2.2 GHz vs. 2.4 GHz... difference?

Jump to First Reply
Posted:
in Genius Bar edited January 2014
Hey there - new to the forum, but not new to Macs. I'm finally going to get a new laptop... I've been on the same PowerBook G4 since about 2002. I need some advice on processor speeds..... Is it really worth it for me to go up to 2.4 GHz? Would I really see a difference? I mostly use my computer to do mundane tasks (ie - MS word and Excel, iPhoto, iTunes and a bit of Photoshop). Would it be better to max out on hard drive space and stick to a 2.2? Please help me out! I would like to purchase a new laptop soon. Thanks!

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 13
    Marvinmarvin Posts: 15,585moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dylandog View Post


    Would it be better to max out on hard drive space and stick to a 2.2?



    Yes I would say so. The performance difference would be just under 10% if even that much. Get a 7200 rpm drive upgrade if you can, that will help a lot in Photoshop.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 13
    dylandogdylandog Posts: 7member
    wouldn't 7200 rpm kill my battery preformance while away from my charger? I only use Photoshop a few times a month at most. Should I stick to 160 Gb @ 5400 or 200 GB @ 4200?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 13
    I would go with the 5400 if you need to use battery a lot. Its plenty fast for most users.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 13
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    In reply to the headline: no difference. None.



    The absolute maximum improvement between those processors would be under 10%, and that was only if the workload was entirely bottlenecked by processor as opposed to bus, memory, hard drive or graphics. What that means is you'll never "see" over 5% and most of the time not even that.



    The best case of 10% is not really visible to human eyes. Just benchmarks.



    edit: if that's what you're doing on the computer, you hardly even need a Powerbook. If you want a large disk, in your shoes I might pick up a Macbook with large external screen, max the memory and HD with third party parts. Oh wait - that's what I did already.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 13
    I need to stay in a PowerBook/MacBook Pro because of some of the medical imaging I use. I prefer it for x-rays, CTs, etc because of it's fantastic screen and resolution. The other "mundane things" constitute a large portion of my at-home computing; but there are instances in which I will view patient results, etc at home.



    Another question - I wish to max out on HD space - is it the concensus that a 200 GB HD at 4200 is too slow? Should I go for the 160GB @ 5400? I know I'm probably nit-picking, but I don't intend on upgrading to a new system for a while. Thanks!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 13
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dylandog View Post


    I need to stay in a PowerBook/MacBook Pro because of some of the medical imaging I use. I prefer it for x-rays, CTs, etc because of it's fantastic screen and resolution. The other "mundane things" constitute a large portion of my at-home computing; but there are instances in which I will view patient results, etc at home.



    Another question - I wish to max out on HD space - is it the concensus that a 200 GB HD at 4200 is too slow? Should I go for the 160GB @ 5400? I know I'm probably nit-picking, but I don't intend on upgrading to a new system for a while. Thanks!



    IMO, You should stick with the 120@5400 and get a cheap FW removable drive for home and spillover and such because of Apple's ridiculous upgrade prices. On another note: Bandana.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 13
    Thanks for the help folks!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 13
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dylandog View Post


    Thanks for the help folks!



    Anytime... Except on weekends... and Tuesdays.



    p.s. idk why.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 13
    Marvinmarvin Posts: 15,585moderator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dylandog View Post


    wouldn't 7200 rpm kill my battery preformance while away from my charger? I only use Photoshop a few times a month at most. Should I stick to 160 Gb @ 5400 or 200 GB @ 4200?



    It shouldn't affect battery life that much because it transfers things quicker. Read a few of these threads:



    http://www.barefeats.com/5472.html

    http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/.../t-183384.html

    http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=204120

    http://forums.macnn.com/66/ibook-and...hd-v-s-5400-a/

    http://forums.macosxhints.com/archiv...p/t-59421.html



    The barefeats test shows there isn't a significant difference between the 7200 and 5400 for most people but dealing with large images will almost certainly show a good improvement. I've personally tested a 7200 rpm drive against a 5400 rpm while benchmarking photoshop and I got about 10% difference.



    Don't get the 4200 whatever you do. I still suggest the 7200 for working with large documents but the 5400 minimum.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 13
    sternonesternone Posts: 80member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dylandog View Post


    Hey there - new to the forum, but not new to Macs. I'm finally going to get a new laptop...



    Get the max cpu speed, the max memory and the fastest hard drive 7200rpm, you will eventually use a LACIE drive to backup or store data that you don't need all day...



    And as far for the battery, buy an extra adapter for in bed and get 2 extra batteries, if you need them on a plane you can play for more than 9hours... (i also got the plane connector, but it does not charge the batteries tough...)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 13
    A friend of mine is getting ready to make the jump. I suggested the 2.2GHz with the 7200 rpm drive, instead of the 2.4. One thing he had to decide on was - the video card ram. With the 2.2 you get 128MB vs. the 2.4 that comes with 256 MB. Since most of his work involves a monthly newsletter, I suggested the 128 seeing as how his newsletter is only 18 pages long. His biggest production was approximately 480MB in total size, so I did not think he would fall short getting the 128. Now that I think of it - maybe he could just do with a MB instead. Any comments on that would be welcomed.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 13
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Synapcoreb View Post


    A friend of mine is getting ready to make the jump. I suggested the 2.2GHz with the 7200 rpm drive, instead of the 2.4. One thing he had to decide on was - the video card ram. With the 2.2 you get 128MB vs. the 2.4 that comes with 256 MB. Since most of his work involves a monthly newsletter, I suggested the 128 seeing as how his newsletter is only 18 pages long. His biggest production was approximately 480MB in total size, so I did not think he would fall short getting the 128. Now that I think of it - maybe he could just do with a MB instead. Any comments on that would be welcomed.



    What I'm wondering is how the size of his newsletter has anything to do with amount of memory on the GPU....
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 13
    guess I should have explained a little more - actually the redraw on his graphics and pictures - i would not think having the 256 vs. 128 would make that much difference. maybe i am wrong.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.