2.16GHz MB worth the extra $300?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by ArX, Feb 19, 2006.

  1. ArX macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    #1
    Just want to know if its worth an extra .16GHz for $300,
    what do you guys think
    Thanks:confused:
     
  2. williamw macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC, Canada
    #2
    It matters what kind of work you'll be doing with it, if you can afford thean id go for it:)
     
  3. TheMonarch macrumors 65816

    TheMonarch

    Joined:
    May 6, 2005
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #3
    Not worth it, Got the money?...


    Get an iPod... The H.264 chips in the iPod are probably more than .16GHz you'd be getting from Intel...
     
  4. SpaceMagic macrumors 68000

    SpaceMagic

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    Location:
    Cardiff, Wales
    #4
    $300 for 160 mhz... i know i wouldn't. If money is not an issue - then don't spend the $300 and give it to charity :)
     
  5. AvSRoCkCO1067 macrumors 65816

    AvSRoCkCO1067

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2005
    Location:
    CO
    #5
    It'll probably ship sooner...at least, according to some other reports I've heard.

    But yeah, probably not worth the money unless you really need the power.
     
  6. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #6
    If you're keeping the Mac forever, then... maybe. I guess. Possibly.

    Otherwise, you'll basically eat that $300 and never get it back upon resale, because by then then 2.0->2.16GHz bump won't be worth much.

    Yes, it's 2x160MHz due to the dual core, but... it's a small, small increment for over 10% more. Spend it on RAM (3rd party) and/or disk and/or software. Not the paltry CPU bump.
     
  7. Erendiox macrumors 6502a

    Erendiox

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Location:
    Brooklyn NY
    #7
    If your a professional where time=money and you're going to be squeezing every last possible bit of horsepower out of it with heavy video/audio editing, rendering, etc, then yes, it would be worth it. Otherwise, it's much better spent elsewhere. $300 can get you quite a bunch of nice accessories that you'll appreciate much more than the small MHZ boost.
     
  8. jsfpa macrumors regular

    jsfpa

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2003
    #8
    I think I'd rather spend the money on the faster hard drive and more memory.
     
  9. bodeh6 macrumors 6502a

    bodeh6

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    #9
    Not worth it unless you need the most power whatever the cost in an Apple Notebook. Dell charges $200 to go from 2.0 to 2.13.
     
  10. BornAgainMac macrumors 603

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #10
    To answer that question, go back in time. Look at a G4 system that was running at 800 Mhz vs another one that cost $600 dollars more for a 900 Mhz G4 with a 60 GB drive instead of a 40 GB drive. Today, do you think that would have been worth it?

    (Note: Actual system doesn't exist, just making up the numbers for illustration. Right now I am playing around with an old Mac with a 68030 and experimenting with Hypercard. I could care less for a 68040 version of the same Mac. Over time, the specs won't seem that big of a deal.)
     
  11. AJBMatrix macrumors 6502

    AJBMatrix

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2006
    Location:
    Athens, Georgia
    #11
    Not only over time will the specs not seem like that big of a deal but right now they are not that big of a deal. You are looking at a less than 10% increase in processor power and you are also decreasing battery life as well as increasing the cost by over 10%. This is really not worth it to you as a buyer. Now and later it is not worth the difference in price.
     
  12. MUCKYFINGERS macrumors 6502a

    MUCKYFINGERS

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Location:
    CA
  13. Rocksaurus macrumors 6502a

    Rocksaurus

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Location:
    California
    #13
    Haha, when I saw this post I knew what all the answers would be. It's nice that Apple offers the option, but unless you have a need for the fastest or an oversized bankroll, for all practical purposes this upgrade is not worth it. Heck, wasn't there a $300 PC laptop that was being sold this past christmas...?
     
  14. Deepdale macrumors 68000

    Deepdale

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Location:
    New York
    #14
    An additional $300 for a really modest speed increase of 160 Mhz translates into an audacious ripoff. At least the price gouging is not being limited to just Apple RAM.
     
  15. FarSide macrumors member

    FarSide

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2006
    #15
    That must be the SJ tax once again. Put the $300 into your MacBook Rev.C fond... iPod sounds good to me :cool:
     
  16. velocipede macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Location:
    Japan
    #16
    Ot? Vram

    I am curious about whether the vram difference between the macbookpro models is important. I don't game. The most processor intensive stuff I would use is Logic, Live and other music aps for fun. I expect to use a second monitor for my work, which mostly involves using Word, Safari and some other low CPU dictionary aps.

    Any thoughts?
     
  17. bodeh6 macrumors 6502a

    bodeh6

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    #17
    for your use then the vram upgrade would not be needed.
     
  18. jacobj macrumors 65816

    jacobj

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Location:
    Jersey
    #18
    That's the best idea here.

    If the extra $300 is a stretch then it is surely not worth it.
     
  19. BornAgainMac macrumors 603

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #19
    Perhaps the only real benefit for many for getting the 2.16 would be a faster shipping speed of a few weeks. Only if you ordered it right away without delay.
     
  20. generik macrumors 601

    generik

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    Minitrue
    #20
    Now that Apple is with intel we may not need to wait years to see a Rev C :)
     
  21. Shaker macrumors member

    Shaker

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #21

    I wonder if Apple will drop upgrade/hardware prices similar to what PC manufacturers do when the costs of their components also dips with time. For example will the 2.16 GHz cost an extra $300 forever or will we see a dip as Intel pumps out a more reliable supply of the faster chips and sells it cheaper to Apple?

    My bet is that Apple customers will not see the savings passed on to them....

    Oh and in response to your original question....no IMHO, its not worth the $300....the money is better spent on memory....
     
  22. Deepdale macrumors 68000

    Deepdale

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Location:
    New York
    #22
    As far as Apple is concerned, I believe that would be a very safe bet to make.
     
  23. kretzy macrumors 604

    kretzy

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Location:
    Canberra, Australia
    #23
    I really don't think it's worth it. Spend the extra money on RAM or other improvements.
     
  24. Chupa Chupa macrumors G4

    Chupa Chupa

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    #24

    Bottom line is this:

    If you are a casual user or just use typical business apps (Office, Address Book, iPhoto, etc,) then no. These apps hardly use any processing power at all. The 1.83 and 2.0 models are more than capable for these needs.

    If you are a graphics pro that does lots of video rendering then the 5% performance boost will eventually pay for itself with the productivity gains (saving 5 minutes per 1 hour of rendering).
     
  25. micron1 macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, Utah
    #25
    Is 2.16 ghz upgrade worth it?.......It depends

    The overall speed bump will be range from 0% to 8% depending upon what application you are using and even what process you are doing within that application. Applications that heavily depend on the HD or the graphics card will see almost no difference in speed. Also, remember that the 2.16 GHz still has the same on CPU cache memory and the computer has the same speed of RAM that the 2.0 GHz has.

    The RAM, CPU cache, HD, system bus, and graphics card do not change with this upgrade and most CPU's already max out these bottlenecks. In almost every real world test I have seen you at least cut in half the CPU speed %increase to half. In this case you would actually see about a 4% average increase........you won't even notice it.

    However, if you render video for hours every day or apply major Photoshop filters all day long for your living then your % increase may be a bit more over all at around 5% - 6% and may be worth your $300 investment over time. But for 90% of the users out there, the extra .16 GHz is just a feel good purchase.

    If you haven't already done so, increase you’re RAM first, and your HD second.....investments that will most likely produce a major increase in overall speed for the same or in the case of the 7200 rpm HD, a much smaller investment. I myself am sticking with the 2.0 GHz MacBook Pro with my 2 gb of RAM and a 7200 RPM drive and buying a new iPod Video with my $300 bucks. I guarantee I will get more use and enjoyment out of that $300 investment.
     

Share This Page