new mac book pro procesor 2.66 vs 2.93

Well this topic whas allready disscused! If you want to have the fastest processor, then take it, its like to say, i have the fastest processor at the momment! But as is know in the apple spec, the cache speed is from 2.66ghz away, so there will be no real differece you may see for 0.3 Ghz of speed differece. It only means that the processor runs faster than the cache, only this, but in real ultilization, there will be no difference at all. You may conside to have the 8GB of Ram or the 250GB SSD Harddrive, this makes alot difference. But you may first wait till they came to be cheeper in price. Or you may consider the matte screen over the glare screen, this makes difference. And you may consider the 17 over the 15 inch, cause of the better processor type and better mainboard, for with those you can use 8gb of ram latter. This is what i can say for now...

I have ordered: 2.93GHZ cause i want the fastest process for macbooks at momment...with 4gb ram and 320 7200rpm harddirve, with a matte screen, this is enough for me at the momment...greetz

According to this site

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLGES

The cache in the 2.93 GHz runs at 2.93 GHz. The 2.93 should be about 10% faster, but may end up feeling more like 12-15% due to the cache speed.

According to the apple specs not:

http://www.apple.com/chde/macbookpro/specs.html 2.66Ghz 1:1 and 2.93Ghz with the 2.66 Cache speed...

But your link is very interesting also, so why on 2.66Ghz is stated 1:1 then and on 2.93Ghz not? Strange really...

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SLB48 this would be also a nice one lol hehe, but would need abetter cooler, so not an option for apple i think...

That doesn't say the 2.93 has the 2.66 cache speed. It just says:

"2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 6MB on-chip shared L2 cache running 1:1 with processor speed; or 2.93GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 6MB shared L2 cache"

which could easily mean the cache speed is the same as the processor.

Syrius: Here you go again, with another series of off-topic posts in someone else's thread. Why don't you stop guessing about the 17" MBPs and wait until the machines actually appear and complete specifications for them are made available? You keep drawing questionable conclusions from the information that's NOT supplied in the current early spec sheets, and posting those conclusions as fact. You repeatedly ask why Apple is NOT offering this processor or that processor, a question that no one here can answer. It's really not helpful to anyone to throw five or ten of these random posts into any thread on any topic just because some notion has popped into your head. Start your own threads if you want to spin out your fantasies or indulge in idle speculation.

Personally I think you'd be better off saving the money and getting the 'slower' CPU-using it towards a new system in a few years or whatever. That said, I often fall into the trap of spending more on a CPU, just 'cause, so I do understand! 😀 (I just upgraded from a 2.4 to 2.53GHz CPU on my new system even though I knew it wasn't really worth the extra $120ish.)

And regarding the cache, ALL these run the cache at the same speed as the rest of the CPU. It's been...geez, years and years and years since they used external cache running at a different speed.

Well its strange that the writer of the specs does then the same error two times?You don't think? Also on the 15 inch does the same 1:1 stateing to the cheeper 2.4Ghz processor, or the 2.53Ghz or the 2.8Ghz as well strange,...same as on 17inch, the 2:66Ghz has 1:1 or the 2.93Ghz...there is something with the 1:1 but i would like to kno what...

Syrius: This is just nonsense. Please stop.

ok

They're just not writing the whole thing out again. I mean it's semi-random that they're saying it once. These CPUs all run the cache at the same speed as the rest of the chip.

Last Intel CPU that didn't that I can think of was the first generation Pentium 3 from 1999.

The cache speed will be the same as the CPU speed. This is the case on every single Core2Duo CPU I have seen and I've purchased over 200 of them for clients over the years.

So taking only the CPU speed and cache size in to consideration you will only see an increase of 270MHz per core and 270MHz Cache speed increase but no larger cache size.

This is an overall increase of 10.150% so you should notice a little difference. The processor will cache data faster which will make for a little bit of a snappier system especially under heavy use.
Processor intensive tasks should be able to do 10.150% more per core, so overall a 20.30% increase in processing power.

As far as the maths goes it's a worthy upgrade, but $300? That's an awful lot to pay for such a small gain!
Unless you are a hardcore gamer I would leave this!

It's interesting that nobody has focused on the "shared" aspect. What does it get shared with? How much of it is shared? Is this the same BS that they do with the on-board graphics chips that "shares" memory with the main memory??

Anything that is "shared" is usually much "slower" and further robs your system of extra cpu cycles that are dedicated to figuring out "where" the memory needed is at.

Thistledown wrote:
That doesn't say the 2.93 has the 2.66 cache speed. It just says:

"2.66GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 6MB on-chip shared L2 cache running 1:1 with processor speed; or 2.93GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 6MB shared L2 cache"

which could easily mean the cache speed is the same as the processor.

would there be much of a difference in the battery consuption between the 2.66 and 2.93 ghz processors?