Going from 2.4ghz dual to 2.2ghz quad: a step up, down, or sideways?

February 16, 2012 11:03 AM

Graphic designer, currently using a 2.4GHz Core2 dual-processor MacBook Pro (2gb RAM). Considering a new i7 quad-core MacBook Pro; I could get either the 2.2Ghz or 2.4Ghz. Would rather save $400 and get the 2.2Ghz. Is this a step down because of clock speed, a step up because double the processors, or apples-to-oranges? Which would you recommend?

Either way, I'll load it with 8gb of RAM and opt for a 7200rpm drive. I do graphic design, including editing large photos and running several Adobe CS applications at once, and occasional video editing.

My question: will it make a difference to get the 2.4? Is going from my old 2.4 dual-core to a new 2.2 quad-core a step down, or still a step up, or neither? I'd rather save the money and get the 2.2 if there's not a huge difference. I'm also wondering whether, a year or two from now, I'd wish I'd gone with the slightly faster processor.

posted by barefoot to computers & internet (20 answers total)

It is a step up. Processors trump clock big time here.
posted by StUdIoGeEk at 11:05 AM on February 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

I had a quad-core MBP last summer and wasn't really impressed any more than a normal dual-core. As a GD I suppose Adobe products might make better use of the cores than my programming did, but if I was buying right now I'd just get the top dual, or whichever has the highest RAM capacity.
posted by rhizome at 11:06 AM on February 16, 2012

This is very much a step up. I had a Macbook (white plastic) with a 2.4ghz Core2 Duo chip; my new Macbook pro with a "mere" 1.7ghz dual-core processor is enormously faster. This isn't just about "more cores" - the new architecture is much, much faster, and comparing clock speeds (gigahertz) is apples-to-apples only within a generation.
posted by Tomorrowful at 11:07 AM on February 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

you get much faster processors and twice the amount of them. The i7 is 2 processors newer/better than a core 2.
it is considerably faster.....
Do you need the speed?
posted by StUdIoGeEk at 11:07 AM on February 16, 2012

Do use Illustrator? It's still single-threaded, and probably will be for the foreseeable future. It'll benefit more from clock speed. One of the few disappointments of my new iMac with the i7 with hyper-threading is watching 7 CPU meters sit at 0% while the 8th is pegged at 100% & Illustrator is churning away.
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:11 AM on February 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

All of these answers are very helpful; thank you (and please continue to chime in if you have info/opinions to add)!

One note: one of my frustrations with my current computer is how running many applications at once just makes it crawl. From the running-many-apps perspective, would the 2.4ghz make a difference? (I do use Illustrator, BTW, though more often it's InDesign, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, font-management, some Office apps, 1-3 web browsers at once with multiple windows, email, and IM.)
posted by barefoot at 11:22 AM on February 16, 2012

Devils Rancher: Turbo Boost, part of Core i5/i7 CPUs, will automatically run one core at a higher clock speed under heavy single-threaded loads. Some 2.2GHz Sandy Bridge Mobile i7 CPUs can boost all the way to 3.3GHz!

barefoot: to answer your follow-up question, more cores, and especially more memory, will address the running-multiple-apps performance. Save money on the CPU and buy more RAM.
posted by zsazsa at 11:26 AM on February 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

The i7's a wonderful chip. If you're running a 64-bit Photoshop and deal with large files and multiple windows, you should without question be upgrading to 16gb memory. This is going to have the biggest performance impact on CS, hands down.
posted by phaedon at 11:27 AM on February 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

The move from 2 gig of ram to 8 gig of ram is going to give you the biggest difference as far as having multiple apps open at once. The 4 cores will also really help with that. If you're writing big files & launching big applications, you might consider the SSD instead of the faster CPU. I talked my work into both, but if I had to pick one over the other, Id keep the solid state drive. Boot & app launch times, as well as file read/writes are crazy fast.

Keep in mind that while Apple says 8 gig is the limit, the new MBPs will actually accept 16 gig, though it's crazy expensive. The price will come down someday, and you can upgrade as you can afford it. I've got 12 gig in this iMac, and have yet to generate a 2nd swap file.
posted by Devils Rancher at 11:29 AM on February 16, 2012

"From the running-many-apps perspective"
Add as much ram as you can afford. It will help CS as well.
posted by StUdIoGeEk at 11:30 AM on February 16, 2012

Benchmarks seem to show the i7-2720QM is has more than twice the performance as the Core 2 Duo of similar clock frequency (T7400M) on single thread applications.
posted by Consult The Oracle at 11:32 AM on February 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

I feel like people are comparing your old CPU to your new CPU here, and that's not the question you're asking as I understand it.

It is not worth $400 to get the 2.4 over the 2.2 CPU. Spend the $400 on an SSD (aftermarket is cheaper) and it will make a huuuuuge speed difference over a 7200rpm HD.
posted by Jairus at 11:35 AM on February 16, 2012 [7 favorites]

One note: one of my frustrations with my current computer is how running many applications at once just makes it crawl.

Not a designer, but a lazy person who runs lots of things simultaneously: Four days ago I upgraded my mid-2009 13" mbp to 8 gigs of RAM and it's made a gigantic difference. Beachball? What beachball?
posted by rtha at 11:45 AM on February 16, 2012

You'll barely notice the difference in processor speed between the current 2.2 and the 2.4, and you'll barely notice the difference in speed between a 5400 and 7200rpm notebook hard drive.

The 2.4 also comes with a higher-end video card with 1GB of video RAM rather than 512MB, but you'd likely only notice that if you play a lot of 3D games or do real-time rendering work.

But whatever you do, don't pay Apple for additional memory. You could pay Apple $200 to bump the laptop from 4GB to 8GB, or you could pay Newegg $150 (yes, $50 less) to bump the laptop from 4GB to 16GB. It's easy to add it yourself, and it will make all the difference with large numbers of apps open.

Similarly, you likely wouldn't want to pay Apple $1500 for a 512GB SSD, but if you've got $650 you can spend, installing the Crucial M4 SSD will blow your mind.

A current quad 2.2Ghz MacBook Pro with 16GB RAM and a Crucial M4 SSD would be in a different universe of performance from the machine that you currently use.

But the upgrade that you can only get from Apple that really matters? Spring for the hi-res screen, whether your preference is glossy or matte. It makes a huge difference.
posted by eschatfische at 11:57 AM on February 16, 2012 [2 favorites]

"From the running-many-apps perspective"

Get lots of RAM.

Next: how big/fast/full is your current hard drive? When your system needs virtual memory it will go the disk. If your hard drive is getting full it will take longer for your system to swap things in/out of virtual memory.

Rule of thumb: plan on your hard drive being half empty. If your drive is more cramped than that, consider getting a larger HD.

(And I think you'd totally notice the difference between a 5400 and 7200 rpm HD).

Don't get hung up on the processor speed. If you find yourself currently doing work that is pegging your processor consistently at 100%, the extra clock rate may be beneficial. From what you say in the post, that's not you so the move to i7 is not a step down, even if you lose a few hundred MHz.
posted by mazola at 12:07 PM on February 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

The 2 MHz drop will not be significant but the drop in RAM on the graphics cards is significant (512 vs 1GB). So much of Photoshop is running off the GPU these days that it's a big performance issue. Not just relating to screen size either, a lot of the UI and plugins have optimized GPU code paths.
As noted above 16 GB of RAM will give a significantly larger boost than 8 in 64 bit Photoshop. Putting an SSD drive in will make your machine scream but it limits your disk space (and your scratch disk space), so it's more of a toss up.
posted by doctor_negative at 1:31 PM on February 16, 2012

If you do decide to upgrade, it might be worth holding out until summer. Rumors are suggesting all new laptop models.
posted by Fleebnork at 2:44 PM on February 16, 2012 [1 favorite]

Is your current laptop maxed out with RAM? I'd do that first (it won't be expensive) and then see if you even need a new computer.
posted by The Lamplighter at 3:32 PM on February 16, 2012

Many thanks for all the information and advice (even the conflicting opinions!)—this is all really very helpful. I was all set to go with the 2.2ghz... until doctor_negative rightly pointed out the difference in GDDRS. Argh, good point. I'm still leaning toward the 2.2, though. Appreciate the advice about going to 16GB RAM (Apple says they max at 8GB -- didn't realize that wasn't true) and installing an aftermarket SSD. (And I'm definitely getting the hi-res matte display.)

As for the wafer-thin new models coming out? Sigh. I think I'm doing the "lalalala I can't hear you" thing on that one. Thanks for the heads-up, though.

Happy to read any new info or opinions that come in. But again, thanks to each of you for weighing in!
posted by barefoot at 9:53 PM on February 16, 2012

Apple only officially supports 8 GB of ram, but the MacBook Pros from 2011 and on actually support 16 GB.

(That article claims it's $600 for 16 GB of the appropriate RAM, but it's only $160 on Newegg these days.)
posted by JiBB at 11:27 PM on February 16, 2012 [1 favorite]