1.83 or 2.0?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by sp44, Sep 20, 2006.

  1. sp44 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
  2. JDN macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    Lund Sweden {London England}
    #2
    A little more info would be nice. Is it 1.83 elephants or 2.0 panthers?
     
  3. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #3
    Yes. Although, not having both, I have absolutely no idea in practice. But it makes me feel better. :)
     
  4. sp44 thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #4
    1.83 Buffalo and 2.0 Giraffes! Sorry, looking at Macbooks. Trying to justify the extra $200 for upgraded CPU and SuperDrive. Or I could buy a refurb and it would only be $100. :)
     
  5. Osarkon macrumors 68020

    Osarkon

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Location:
    Wales
    #5
    you'll sleep better knowing you have 2.0 instead of something that's almost 2.0 but isn't. Also, you can burn dvds. :)
     
  6. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #6
    Considering that everyone seems to ridicule the idea of paying £150 extra for the same speed bump on the iMac, many seem perfectly happy to spend the same on a faster MacBook. Strange, really.:confused:
     
  7. xfiftyfour macrumors 68030

    xfiftyfour

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Location:
    Clemson, SC
    #7
    hm. never thought of that. it's true though, i'd never consider the lowest MB, and yet I'd also never pay the extra to step up the iMac. wonder why that is...

    perhaps because 2.16 is already above the MB, and 2.33 for $225 more seems silly, whereas the 1.83 is below 2.0, which in our heads equates a much bigger speed loss.

    to be fair: i tried out the 1.83 MB in store, and with upped RAM, the "loss" was really unnoticeable. if you're just doing regular day-to-day stuff (web, email, chat, etc etc), then i don't think it's worth the extra money.
     
  8. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #8
    Then again, if this is all you're doing on your computer then you don't need a Macbook in the first place :)
     
  9. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #9
    The difference in performance between the 1.83GHz MacBook and the 2GHz MacBook is going to be minimal. But I would go with the 2GHz MacBook just for sake of having the slightly faster processor. :)


    Silly perhaps, but as skunk said, it makes me feel better. :D
     
  10. crazydrumma macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Location:
    Chicago
    #10
    Well...

    Is price an issue? If it is, then just go with 1.83. However, if money isn't an issue, by all means, go big or go home. I have a 15 inch 1.83 GHZ macbook pro, since I was an early buyer, but this thing is FAST! I don't wish I had a 2.0, but that's a personal thing.
     
  11. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #11

    if you could write a script that outputted 2ghz in "about this mac" instead of 1.83, i dont think anybody would notice
     
  12. Rod Rod macrumors 68020

    Rod Rod

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    #12
    The difference is that a dual core 1.83 GHz CPU is good enough for 720p H.264 playback, and dual core 2.0 GHz CPU is good enough for 1080p H.264 playback.

    http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/recommendations.html
     
  13. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #13

    unless you have a external monitor you cant even see a whole 1080 movie on the macbook lol
     
  14. yojitani macrumors 68000

    yojitani

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    An octopus's garden
    #14
    :confused: Then what do you need? Can't go any lower on a mac laptop these days unless you buy refurb or used.
     
  15. darkcurse macrumors 6502a

    darkcurse

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    Location:
    Sydney
    #15
    Yeah, that extra .16GHz won't be noticeable in most tasks unless you're into video encoding, video editing or heavy photoshopping(sp?:p ) Even then the difference would be ~5-10%? Looks better though and you have better bragging rights.:D
     
  16. awhitaker macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    #16
    I'd get the 1.83 and tell everyone you have a 2.0, then you'll save money and you won't feel inadequate.:)
     
  17. pianoman macrumors 68000

    pianoman

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    #17
    the way Apple is moving, it seems the 1.83s won't be around much longer, anyway (disclaimer: this is my opinion and has not been supported by any statement from Apple or Intel or any technological report). i think you'll appreciate the increase in speed, even if you don't actually notice it on a day-to-day basis.
     
  18. ncook06 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Location:
    Tampa, FL
    #18
    I honestly wish I would have gone for the 2.0

    Not for the CPU (I'd pay $50 at most for that upgrade), but for the Superdrive. It would be nice to keep my whole iTunes library backed up on a DVD now that iTunes 7 makes that easy to do.
     
  19. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #19
    I agree with this- in the Macbook the upgrade is not just a processor speed boost, but the Superdrive as well. This is in contrast to the iMac, which can have a faster processor without changing the superdrive. In the Macbook the bump is worth it, in the iMac it's generally not.
     
  20. net26 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    #20
    due to the fact that i am yet to see a superdrive anywhere near in quality to that of some pc dvd burners like the nec, i vote you buy the low end MB - especially if you have a home or other computer with dvdr. the processor speed diff is practically nothing and what good is a dvd burner that occasionally spits out a disc halfway through the burn and says oops (happened to me on multiple macs, older and brand new)
     
  21. ITASOR macrumors 601

    ITASOR

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Location:
    Oneida, NY
    #21
    I bought the 1.83 and when I get around to it, will use my savings to buy a 16x dual layer external drive. I would rather use an external FW drive for a cheaper amount of money than spending more for an internal and getting a 4x drive. I think my Quicksilver had a 4x drive many years ago, lol.
     
  22. xfiftyfour macrumors 68030

    xfiftyfour

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Location:
    Clemson, SC
    #22
    yeah, the superdrives pretty much suck. even if you have a superdrive in your laptop, then i'd still recommend buying an external burner if you're going to be burning dvds on a regular basis.
     
  23. risc macrumors 68030

    risc

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #23
    So if the OP buys a 2.0 GHz MacBook somehow they get a 128 MB video card which is the other recommendation for 1080p playback? :rolleyes:

    OP IMHO get the 1.83 and use the money you saved for extra RAM. Unless you really need a super drive?
     
  24. BlizzardBomb macrumors 68030

    BlizzardBomb

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Location:
    England
    #24
    You'd only notice the difference if you put the two side-by-side, set up an iMovie task (or something similar) and continuously yelled "Go, go, go!". I think a better question would be SuperDrive or no SuperDrive.
     
  25. mjstew33 macrumors 601

    mjstew33

    Joined:
    May 29, 2005
    Location:
    Illinois
    #25
    ...and if the SuperDrive is really worth the $$$.
     

Share This Page