1.6 ghz vs. 1.8 ghz

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by iEric, Jan 16, 2008.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Location:
    Victoria, BC, Canada
    #1
    question.

    will one be able to notice the difference between the 1.6 ghz and 1.8 ghz core 2 duo in the macbook air?

    is it worth it to spend $300 more for it?

    will it make a difference considering the HD only goes 4200 RPM?
     
  2. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    NH
    #2
    My guess is it won't make much of a difference. Major bottleneck with hard disk speed. 5-10% speed increase in applications when boosting by 200Mhz, as seen in barefeats tests. If you consider that worth $300, than maybe you would want it.
     
  3. macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #3
    no. you won't see much difference. consider most macs are running at 1.5GHz most of the time even with 2.6GHZ CPU. I would consider it for extra $50, not extra $300.
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Location:
    Virginia
    #4
    I wonder if the 1.6 has any advantage in either heat or battery life?
     
  5. macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #5
    it would be miniscule if any.
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2006
    Location:
    Virginia
    #6
    Probably right.

    I went for the 1.8 myself. But I doubt the performance difference will be that earth-shattering.
     
  7. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Location:
    Victoria, BC, Canada
    #7
    i may go for the 1.8 ghz.

    for resale reasons.

    mmm would going from a 2.0 CD to a 1.8 C2D be considered an upgrade?

    will i see a difference afterall?
     
  8. Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #8
    For those who do tasks like e-mail, web browsing, word processing, simple spreadsheets, listening to music or watching a movie, there will probably be no difference.

    My guess is that the base MBA is a good offering for most folks.
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    snickelfritz

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2003
    Location:
    Tucson AZ
    #9
    I seriously doubt it, except in benchmarks.
    Personally, I would apply that $300 toward the SSD, which will go a long way toward improving the overall speed of this notebook.

    Um, when and why would a 2.6ghz CPU run at 1.5ghz?
     
  10. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Location:
    Victoria, BC, Canada
    #10
    i thought about that but i need more memory anyways.
     
  11. macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #11
    there is a app called "core duo tem", you can check how fast your cpu is running

    Most Modern OSes (win/OSX/Lin) adopt so called step-speeding technology for laptop to reduce power consumption and prolong the battery life.

    oh yes, I should have mentioned that this mostly applies to laptops, especially when on battery power. "Most mac and most of the time" might be a little bit overstated.
     
  12. macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #12
    $300 is a bit of a steep price for a modest upgrade in processing power. I would doubt that the difference in performance would be very noticeable- if even noticeable at all. Now if the 1.8GHz C2D had extra L2 cache or a faster fsb then the difference would probably be noticeable. :)
     
  13. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Location:
    Victoria, BC, Canada
    #13
    do you think i'll see a speed difference between a 2.0 Ghz CD (in my MBP) and a 1.8 Ghz C2D?

    which one will be faster?
     
  14. NAG
    macrumors 68030

    NAG

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Location:
    /usr/local/apps/nag
    #14
    The MBP is faster, obviously.

    And I agree that the $300 would be better spent toward an SSD than the 200 mhz processor upgrade.
     
  15. thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Location:
    Victoria, BC, Canada
    #15

    oooh..mmm..really? even though the MBP is a CD and the MBA is a C2D?
    (forget the difference in hard drive speeed, i'm talking just plain processor speed)
     
  16. NAG
    macrumors 68030

    NAG

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2003
    Location:
    /usr/local/apps/nag
    #16
  17. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    #17
    I placed an order for the 1.8 ghz and I think I'm going to be cancel and order the 1.6 ghz. I was thinking that it would help in that I might occasionally use Aperture, but for $300 more, I don't think it's really worth it. Besides, I'll be doing the vast majority of photo work on my 2.8 ghz iMac with 4 GB RAM!
     
  18. macrumors 6502

    applefan69

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    Location:
    Medicine Hat
    #18
    smart decision. If you ALREADY have a real fast mac at home... then this macbook air is somethin you should be buying as a "faster" mac. Yuo should be buying it, because it's unbelievably portable, and easy to carry with you everywhere you go.

    iPhone did a good job letting you take your files with you everywhere, but now Macbook air is gonna do an EVEN better job, cause it's running full OS X, and has a full keyboard.
     
  19. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2002
    #19
    Exactly...I also have a 2.16 ghz MacBook Pro that I bought a year ago...at the time, it was my only computer. I caved when the new iMac's came out and got the whole enchilada: 24" screen, 2.8 ghz, 4GB RAM...of course, now the MBP doesn't get used all that much (at least in comparison as I do a lot of photo editing). I mainly use my MBP when I travel or just around the house for general surfing, email, and occasionally I might go in and tweak a photo here and there.
    I realize that the MBP is a more powerful machine w/ more features, yadda, yadda...than the MBA, but I really would like a smaller, lighter form factor so, I'm Ebaying my MBP to purchase the MBA. To me, and for my purposes, it's worth it. Now if my laptop was going to be my main machine, I'd definitely keep the MBP-that's just not the case anymore, though.
     
  20. macrumors 68000

    kockgunner

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    #20
    The C2D should be faster since it has an 800 MHz FSB and a larger cache i think. And technology has improved and chips are running cooler which should also boost performance.
     

Share This Page