15" MBP 2.2Ghz vs. 2.4Ghz

Wow how many tangents is this thread going to take

 

I moved back to see the old posts, but I'm to lazy to read page 0.5-3. Anyway here goes:

Yeah, all that is true, but I'm thinking that if I would go out and pay so much for so little I would go all the way with 17" and 1920x1200 because then I atleast get something more I want than only 128MB vram worth next to nothing for my money.

But for that price I may get a decent gaming PC once the 128MB 8600m GT isn't enough, if you play in Windows it's even less of a loss because then you don't have to dual boot longer either and can have the Macbook Pro as an OS X machine for all your serious stuff and play in Windows on the regular PC.

Or if you want to put it another way for the update you can get 3 laptops during the same time for the same price as 2 laptops with higher specs. And those 3 laptops will keep you more up to date anyway.

The question is how long 8600m GT will be enough anyway, I to would want 256MB vram, and it annoys the hell out of me that it's 45% faster in prey and 101% faster in SM2 game-test in 3dmark06, it would be so easy for Apple to not build a machine this retarded, but they do it anyway.

Even worse is that over here in Sweden I could get a Zepto with 8600m GT with 512MB vram, 1680x1050 screen (and 2GHz/100GB) for 30% less than the cheapest MBP.

That is without any OS and software thought.

Trust me, I'm WELL aware of this, and I don't give a **** about it. I just want tens of dollars worth of vram, not three ****ing hundres of dollars worth of 1/11th faster CPU.

Stupid Apple.

So why offer it? Why is it so necessary to have this useless modell and make the cheaper modell retardly balanced? The 2.4GHz CPUs cost much more so I seriously doubt Apple earns a whole lot more from it, probably similair in percentages, so I can't understand why it exist.

Except some video gurus would say "ohh, I want 2.4GHz but I don't wanna drag a 17" along.".
But I don't give a **** about them and they should get the 1920x1200 anyway! ;D

Yeah, thanks Apple, retards. In the end I ordered the MBP 128MB vram but I hate it, I would never have ordered that if it was a PC, but Apple doesn't give me any options unless I run a hack.

Which is what I will do on the gaming PC I will have to buy because of this later on...

Apple could offer 15.4" 2.2GHz 8600m GT 256MB and 17" 2.4GHz 8600m GT 256MB and we would be happy. Atleast I would.

Also the CPUs are fitted within a socket but the GPU probably isn't, so it's more work using two GPU configurations than not doing it.

So they would have LESS work if they offered all three mobos with 8600m GT 256MB and then just let you choose cpu between 2.2 and 2.4GHz if that is so ****ing necessary. They could even have added 2.0GHz for those of us who want to save 150-200 dollars more..

Yeah but his and my point is that we don't give a **** about the CPU.

I would argue the same if all the people who says "omg needs bluray" got their speak thru aswell, no chance in hell I want to pay for bluray.

Yeah, decent TFT resolution would be nice aswell.

Thought may I edit it a little?

[ ] 2 GHz
[ ] 2.2 GHz
[ ] 2.4 GHz

[ ] 2 GB ram
[ ] 4 GB ram

[ ] 120 GB hdd
[ ] 160 GB hdd
[ ] 200 GB hdd
[ ] 250 GB hdd

[ ] 15.4" 1680x1050
[ ] 17" 1920x1200

All models with 256MB vram.

Or just scrap it all and only offer:

[ ] 15.4" 1680x1050, 2.2GHz, 2GB ram, 120GB hdd, 8600m GT 256MB.
[ ] 17" 1920x1200, 2.4GHz, 2GB ram, 250GB hdd, 8600m GT 256MB.

Because apples prices for ram suck anyway ;D

 

I owned both the 2.2ghz and 2.4ghz and would say that the 2.4ghz is well worth the money for the 500 dollars. I remember on the 2.2ghz with 128mbvram I tried running a new game called s.t.a.l.k.e.r. and while I was trying to move around with the character, the fps was so slow that you couldnt tell the character movements because it skipped so bad and it was not near playable, but for the 256vram I ran it with higher options and it ran slow but it was playable and fps was much much much better. I'm just thinking about running leopard though because the 256vram would be best for running leopard and future proofing.
Also the minimum requirements for leopard with seeing all eye candy and running efficiently is 256vram and I know because that's what my cousin, who's a developer told me and seen in real life action from beta version on my previous 128vram and ihs 256vram.

 

I'm not so sure about that. Beta versions are often more resource-hungry than the final product, and I don't believe Apple would make Leopard require 256 MB of VRAM to run nicely, which would be even more resource-consuming than Vista is.

So your cousin is telling me only the high-end MBP and high-end iMac and Mac Pro will be able to run Leopard nicely, and the Mac Mini, the MacBook, the lower end MBP, the lower end iMac, and previous Macs won't be able to run Leopard nicely? If previous OS X releases are of any indication, OS X Leopard will run on all Intel Macs and older Macs just fine. I don't believe what your cousin states.

Post 3333 .

 

You need to tell this to all the people running the beta on PBs, iBooks, and MBs. I'm sure they would like to know that they must be imagining Leopard running on their obsolete machines.

 

Well that's what I thought as well because of the older g4 powerbook owners being left out. But honestly if I were to own an older powerbook I would just keep tiger running instead of leopard. I never seen leopard run on the powerbooks g4 or the ibooks and the leopard beta's are not as resourceful as you say (because even on the 2.4ghz mbp some things ran kinda sluggish). But if i'm right and my cousin is right as well and i'm sure he is, he's working on leopard as we speak.. the 256vram would be ideal for running leopard.

I'm pretty sure though that the g4 and older powerbooks/ibooks CAN run leopard but i'm sure it wont run very efficiently and as it should. But like I said again i wouldnt even try to run leopard on a g4 chipset even if it does have a 256vram on the later g4 models.

I have a feeling running leopard on the age old g4 chipsets will run the same as putting windows vista on a pentium 3 machine.

 

GUI-wise, what have you done in Leopard that didn't perform well with only 128MB of VRAM?

Generally speaking, the only scenarios I've heard of that would really tax a GMA950 chip or a 128MB X1600 or 8600M GT were pretty specialized scenarios - i.e. the combination of Expose and Spaces with dozens of open windows across multiple virtual desktops.

Typical GUI effects in Leopard shouldn't be that intensive, really.

 

hmm maybe the 2.2ghz will run fine, I'm still thinking about the 2.2ghz or the 2.4ghz... man its so hard a decision but my cousin and another friend pushed me to get the 2.4ghz told me I will not regret it and in the future if I were to resale it in 2 years or so it would be worth alot more..

 

I would not base the decision on retail value. 2 years from now, the retail value difference between a used 2.2Ghz MBP and a 2.4GHz MBP will not be all that great.

 

yes that may be true, but when I ebay it I know forsure more people will bid on the 2.4ghz with 256vram as to the 128vram

 

Right, I'm just saying 2-3 years from now, the difference will be less relevant - frankly you're even starting to see this now with the used prices of original 128MB X1600 Core Duo MBP's compared with 256MB X1600 Core Duo MBP's.

My main point is that spending the extra $500 now just for resale value in 2-3 years isn't going to do very well for you.

If you spend the extra money, you should do it because you're going to benefit from the extra VRAM while you own it.

-Zadillo

 

also in 2-3 years if your machine is still working fine maybe its worth keeping it then..?