat makes it really unpleasant to use on the lap.

Okay, this is an important consideration. My current MBP is from the first C2D release, and it gets pretty damned hot, particularly when doing anything graphics intensive.

Anybody have any more info on this?

infobhan · Oct 19, 2008, 10:26 PM

Originally Posted by issa

I can't verify what is being discussed, but threads on other forums seem to suggest that it is the T9400 and not the P9500.

You are quite right...at least according to GeekBench. If this holds up, I guess there's no point in not getting the 2.8.

Eug · Oct 19, 2008, 10:46 PM

I've always found that I only really notice speed increases when there is a 15% or more increase. With a 10% increase, it's hard to notice in every day usage, even with intensive tasks. Sure you may easily measure differences in encoding times, but I guess it's up to you whether it's worth it to have an encode finish 60 minutes vs. 54 minutes.

Doc HM · Oct 20, 2008, 02:57 AM

Originally Posted by MikeD

The way I look at it is that snow leopard will be coming out and of course will need slightly more power, so I'm future proofing my machine.

I thought the whole point of Snow Leopard was that it would actually need less power. It's going to be all about streamlining code and optimising performance for Intel Macs, not adding new bloaty features. So a 2.53GHz Mac that runs 10.5 fine should actually run 10.6 faster.

Simon · Oct 20, 2008, 05:17 AM

Originally Posted by Eug

I've always found that I only really notice speed increases when there is a 15% or more increase. With a 10% increase, it's hard to notice in every day usage, even with intensive tasks. Sure you may easily measure differences in encoding times, but I guess it's up to you whether it's worth it to have an encode finish 60 minutes vs. 54 minutes.

I absolutely agree with that. Clock improvements of 10% or less are not something you really notice. They can be measured, but if you want things to feel faster, you need 15% or more.

MikeD · Oct 20, 2008, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Doc HM

I thought the whole point of Snow Leopard was that it would actually need less power. It's going to be all about streamlining code and optimising performance for Intel Macs, not adding new bloaty features. So a 2.53GHz Mac that runs 10.5 fine should actually run 10.6 faster.

Usually, there is some part of the OS that would require slightly more.. I guess maybe just graphics then as we move forward. But even if the os was more streamlined, sure enough all the apps will always demand more. Maybe it be a new version of office, Adobe CS4...5... etc. Bottom line is that typically, the higher the processor speed you get, you'll be able to use your computer a little bit longer... Probably better for resale value too. If getting a computer on ebay, I'd be looking more at a higher processor speed than the others. So if I can keep this laptop even 10% longer with the 10% increase in speed...

Now, is it worth it... That's up to each individual.

Film Prof · Oct 21, 2008, 02:04 AM

So both the 2.53 and the 2.8 are the older model processors, and neither will run cooler than the other? Has this been verified?

I agree that keeping the computer 10% longer is worth an extra 10% of the price. So perhaps it's time to take the plunge and make the purchase.

issa · Oct 21, 2008, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by Film Prof

Has this been verified?

While I don't have irrefutable documentation from the maker in hand, there have been enough reports here in Japan and in various discussion forums to say with reasonable certainty that the CPUs in both the 2.53GHz and 2.8GHz MBPs share the same 35W TDW.

BTW, these are not older model processors. They are the latest from Intel. What was being discussed was the possibility that Apple might be using the lower power 25W version of the new 2.53GHz processor.

Simon · Oct 21, 2008, 11:14 AM

That is correct. 35W does not mean older CPUs. All unibody MB(P) CPUs are the new 45nm Penryn refresh (socket B) CPUs.

The point is that beside the XE and quad-cores Intel now has T and P category CPUs in the standard 35 mm package. The higher-clocked T series has a max TDP of 35W while the P series goes up to 25W.

The 2.53 GHz 45nm Penryn exists as the T9400 at 35W and as the P8700 at 25W. Both are new CPUs.

Also keep in mind that these are TDP figures. At idle it's not like the T is using 10W more than the P.

Film Prof · Oct 21, 2008, 06:41 PM

Thanks. I don't really keep on top of things with quite this level of detail. I had 45nm stuck in my head when I read the original post discussing the possible differences between the two chips, and the fact that both numbers were followed by a "W" just didn't register with me.

Looks like I'll go ahead and cough up the extra $270.

Hodog16 · Oct 23, 2008, 12:01 AM

I usually keep my computers for at least 4 years before upgrading, so I decided to upgrade to the 2.8.