Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: MacBook Pro 2.5GHz vs. 2.8GHz. Worth the $200 more?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2010

    MacBook Pro 2.5GHz vs. 2.8GHz. Worth the $200 more?

    Hi guys,

    Thanks in advance to you techies for your advisement!

    With ArtRage 4.5 coming soon -- and with it, much speedier painting at 300 DPI (and higher) print resolution -- I'm evaluating the new 15" MacBook Pros.

    The one I'm looking at is already configured with 16GB of RAM, and a 2.5GH processor. The question is, is it worth spending an additional $200 to bump that up to a 2.8GH processor? Will I see a noticeable difference in speed? Or does it really come down to the RAM, and ArtRage 4.5 being 64 bit?

    In ArtRage, I'd be working on canvases at least 10" x 15" at 300 DPI. Possibly larger in both canvas size and resolution.

    Thanks again!


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    If you can afford the extra $200 then do it. You can never have too much speed!
    Maker Of Replica Macoys

    Techie Stuff:
    ArtRage 5.0.8 ~ 15" Macbook Pro
    + 22" HD Monitor ~ macOS 10.13.6 ~ 4 Core i7 3.1GHz CPU ~ 16GB RAM ~ Wacom Intuos4 M and a Spyder4Pro (to keep the colours true!)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by Digger View Post
    The question is, is it worth spending an additional $200 to bump that up to a 2.8GH processor? Will I see a noticeable difference in speed? Or does it really come down to the RAM, and ArtRage 4.5 being 64 bit?
    Most likely you will not see any difference in speed - if you want speed, make sure you have an SSD hard drive and low latency memory. I have no idea what they put inside macs these days but there might not be that many options for either.

    Answer is no, it is not worth the $200. ^.^

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2013
    South Yorkshire, UK
    I don't really have a technical response but I think it's all down to how flexible your budget is. Like MarkW mentioned, if you can afford it then why not? Then again I'm not sure how much difference the extra 300MHz will really make. It may (or may not - I don't know) negatively impact power consumption which could be an issue if you're out and about with the MacBook?

    Is ArtRage the most demanding software you intend to run? If you're into video editing, 3D rendering etc. then sure there might be some value in the extra processor bump, especially if you're thinking of keeping the Mac running as long as possible. It makes sense to future proof it as much as you can. If you're the sort who likes to upgrade every 3 years or so, then maybe not. It's a personal choice that only you can answer.

    I'm running ArtRage 4 on a 3.4 GHz i7 iMac (27") with 16GB of RAM and it's laggy at high resolutions. Some of the art brushes (stickers) - bristle 1 and 2 for example, are laggy to both scale and paint with at larger canvas sizes or resolutions. I'd imagine the most important factor will actually be how effective the coding will be in the 4.5 release, as opposed to the processing power of the MacBook. The 64 bit nature of the software will allow it to access more RAM than it currently can so I'm hoping that will sort out much of the lag at high resolutions. I wait with much anticipation for the 11th Aug

    One question if I may. Is portability an issue? I only ask because a 15" screen isn't that big when it comes to painting and you can get a good specification 27" iMac for the same cost as the beefed up MacBook. You may get a bit more bang for your buck, certainly better graphics performance with a dedicated graphics processor compared to the integrated one in the MacBook.
    Last edited by Bertrude; 08-08-2014 at 09:58 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    I run Windows Vista on a 2.13GHz laptop with 4Gb ram and ArtRage 4 runs great on it as does Photoshop, video editing programs, games like FarCry 3, Deus Ex Human Revolution. There are so many variables that go into why something lags. Then again, I have no idea what my next computer will "look" like although I do think there's pressure to pay a lot of $$ for overkill ram - which 16 seems to be, to me anyway. I hate the thought of this machine eventually konking out and having to decide.

    But I do think screen size is important. That's why I have my 16" laptop hooked up to a 23" 16:9 flatscreen monitor. Best thing ever.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts