New To Mac-Forums?

Welcome to our community! Join the discussion today by registering your FREE account. If you have any problems with the registration process, please contact us!

Get your questions answered by community gurus Advice and insight from world-class Apple enthusiasts Exclusive access to members-only contests, giveaways and deals

Join today!

 
Start a Discussion
 

Mac-Forums Brief

Subscribe to Mac-Forums Brief to receive special offers from Mac-Forums partners and sponsors

Join the conversation RSS
Apple Notebooks Apple's notebook computers including MacBook Pro, MacBook, MacBook Air, PowerBook, and iBook.

MacBook Pro - 2 vs. 2.16 vs. 2.33ghz


Post Reply New Thread Subscribe

 
Thread Tools
asylum

 
Member Since: Feb 28, 2007
Posts: 6
asylum is on a distinguished road

asylum is offline
3 separate topics in one week...who's sick of me?

SO...
looking at the macbook pro, i don't want the 17", as i'm going to get an external monitor, and paying that much more for two inches of screen i won't really use just seems a waste to me. that being said, on the refurbished site right now, there are 15" mbp's but none of them are 2.33ghz.

how much will i be compromising if i "settle" for the 2.16 or the 2.0ghz. if i won't notice that big of a difference, not having the 2.33 to begin with, it won't bother me.

as i mentioned before i'll be running (at the same time) most likely photoshop cs2 with up to 5 large photos open, 2 screens of word, and give or take 2 screens of a browser.

how much of a performance difference will i be noticing if i go with either of the lesser ghz?

also, what exactly WILL i be affecting if i choose the 2.0 or the 2.16?

i'm slowly catching on. help me out this one more time and i think i might just be ready to bite the bullet.
QUOTE Thanks
cwa107

 
cwa107's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 20, 2006
Location: Middletown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 26,567
cwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: 15" MBP, Core i7/2GHz, 8GB RAM, 480GB Crucial M500 SSD

cwa107 is offline
IMO, clock speed differences are indiscernible unless it is roughly a third or more of the total rating. The big difference between the 2.16 and the 2.33 MacBook Pro is the fact that the 2.33 has a 256MB X1600 card as opposed to the 128MB card in the 2.16. That shouldn't be a big deal unless you're playing games.

Personally, I'd go with the 2.16, but it's mostly a matter of how much you value that extra 170MHz and 128MB of video RAM. I just can't see the value with $500 difference between the two.
QUOTE Thanks
kgeier82

 
kgeier82's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 01, 2006
Posts: 1,495
kgeier82 is a jewel in the roughkgeier82 is a jewel in the rough
Mac Specs: MBP 2.4/2GB/200HD/256 8600gt

kgeier82 is offline
2.16 is the sweet spot. id say 2.00, but they had heat issues, and are only cd.

with the 2.16 (like i bought) you get a c2d, and def. a cooler running lappy.

also the burner is a little faster, and you GET FW800!!! still wish when i bought it it had more than 2usb's...but in all honesty, i barely use more than one now.

2.4ghz Unibody | Hitachi 320GB 7200 | 256MB 9600gt
QUOTE Thanks
mac57

 
mac57's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 29, 2006
Location: St. Somewhere
Posts: 4,560
mac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant future
Mac Specs: iMac 27" 3.4 GHz, 256 GB SSD, 2 TB HDD, 8 GB RAM

mac57 is offline
Remember that 2.33 vs. 2.16 is a roughly 10% improvement. Is that worth it when running a heavy duty Photoshop filter? That is an entirely subjective call. Personally I would say it is, but I freely admit that I am a performance hog. 10% is not trivial.

My Macs: iMac 27" 3.4 GHz, Mac Pro 3.2 GHz, PowerMac G5 Quad 2.5 GHz, G4 Cube with 1.2 GHz Upgrade
My iStuff: 64GB iPhone 5, 64GB iPad4, 30GB iPod Video, 16GB iPod Touch
My OS': Mac OS X Lion, Mac OS X Snow Leopard, Mac OS X Tiger, Mac OS 9.2.2, openSUSE 10.3
I was on the Mac-Forums honor roll for September 2007
QUOTE Thanks
traded

 
traded's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 15, 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 157
traded will become famous soon enough
Mac Specs: MacBook Pro C2D 2.16

traded is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac57 View Post
Remember that 2.33 vs. 2.16 is a roughly 10% improvement. Is that worth it when running a heavy duty Photoshop filter? That is an entirely subjective call. Personally I would say it is, but I freely admit that I am a performance hog. 10% is not trivial.
Is 7.8% trivial?
QUOTE Thanks
mac57

 
mac57's Avatar
 
Member Since: Apr 29, 2006
Location: St. Somewhere
Posts: 4,560
mac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant futuremac57 has a brilliant future
Mac Specs: iMac 27" 3.4 GHz, 256 GB SSD, 2 TB HDD, 8 GB RAM

mac57 is offline
Point taken traded! Yes, the exact number is 7.8%.

Again, it *is* a subjective call, but if you are going to use the machine for heavy duty apps, why not get the most heavy duty machine you can?

My Macs: iMac 27" 3.4 GHz, Mac Pro 3.2 GHz, PowerMac G5 Quad 2.5 GHz, G4 Cube with 1.2 GHz Upgrade
My iStuff: 64GB iPhone 5, 64GB iPad4, 30GB iPod Video, 16GB iPod Touch
My OS': Mac OS X Lion, Mac OS X Snow Leopard, Mac OS X Tiger, Mac OS 9.2.2, openSUSE 10.3
I was on the Mac-Forums honor roll for September 2007
QUOTE Thanks
netguy

 
Member Since: Jan 18, 2007
Posts: 24
netguy is on a distinguished road

netguy is offline
I was in the same boat as you a month ago. It was fairly easy to narrow down to 2 machines, as I did not want a CD, because of all the problems they had been having, + it was older technology.

That left 2 machines (2.16 v 2.33). For me, the performance increase (proc and video) was not worth the $500 more I would have paid.

The 2.16 is the best bang for buck in my opinion. It does everything in Photoshop and Final Cut, very efficiently, and I have not once thought to myself, I should have got the unit with more video memory.

Besides, in less than a year, we will probably see new MBP's. Hopefully those will be worth spending the extra $$$$.
QUOTE Thanks
kgeier82

 
kgeier82's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 01, 2006
Posts: 1,495
kgeier82 is a jewel in the roughkgeier82 is a jewel in the rough
Mac Specs: MBP 2.4/2GB/200HD/256 8600gt

kgeier82 is offline
forgot to mention the extra RAM you get in that 500, and the bigger HD.

all that stuff adds up.

i too went with base c2d. just bought some ram myself

2.4ghz Unibody | Hitachi 320GB 7200 | 256MB 9600gt
QUOTE Thanks
cwa107

 
cwa107's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 20, 2006
Location: Middletown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 26,567
cwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: 15" MBP, Core i7/2GHz, 8GB RAM, 480GB Crucial M500 SSD

cwa107 is offline
The bigger HD is nice, but I wouldn't take the memory into consideration - just about everyone else is cheaper on memory and it's a 5 minute job to install (with three of those minutes being the time it takes to find your fine screw drivers).
QUOTE Thanks
traded

 
traded's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 15, 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 157
traded will become famous soon enough
Mac Specs: MacBook Pro C2D 2.16

traded is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac57 View Post
Point taken traded! Yes, the exact number is 7.8%.

Again, it *is* a subjective call, but if you are going to use the machine for heavy duty apps, why not get the most heavy duty machine you can?
Im just teasing. I always get the fastest processor I can afford.
-d
QUOTE Thanks
kgeier82

 
kgeier82's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 01, 2006
Posts: 1,495
kgeier82 is a jewel in the roughkgeier82 is a jewel in the rough
Mac Specs: MBP 2.4/2GB/200HD/256 8600gt

kgeier82 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa107 View Post
The bigger HD is nice, but I wouldn't take the memory into consideration - just about everyone else is cheaper on memory and it's a 5 minute job to install (with three of those minutes being the time it takes to find your fine screw drivers).

yes but if he got the 17", it COMES with the 2gb, built into the price.


i dont see what your post has todo with the situation? maybe i missed somethin

2.4ghz Unibody | Hitachi 320GB 7200 | 256MB 9600gt
QUOTE Thanks
cwa107

 
cwa107's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 20, 2006
Location: Middletown, Pennsylvania
Posts: 26,567
cwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond reputecwa107 has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: 15" MBP, Core i7/2GHz, 8GB RAM, 480GB Crucial M500 SSD

cwa107 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by kgeier82 View Post
yes but if he got the 17", it COMES with the 2gb, built into the price.


i dont see what your post has todo with the situation? maybe i missed somethin
He asked for opinions on the 2.16 vs the 2.33, the differences are in clock speed, memory and disk capacity. My post was relevant to the stated difference in memory and how you could easily get the same amount of memory for less than what Apple charges for it.
QUOTE Thanks
kgeier82

 
kgeier82's Avatar
 
Member Since: Dec 01, 2006
Posts: 1,495
kgeier82 is a jewel in the roughkgeier82 is a jewel in the rough
Mac Specs: MBP 2.4/2GB/200HD/256 8600gt

kgeier82 is offline
i understand that its cheaper elsewhere. but i thought he was talking about the 17" at that point in the thread, which would mean there is no option for <2gb


argh, now i dont see the post, maybe it was another thread im watching

point taken.

2.4ghz Unibody | Hitachi 320GB 7200 | 256MB 9600gt
QUOTE Thanks

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe


« Memory: Is 2GB not enough? | iBook vs. MacBook? »
Thread Tools

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
2.16 GHz to 2.33 GHz: Considerable difference? TheCustomer99 Switcher Hangout 4 02-20-2007 07:26 PM
imac 20" 2.16 > mbp 2.33? Chosenone5376 Apple Notebooks 2 11-29-2006 03:21 AM
2.16GHz or 2.33GHz? freakout Apple Desktops 14 10-02-2006 09:41 PM
MBPro 15" 2.0 or the MBPro 15" 2.16? hippy.green Apple Notebooks 11 05-19-2006 03:11 PM

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:48 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
X

Welcome to Mac-Forums.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

New members like you have made this community the ultimate source for your Mac since 2003!


(4 digit year)

Already a member?