Performance Comparison

I'd say the 3GB RAM option will do better than the extra .17 GHz one. And it'll let you have more apps open at once

I would go for the 2.16 with 3GB if I were you, because you would benefit more from the RAM then the tiny increase in CPU.

no

I do agree that 3G RAM will perform better, but CPU is harder to replace than RAM, so u can buy the 2.33GHZ with 2G RAM and add RAM yourself later.

2.33, better graphics, faster cpu. The memory upgrade to 3GB is too much for the slight increase in performance.

When prices drop, get 2GB stick and slap it in for much much less. You will have a better machine that way.

It really depends on the application you're running. If it's a very cpu intensive app then the faster cpu might be a little better. Apps like photoshop though react better with more ram.

An extra consideration, incase people have forgotten, is that two 1GB sticks will work together at twice the speed of one 2GB stick. You do not get this benefit with mismatched sticks. I would say the 2.33GHz with 2GB RAM would be best, because the RAM would run at up to twice the speed as the 3GB in the other, as well as being far less expensive.

I vote for the 2.33.

Erasmus said:

An extra consideration, incase people have forgotten, is that two 1GB sticks will work together at twice the speed of one 2GB stick. You do not get this benefit with mismatched sticks. I would say the 2.33GHz with 2GB RAM would be best, because the RAM would run at up to twice the speed as the 3GB in the other, as well as being far less expensive.

I vote for the 2.33.

Click to expand...

No, not nearly TWICE the speed - maybe 6% faster real-world, that's it.

CanadaRAM said:

No, not nearly TWICE the speed - maybe 6% faster real-world, that's it.

Click to expand...

Aww man! Can we have extra input here?

We need a third, fourth and fifth opinion, at least, on this issue.

OSX doesn't even utilize dual channel memory, so using two matched sticks offers NO advantage.

Erasmus said:

Aww man! Can we have extra input here?

We need a third, fourth and fifth opinion, at least, on this issue.

Click to expand...

There was a thread earlier about this. the largest increase was 11% opening up iTunes. So basically, if you want to open up iTunes 11% faster, spend hundreds to get that 2 gb stick. I say it is not cost effective.

If OS X doesnt use dual channel, does bootcamp utilize it through Windows?

taylorwilsdon said:

OSX doesn't even utilize dual channel memory, so using two matched sticks offers NO advantage.

Click to expand...

What are you on about?
http://manuals.info.apple.com/en/MacBookPro_17inch_TechOverview.pdf
"For a performance improvement when working with large files, two easy-access slots allow you to upgrade your MacBook Pro with up to 2GB of memory. And if both slots are loaded with an equal amount of RAM, you can take advantage of the system’s dual-channel memory architecture for an additional performance boost. With a dualchannel memory interface, both banks of SDRAM can be addressed at the same time, achieving memory throughput of up to 10.7 GBps."

e12a said:

There was a thread earlier about this. the largest increase was 11% opening up iTunes. So basically, if you want to open up iTunes 11% faster, spend hundreds to get that 2 gb stick.

If OS X doesnt use it, does bootcamp utilize it through Windows?

Click to expand...

I'm sure Windows uses it, although I don't know to what extent. My PC gamer friend was commenting on the choice of 3GB maximum RAM on the MBP for just this reason.

Geez... Only like 5%... I had no idea... I was thinking at least 50%...

I would go for the 2.33 C2D.
RAM is easy to upgrade in the future, plus the 2.33 comes with a 256MB video card (as opposed to 128MB in the 2.16) which will be helpful if you are doing video editing etc.

Another vote for the 2.33Ghz. Like others have said, you get better processor and better graphics card. Both of which you won't be able to upgrade in the future.

So...

What's the answer here?

Is 2x1GB matched sticks better then a combo of 1GB+2GB?

I've been searching all over for an answer to this question.

Please, does anyone know the difference in performance?

Is it worth the upgrade?