2.16ghz MBP vs. 2.33

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by ljova.com, Oct 30, 2006.

  1. ljova.com macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    #1
    How much slower is the 2.16ghz MBP vs. the 2.33? (Percentagewise)
     
  2. McKellar macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    #2
    Well, considering that the bus speed and L2 cache are the same, and assuming that you're not doing anything that requires the RAM to be pushed, or you upgrade the 2.16 to 2GB then:

    2.33/2.16=1.077

    around 7.7% faster
     
  3. Zedsdead185 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    Not really worth the extra money to upgrade in the apple store then. probably wouldn't even notice that
     
  4. ljova.com thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    #4
    thank you! would it be possible to upgrade the 2.16ghz machines to 3GB RAM?
     
  5. ljova.com thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    #5
    then again, the 2.33 machine also has double the video memory..
     
  6. Willis macrumors 68020

    Willis

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2006
    Location:
    What feels like the middle of nowhere
    #6
    All C2D MBP's support upto 3Gb of Ram

    It does indeed, but not entirely essential unless you intend of using an extental moniter in dual mode.
     
  7. MrMacMan macrumors 604

    MrMacMan

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2001
    Location:
    1 Block away from NYC.
    #7
    Ugh.

    You can't just do 'percentages' when figuring out if a computer is faster or slower.

    Noooooooo.


    Did 'the megahertz myth' teach you nothing?


    Alright guys, the 2.16 MBP against the 2.33 MBP cannot be settled by simple division.

    It takes preformance tests, speed tests and an understanding of what type of work your going to be doing on these machines.

    If your going to do video or photo editing you probably want the 2.33 because more video ram and the speed bump.



    Really, i know he asked for a percentage but its just incorrect to tell him without some sort of disclaimer.

    -- MrMacMan
     
  8. crazzyeddie macrumors 68030

    crazzyeddie

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    Florida, USA
    #8
    Huh? This has nothing to do with the 'Megahertz Myth.' We're not comparing Intel to AMD or PPC here... we're directly comparing IDENTICAL chips with different clock speeds. Of course you can describe the performance difference with clock speed. And as far as applications, he didn't specify what he was going to use it for, but people just want to know generally how much faster something will be... who knows what you'll need that CPU for in the future?

    Now, why he couldn't do division by himself confuses me. If you can make a purchase decision on a $2500 machine, then why can't you use a calculator?
     
  9. Demon Hunter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    #9
    Thank you. :p
     
  10. McKellar macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    #10
    Notice I said around 7.7%. Obviously it's not going to be exactly that in every single task, but since they're very similar machines, the main difference being clock speed on an otherwise identical chip, I think it's fair to say that the 2.33 would be about that much faster generally.

    And yes, you can upgrade the 2.16 to 3GB of RAM.
     
  11. ljova.com thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2002
    #11
    :) because the Calculator on my 1GHZ TiBook runs very slowly when I try to record music in DP while trying to surf MySpace + YouTube.

    I was just trying to figure out how much of a speed difference that is in "real-world" terms. And also from people who've used it.

    x
    Ljova
     
  12. dongmin macrumors 68000

    dongmin

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    #12
    I dare say you'll notice very little in terms of real-world performance. The extra 7% comes into play in only the most performance intensive tasks, i.e. video encoding, 3d rendering, etc.
     
  13. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #13
    What performance tests always show is that division doesn't mean anything. Look at that 7.7% that was calculated mathematically, and tell yourself that you won't even get that high an improvement in most tasks. Based on that 7.7% mathematical approximation, I'm going to guess 4% for most tasks. The benefits of the 2.33 GHz machine won't be 7.7%, and could never be higher with every other factor being the same.
     

Share This Page