2.2 GHz vs. 2.4 GHz... difference?
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
Thanks for the help folks!
Anytime... Except on weekends... and Tuesdays.
p.s. idk why.
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.
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...)
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....