Is the 15" MBP 2.4ghz worth the extra cost?

Hi guys, guess my question is self explanatory. I'm hoping to get a MBP to replace my MB. I really appreciate the hot thread with the benchmark between the 128 and 256 machines.

I'll be using photoshop, doing usual school work and some gaming but I'm sure there's nothing the 2.2 model can't handle. So I'm just not sure whether the higher end model is worth the premium. Thanks!

 

No, none of those things would really require you to spend the extra money (except the gaming perhaps, but you'd probably still be fine with the base model anyway).

You should be fine with the base model.

 

Imo the 2.4 model is just for people who want to pay extravagant to have the best of the best. Like a marketing trick. It's only worth it (maybe) if you want to game on it, but for that you would better use a desktop anyway, so you can abuse the keyboard.

 

If you're into gaming, the increase of dedicated video ram would be a noticed increase in performance.

 

I'm not even so sure about the real increase in gaming performance. There's another thread in the Apple forum that consists of comparisons between the 128MB and 256MB versions, and we're seeing differences from 3% to over 100%.

As far as I'm concerned, the increase in performance is too erratic to be considered. They have the same specifications, and the only difference is an increase in vRAM. This will have a large bearing on texture-heavy games, but I don't expect the real-world difference to truly be greater than 50%.

I say get the base model and leave it at that.

 

The 15 inch one with the 2.4 ghz uses an LED screen you know.. I'm not sure on the other one.

What I meant was, the gaming experience would be a bit better than the other one. Not a heavy increase, just a little increase in performance( running faster).

 

Both 15" MBPs have LED back lit displays!!!

The 256MB VRAM are the sweet spot for games today. The 100% performance increase in many of the newer games are consistent. I went with the 2,4GHz version since I really want to replace my Desktop. I can't justify having an extra computer to play the occasional game. Even if I only play occasionally, I wanna play it in good quality, so!

 

go with the base model, you won't be dissapointed

on another note:

i don't the $500 is to much for that upgrade at all look at the prices of processors, going from 2.2 to 2.4 will be a significant amount.

 

+200MHz per core
+40GB hard drive
+128MB VRAM

$500

not really worth it...

 

Both 15" models have LED backlights. Only the 17" does not. And by the way, having LEDs, contrary to ricer belief, does not increase speed.

 

Seems to me it depends, along with the issues already mentioned, on how much money is available to you. If the $500 won't put much of a dent in your pocket change, maybe the more expensive machine is a good choice for you.

 

I personally went with the 2.2 ghz model, and I love it. So far it's run everything just phoneominal (CS:S, HL 2, both with FPS consistently over 100, Prey with everything maxed, including AA and AF, and it's 40-60 FPS, totally playable).

I'd go with the 2.2 ghz model, unless you've got some extra money to burn.

 

LIES!

Its been proven that photons from LEDs move faster than CCFL photons!

*Disclaimer: CCFL photons subject to black hole testing conditions.

 

The LEDs do "turn on" faster than CCFL lamps though.

 

I would get the 2.4 if you have the extra cash...you might not use all that power now but you wont be left wishing you had bought the 2.4 model later if a great game comes out that you must get. Video drivers are still new for these cards so you can expect it will only get better in time.

 

Part of the thing is, even with the 256 mb VRAM in the 2.4 ghz model, you are still going to need more VRAM than 256 mb to run the "games of the future," which means that both models will have to access the normal ram as shared VRAM in order to play future games.

I have heard that the 8600M (in the Asus laptops) gets twice the FPS when you had 3 gb of ram in Vista. I believe this is because, once the MBP has 3 gb of ram, there is more shared Vram available. My hypothesis is that once both the 2.2 and 2.4 ghz laptops have 3gb of ram, I think we would see less of a performance difference.

So, sure, the 256 mb will run a bit faster (partially because of a higher clock on the card, I believe), but I don't see it running much faster once both cards have access to 3 gb of shared memory.