If there is no difference...

Discussion in 'iMac' started by cujoca, Nov 11, 2006.

  1. cujoca macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    #1
    Hi everybody...I'm going to buy a 20" C2D iMac and I've been reading that there isn't much difference between 2.16 and 2.33 CPU. If that is true, than why would Apple even bother making that an option. For people who have bought the 2.33 CPU, are you glad you bought it? Was it really worth the extra cash?

    Thanks
     
  2. Jasonbot macrumors 68020

    Jasonbot

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Rainbow Nation RSA
    #2
    Hey, I got a 20' 2.16 and it rocks! I guess if yu want that extra edge the 2.33 is the way to go but damn! I keep pushing the envelope of my Mac and I keep getting s amazed by the results! Wow, it's such an awesome computer that there's no need for fancy CPU's in my opinion!
     
  3. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #3
    They make it for those who need the most performance level and are willing to pay the price.

    Personally, unless you do processor intensive tasks, you will probably never see a difference between the 2.16 and 2.33 processors.

    YMMV.
     
  4. ghall macrumors 68040

    ghall

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Location:
    Rhode Island
    #4
    No, I don't think there is much of a difference in speed. My mom has the 1.83 GHz CD MacBook, and I have the 2.0 GHz CD MacBook Pro, and the speed difference is negligible. Definitally not worth the extra cash. It's going to be pretty fast either way.
     
  5. cujoca thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    #5
    So instead of upgrading the CPU keep it at stock 2.16. If I were to do this do you think it would be wise to upgrade the RAM to 2GB?
     
  6. Sobering macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Location:
    Canada
    #6
    If your gonna upgrade something go for the RAM and not the CPU. The CPU upgrade is a huge waste of money in my opinion, and you can never have too much RAM.
     
  7. cujoca thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    #7
    ok sweet, does anyone else have a take on this?
     
  8. Kolind macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #8
    I couldn't agree more, RAM over CPU any day (at least when the CPU difference is so small).
     
  9. Zwhaler macrumors 603

    Zwhaler

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2006
    #9
    Definately go with more RAM than the CPU bump, I got it anyway (had the cash at the time) and when dealing with large files I can actually notice a difference in mine over my friends 2.16, but if your a basic user there's no point.
     
  10. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #10
    No need to go from 2.16 to 2.33 for $250.

    I vote for extra RAM. :)
     
  11. XnavxeMiyyep macrumors 65816

    XnavxeMiyyep

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2003
    Location:
    Washington
    #11
    If you needed the additional processor speed, you'd know it. I'd go for the RAM.
     
  12. theheyes macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2006
    Location:
    Manchester
  13. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #13
    I concur with getting more RAM vice the faster CPU.
     
  14. emptyCup macrumors 65816

    emptyCup

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2005
    #14
    Interestingly enough, it was not that long ago that a choice between a 16 MHz machine and a 33 MHz machine would have been obvious: the second one is twice as fast. Now that MHz is just the decimal value on the back end of processor speed, I agree with everyone else: put your money into RAM.
     
  15. Jasonbot macrumors 68020

    Jasonbot

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Rainbow Nation RSA
    #15
    I'm glad I wasn't around at that stage. My forst proper computer was a 1Ghz celeron! which was still super slow @ the time, hey I was like 7 so it was the 1337est thing on earth! It ran windows '98!
     
  16. sushi Moderator emeritus

    sushi

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    キャンプスワ&#
    #16
    Ah, those were the days! :)
     
  17. dr_lha macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2003
    #17
    LOL. My first computer had a 3.5Mhz CPU and ran BASIC. ;)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX_Spectrum
     
  18. Jasonbot macrumors 68020

    Jasonbot

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Rainbow Nation RSA
  19. pseudobrit macrumors 68040

    pseudobrit

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Jobs' Spare Liver Jar
    #19
    Discounting a used C64 (1.02MHz) that I never used much, my first ran on a 4.77MHz 8086 with MS-DOS 1.25 (later 3.3) and 256k of RAM. To this day I'd rather use DOS than Windows.

    My first Mac was an LC520 with a 25MHz '030 and a whopping 80MB of HD space. CD-ROM had to be loaded into its own tray. I remember waiting anxiously for System 7.

    God, I'm getting old.
     

Share This Page