Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

returning new 2.2 MBP for 2.4 MBP?

J

jackdanny

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Aug 6, 2007
12
0
hi all,

just got my new 15" 2.2 MBP and love it so far, but i cant help wondering if I shouldve gone for the 2.4 instead! Do you think its possible to return my MBP to Apple and ask to get a 2.4 sent instead? Obviously I'd have to pay a bit more but I'd be happy to do that. Just wondering if Apple do a 30 day no quibble money back kinda thing or am I just outta luck?
cheers!
 
If you love it, then why switch it out? You aren't going to notice a difference unless you are doing very processor intensive tasks all the time. And yes, Apple has a 14 day grace period where you can return your Mac for any reason, although there is a 10% restocking fee if it is open.
 
I did the same thing, had a 2.2 with yellow tint took it to the Apple store they had no glossy 2.2 so they gave me a matte 2.4 for just 40ish bucks for tax....the funny thing i do see a difference... i say do it!
 
Cybergypsy said:
I did the same thing, had a 2.2 with yellow tint took it to the Apple store they had no glossy 2.2 so they gave me a matte 2.4 for just 40ish bucks for tax....the funny thing i do see a difference... i say do it!
Click to expand...
Well, they "gave it to you" because you drove 1.5 hours after they promised you a 2.2 and they didn't have one when you got there, no? :)
 
the whole point here is if the OP should get a 2.4, I dont care if he pays cash or what, I do see a big difference in the two MBP....maybe its me maybe not:)
 
I'm not disputing the speed difference, I just wanted to set his expectations.

You said "they gave it to you", where his experience may be they charge him a 10% restock fee for returning his old one and then charge him full price for the new one.

Or they may just charge him the difference. Who knows? :)
 
why upgrade if youre already enjoying the 2.2Ghz? theres always going to be something better than what you have, and the upgrade will be endless and neverending. just enjoy what you have now, and trust me you'll be much more satisfied with your purchase and learn to enjoy it more.

on a more technical note, is there a need for you to upgrade? unless you do something that really demands the .2Ghz increase and extra 128MB of VRAM, then the extra $500 increase and possible restocking fee is quite pointless.
 
With Apple you have a 14 day return. But like others have said, if your happy, why change. Do you need the extra speed or do you want the extra speed. I have a 2.16 MBP, I love having the best/fastest, but really I saw no point. Others say they can see the difference if you need it then great, if not 2.2 is still pretty damn fast.
 
okay, 200Mhz is not going to be a noticable (or at least barely noticeable) difference in speed.
the 256MB GPU only has a 10% performance increase over the 128MBP anyway...

sure, 200Mhz was a lot for single core processors (in the early days:rolleyes:), but with dual cores and the crazy speed of the MBP, you're not going to miss anything but your money :D

if you love your MBP, stick with it!!!!

aristobrat said:
I'm not disputing the speed difference, I just wanted to set his expectations.

You said "they gave it to you", where his experience may be they charge him a 10% restock fee for returning his old one and then charge him full price for the new one.

Or they may just charge him the difference. Who knows? :)
Click to expand...


eh, why would they charge you a 10% restocking fee??? wouldn't his laptop then become a refurb because they can't sell it (legally) new????
 
sbluetruck said:
the 256MB GPU only has a 10% performance increase over the 128MBP anyway...
Click to expand...

This is a bit misleading.

The difference in VRAM is negligible now on game engines that are 2-4 years old (the ones most people used to test the GPU). Engines such as the Q3 and D3 engines were often used.

Fast forward a couple of years and that VRAM difference will become much more significant.

Having said that, if you have the 2.2 I would keep it. You'll be fine.
 
the graphics card makes a very noticable difference..trust me..its really worth it if you do any graphic designing or gaming or whatever.
 
XheartcoreboyX said:
the graphics card makes a very noticable difference..trust me..its really worth it if you do any graphic designing or gaming or whatever.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about with graphic designing? Photoshop is CPU intensive, not GPU intensive, and the difference for games is only around 10%. It's not worth the extra $500 plus 10% restocking fee.
 
XheartcoreboyX said:
the graphics card makes a very noticable difference..trust me..its really worth it if you do any graphic designing or gaming or whatever.
Click to expand...
can you be more specific as to what those applications might be? as a normal computer user, the differences between the two models are very minimal. the only condition where I see a benefit in having the 2.4Ghz would be running a programing software and something like Final Cut Pro in the background while outputting to a 30" ACD. other than that, the 2.4Ghz IMHO is just overkill.
 
Interesting reading here. I'll have to choose between the 2 configs next week.

I'm going to use the MBP mainly for making music (Ableton Live).

But I also like playing GTA SA once in a while and at sometime the new GTA 4 may be released for PC. (I'll run it via boot camp) Or Mac too???

In Denmark the price for the 2.4 Ghz is quite a lot more than for the 2.2 GHz.
It's about 540 USD.

So will it be worth it with the extra power and the better GPU(50% increase no?)?

One other question: I'm just making the switch from PC. :)
I've heard that Macs are utilizing the CPU and Ram more effeciently than PC's. Is that true/still relevant? I hope so and I believe so since the minimum requirements for running Vista is now 1 GB Ram. :eek:

Your opinions are much anticipated. Thanks
 
Soarer said:
Interesting reading here. I'll have to choose between the 2 configs next week.

I'm going to use the MBP mainly for making music (Ableton Live).

But I also like playing GTA SA once in a while and at sometime the new GTA 4 may be released for PC. (I'll run it via boot camp) Or Mac too???

In Denmark the price for the 2.4 Ghz is quite a lot more than for the 2.2 GHz.
It's about 540 USD.

So will it be worth it with the extra power and the better GPU(50% increase no?)?

One other question: I'm just making the switch from PC. :)
I've heard that Macs are utilizing the CPU and Ram more effeciently than PC's. Is that true/still relevant? I hope so and I believe so since the minimum requirements for running Vista is now 1 GB Ram. :eek:

Your opinions are much anticipated. Thanks
Click to expand...

The 2.2 should be good enough as Ableton Live doesn't use the GPU. As for games, there is no 50% increase. Like previous posters have said, it's around 10%. For $540, you can upgrade to 4gb of ram, faster/bigger hd or external hd, all of which would give more performance boost than the extra 0.2ghz and 128 vram.
Macs are better at utilizing the CPU and RAM :D. OSX itself isn't a resource hog like Vista. You don't need minimum of 1gb to run Tiger. Even the minimum requirement for Leopard is 512mb for intel machines and 256mb for PowerPCs. The stock 2gb would suffice nicely, and the machine will fly if you upgrade to 3/4gb.
 
Ibought the 2.2 did not need to have anything more forwhat i do, yes i was given a 2.4 and for just everyday this one seems much quicker , thats just my 2 cents :)
 
Cybergypsy said:
Ibought the 2.2 did not need to have anything more forwhat i do, yes i was given a 2.4 and for just everyday this one seems much quicker , thats just my 2 cents :)
Click to expand...

Could it just be psychology? Because it's faster on paper, so you feel it's faster? Check your activity monitor and see how much of the CPU you're actually using. I'd say anywhere above 15- 20% idle means you would have the exact same performance on a 2.2.
 
Thanks teflon!

Sounds really good. I'll go for the 2.2 GHz then. It's far too much money for too little extra performance. But I won't get the 4 Gb Ram since it costs 5110 DKK = 921 USD!!! here in Denmark. I think I will add the extra RAM myself later if I need to.
 
If anything at all what cybergypsy notice is a faster harddrive. I doubt anything else matters during non-gaming.
Thought then I don't know if the 160GB one is faster but it's likely.

Regarding this 10% BS can we please stop it since it's with old games in os x at low resolution.

Rob art redone the test with ultra quality and in prey with 1440x900 and some aa and af and the 256MB vram starts to help and therefor it gives a say 40-800% improvement in FPS.

Also the difference is larger when you run Windows and even if it wasn't you are likely to get around twice the performance at the same settings playing in Windows instead of OS X.

Apple really need to improve their opengl framework.

Links and some quotes from when I pasted it on IRC here:
http://www.sweclockers.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=703836&8600m+256mb+prey
 
Don't return it unless there is something wrong with it. Save your money and max out the ram.

Nuc
 
aliquis- said:
If anything at all what cybergypsy notice is a faster harddrive. I doubt anything else matters during non-gaming.
Thought then I don't know if the 160GB one is faster but it's likely.

Regarding this 10% BS can we please stop it since it's with old games in os x at low resolution.

Rob art redone the test with ultra quality and in prey with 1440x900 and some aa and af and the 256MB vram starts to help and therefor it gives a say 40-800% improvement in FPS.

Also the difference is larger when you run Windows and even if it wasn't you are likely to get around twice the performance at the same settings playing in Windows instead of OS X.

Apple really need to improve their opengl framework.

Links and some quotes from when I pasted it on IRC here:
http://www.sweclockers.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=703836&8600m+256mb+prey
Click to expand...
you are correct, it opens apps and snaps to photos in a flash, like i had said i was gong to stick with the base model, but this was free....you will be great either way :) now go enjoy it....
 
Soarer said:
Thanks teflon!

Sounds really good. I'll go for the 2.2 GHz then. It's far too much money for too little extra performance. But I won't get the 4 Gb Ram since it costs 5110 DKK = 921 USD!!! here in Denmark. I think I will add the extra RAM myself later if I need to.
Click to expand...

Congrats on the choice! And yea, don't get ram from Apple. You can get the same thing for 1/3 of the price.

aliquis- said:
Regarding this 10% BS can we please stop it since it's with old games in os x at low resolution.

Rob art redone the test with ultra quality and in prey with 1440x900 and some aa and af and the 256MB vram starts to help and therefor it gives a say 40-800% improvement in FPS.

Also the difference is larger when you run Windows and even if it wasn't you are likely to get around twice the performance at the same settings playing in Windows instead of OS X.

Apple really need to improve their opengl framework.

Links and some quotes from when I pasted it on IRC here:
http://www.sweclockers.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=703836&8600m+256mb+prey
Click to expand...

The difference is not more than 10%. Barefeat ran tests using Quake 4, Doom 3, WoW, Halo, Prey among others with 1920 x 1200 and found 9% difference at the most.
http://www.barefeats.com/rosa03.html
The 15" MacBook Pro 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo (256MB GDDR3 video SDRAM) was at most 9% faster than the 15" 2.2GHz MacBook Pro (128MB GDDR3 video SDRAM). If we average all the results, it was 5% faster. Suspiciously, that 9% maximum gap corresponds to the 9% difference between the 2.2GHz and 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo CPU clock speeds. At least for graphics intensive apps like 3D accelerated games, it can be argued that the extra video memory doesn't buy you anything.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back