Macbook Pro: 2.3 GHz vs 2.6 GHz

cache memory is like having ram on your processor.

the more cache memory your processor has, the more info it can process without having to go back to the app or file the get more info.

like your notebook, the more ram you have, and you're using photoshop, the faster your macbook will run on photoshop.

that's the basic explaination. it is however, more complex than that but it's basically the same as what i've explained to you.

There is difference between 2.3 GHz and 2.6 GHz processors.

But it is not critical for your needs as you state.

Mac is not a good gaming platform.

If budget permits buy Extended AppleCare Warranty.

Best.

i'll leave the 2.3 cpu, upgrade to 8GB ram as you did, but i'll throw in a 256 SSD.

For what you and the overwhelming majority of people use their MBPs, the 'slower' CPU is more than adequate. One would be hard pressed to see the difference between the two side by side browsing the web or editing text. More often than not, the faster CPU may make a difference in a vocational environment where speed can be a productivity factor.

There is an almost irrational obsession with specifications without any regard to real world needs. I think that the ant-glare is a very good option (but look at all the options first) and AFTER purchase, install a 1 TB HDD.

Ciao.

Apologies to N180 for out of topic question to OG:

Hi OG: Quick quesiton.

Does the 1TB WD Blue edition is have issues with MB?

I've got two choices on installing one for a friend.

1TB Western Digital Blue and 1TB Hitachi Travelstar.

He bougth the WD Blue and I don't want to waste my time trying to install it in his MB if the WD Blue still has issues. I suggested to replace it with the Hitachi Travelstar. Which is cheaper @ $109.

Thanks - Again NS180 sorry of the out of topic Q & A to OG.

Stay away from drives like the WD Blue series, so called "Green". Not good performers & "can" be problematic in MacBook Pro's.

Thanks for taking the time - Wjosten - will go with the Hitachi instead.

You're welcome.

Bimmer 7 Series, greetings; One of the 'gods' (wjosten) from Mt. Olympus has given you his advice and I would follow it. I would opt for the Hitachi (now HGST) or the Samsung, probably the former since I use one in my older MBP. To be sure that is not a rational endorsement but that aside, the concept of a 1 Tb is a good one. One of my aphorisms is that one cannot have too much storage and one should get excellent performance as well.

Ciao.

Thanks for the info OG.

I too was leaning towards Hitachi.

Thanks for taking the time guys. Appreciate the info.

NS180 - Again, sorry for straying from your Q & A.

between 2.6 & 2.7 is maximum 3% gain, depending on application, so it's not visible in real time, only on benchmarks.

the ssd is much more effective, everything is much more responsive, the booting is almost instantaneous & so on. for serious storage you always can hook up an external usb 3 drive. I have a 240 ssd, both with Lion & Bootcamp, and an FW800 external drive. it works much better than one big slowly hdd inside.

in theory yes, the more L3 cache is better, but in this case, doesn't make a huge diference. As i've said you will have a max of 3% gain, but in certain cases, probably on average 1-2%. my opinion is that upgrading to 2.7 is not worth it if you take into account the price. if you are after the baddest macbook pro available go ahead, but the OWC offers 16GB ram upgrades for the nonretina, so maybe it's a better idea to max on ram.

As felix. v states.

And because you've decided to go ssd, you will have a very fast machine since SSD's are much faster than regular HD. So you really won't see a difference.