Macbook Pro 2.4GHz vs 2.6GHz

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
I?m trying to determine what the performance difference is between the 2.4GHz and 2.6GHz MBP. So, please let me know if you agree with my logic or if you have any additional info that will help clear this up for me.



I know the 2.6 option is just a .2 increase from the 2.4, but in a dual-core environment that translates into a .4 increase overall. Correct?



Also, the Apple website lists the performance stats of the new 2.6 under the Intel and Graphics links of the Macbook Pro section, but lists the performance stats of the 2.4 in the Store (under Compare Specs > Performance Charts). If you compare the two you can see how they both perform against the 2.16 baseline. Here?s how it plays out?



Logic Test ? 2.6 is 73% faster than the 2.16, while the 2.4 was 55% faster. That translates into a 33% increase from the 2.4 to the 2.6.



Photoshop ? 2.6 is 72% faster, the 2.4 was 39% faster, which equals an 85% increase from the 2.4 to the 2.6.



FCP ? 2.6 is 66% faster, the 2.4 was 52% faster, overall a 27% increase from the 2.4 to the 2.6.



Aperture ? 2.6 is 66% faster, the 2.4 was 28% faster, overall a 136% increase from the 2.4 to the 2.6.



Doom ? 2.6 was 60% faster, the 2.4 was 50% faster, overall a 20% increase.



Motion ? 2.6 was 48% faster, the 2.4 was 37% faster, overall a 30% increase.



These seems to point to a pretty good performance bump between the 2.4 and 2.6. Would you agree?



Thanks!

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 7
    That's more significant than I thought it would be.



    I put in an order for a 2.6 mbp the day of the release at 5am PST ( I was trolling the boards watching for an update). It says up to 3 weeks delivery, hopefully they will surprise us on the upside and ship the dang things. I think Intel is just real short of chips.
  • Reply 2 of 7
    You get the same 2 to 3 week lead time if you go with the 2.4 and upgrade to the 250mb hard drive. So, I'm not sure if it's a chip shortage or just the standard lead time for a custom config. Enjoy your new MBP.



    I also called Apple and asked them for their performance metrics between the 2.4 and 2.6. The rep on the phone didn't refer to any specific test results but said to expect "about an 8% increase" in speed.



    I'd like to know if anyone else has any additional info.
  • Reply 3 of 7
    irelandireland Posts: 17,534member
    My iMac is 2.8
  • Reply 4 of 7
    tubgirltubgirl Posts: 177member
    sorry, but i think your math has gone broken.



    if A is 73% faster than C, and B is 55% faster than C, then A is 11.6% faster than B, not 32.7%.

    which makes more sense, since the difference in clock rate is about 8%. (and not 84%)
  • Reply 5 of 7






    You are a sick person for having that Username.
  • Reply 6 of 7
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zarneski View Post


    I?m trying to determine what the performance difference is between the 2.4GHz and 2.6GHz MBP. So, please let me know if you agree with my logic or if you have any additional info that will help clear this up for me.



    I know the 2.6 option is just a .2 increase from the 2.4, but in a dual-core environment that translates into a .4 increase overall. Correct?



    Also, the Apple website lists the performance stats of the new 2.6 under the Intel and Graphics links of the Macbook Pro section, but lists the performance stats of the 2.4 in the Store (under Compare Specs > Performance Charts). If you compare the two you can see how they both perform against the 2.16 baseline. Here?s how it plays out?



    Logic Test ? 2.6 is 73% faster than the 2.16, while the 2.4 was 55% faster. That translates into a 33% increase from the 2.4 to the 2.6.



    Photoshop ? 2.6 is 72% faster, the 2.4 was 39% faster, which equals an 85% increase from the 2.4 to the 2.6.



    FCP ? 2.6 is 66% faster, the 2.4 was 52% faster, overall a 27% increase from the 2.4 to the 2.6.



    Aperture ? 2.6 is 66% faster, the 2.4 was 28% faster, overall a 136% increase from the 2.4 to the 2.6.



    Doom ? 2.6 was 60% faster, the 2.4 was 50% faster, overall a 20% increase.



    Motion ? 2.6 was 48% faster, the 2.4 was 37% faster, overall a 30% increase.



    These seems to point to a pretty good performance bump between the 2.4 and 2.6. Would you agree?



    Thanks!



    If you're looking for the best performance, and it seems you are, I would wait for Penryn MBPs to be released. It should be soon.
  • Reply 7 of 7
    pbpb Posts: 4,231member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zarneski View Post


    Logic Test – 2.6 is 73% faster than the 2.16, while the 2.4 was 55% faster. That translates into a 33% increase from the 2.4 to the 2.6.



    Photoshop – 2.6 is 72% faster, the 2.4 was 39% faster, which equals an 85% increase from the 2.4 to the 2.6.



    FCP – 2.6 is 66% faster, the 2.4 was 52% faster, overall a 27% increase from the 2.4 to the 2.6.



    Aperture – 2.6 is 66% faster, the 2.4 was 28% faster, overall a 136% increase from the 2.4 to the 2.6.



    Doom – 2.6 was 60% faster, the 2.4 was 50% faster, overall a 20% increase.



    Motion – 2.6 was 48% faster, the 2.4 was 37% faster, overall a 30% increase.



    Oh la la! This is what we call nonlinear sciences.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by zarneski View Post


    These seems to point to a pretty good performance bump between the 2.4 and 2.6. Would you agree?



    Of course not. You just proved that you have not even the intuitive feeling of what some numbers represent. Sorry, I don't want to be rude, but you really need to work out your sense of "quantity".
Sign In or Register to comment.