I'm planning on buying a Macbook Pro in the next couple of months but I'm not sure whether it's worth shelling out for the upgrade to 2.16 from 2.0 or not. As it is it'll have the 7200RPM drive and 2GB of RAM, is it worth as much as they're asking? Are there are comparative specs?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MBP 2.0 vs 2.16
- Thread starter jaguarx
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
jaguarx said:
If you're willing to part with an extra $300 for an 8% faster processor, then by all means go fot it. You do have the speedier hard drive and lots of RAM, so I couldn't justify the extra expense. Then again, I also got the 1.83.
Computer upgrades almost always have a diminishing return. It's not exactly a "rip off" because you pay a premium to get top end technology, but the 2.16 is not a value by any means. Personally, I would go with the 2.0. My philosophy has always been "the less I spend on a computer now, the sooner I can buy a new computer"
I think it is a bit of a rip of and not worth it.
Some people will buy it because they want the ultimate as in wanting the top but performance will not be any better. I have used a vast array of computers with varying processing speeds and a .16 does not make one bit of difference.
Some people will buy it because they want the ultimate as in wanting the top but performance will not be any better. I have used a vast array of computers with varying processing speeds and a .16 does not make one bit of difference.
My approach was get it 100% stock in hopes that on the off chance I get a lemon, I might have a better chance of convincing Apple to replace it, rather than just keep fixing it. Of course this is just a theory...and usually whenever I make a theory it is immediately proven wrong.
I don't know, I mean when you're spenind 2500 on a machine, why not spend 300 more to say you have the top of the line one 
You can always make the 300 back ... Not sure about resale value, but I firmly believe you should buy the best. Now if you can't afford it, and the trade off is between more RAM or the 2.16, then obviosuly you want the extra RAM. I did both
You can always make the 300 back ... Not sure about resale value, but I firmly believe you should buy the best. Now if you can't afford it, and the trade off is between more RAM or the 2.16, then obviosuly you want the extra RAM. I did both Yeah, if you're going to keep it a long time, why not? But if you go through laptops fast, probably not a good idea.
babyjenniferLB said:
Although it would sell better, will it sell for $800 more than a 1.83? I don't think so.
MBPs: 1.83/2.0/2.16
retail $2000/$2500/$2800
expected selling price in 3/2007: $1600/$2000/$2100
The general rule of thumb for PC games is that the average person can't tell the difference in speed until 10% difference*...I expect that the same would apply in this case. In fact, for most non-real-time applications, would probably take more than 10% difference to notice. Now, going from the 1.83 to the 2.0 has a lot of other benefits than just clockspeed, but jumping up to the 2.16 is purely a clockrate jump.
I suspect that if money is any kind of consideration, that the 2.16 is not worth the premium over the equally configured 2.0 model.
* this is speaking from an FPS perspective, all else being equal.
I suspect that if money is any kind of consideration, that the 2.16 is not worth the premium over the equally configured 2.0 model.
* this is speaking from an FPS perspective, all else being equal.
I went for a 1.83. My experience is that at these speeds it will make no perceivable difference in anything you do. This is especially true of a dual core. I run Menu Meter all the time and I never see the CPU get fully utilized. Lucky if they go over 20%.
What programs do you use? I'm also buying a MBP in the near future, and I'm debating between the 1.83 and the 2MHz. I do a lot with Adobe CS, and I can't wait until the universal binaries come out. I'm getting 2GB of RAM no matter what.vamp07 said:
Also, since I'm getting the educational discout, the price of the 2.0 is roughly the same as the retail 1.83. On the other hand, it's still $250 I could be pocketing...
Pittsax said:
I still think the biggest advantage to the 2.0 is not the clock speed. If you plan on putting 2GB of RAM in the machine, the difference in price between the machines is much smaller (you have to buy 2 1GB sticks and lose the 512MB rather than buy 1 1GB)...and if you're considering upgrading the hard drive size at all, then the machines become the same price. Also, if you plan on running dual displays (if you're doing photoshop at home/work while not on the road, you probably will be), the extra VRAM will be nice.
Yeah, I think it really boils down to how long you're going to keep it. If it's anywhere beyond 5 or 6 years then get the 2.16.
Stridder44 said:
If you are planning on using it that long (5-6 years) than I would spend the extra cash for the 2.16GHz Core Duo.
4-5 years is my average. I'm not much of a gamer and while I do use PS/Illustrator it's not my primary job, I'm a coder so more of the power goes on having multiple application open at the same time and running things like Locomotion & MAMP. In theory it's not very CPU intensive but I find that even a bit of lag moving between apps/dashboard annoying as hell. Personally I'm going to go with the 2.0, deck it out with a couple of gigs of ram and see how things are looking in a couple of years. I'm quite sure that this MBP is a stop-gap model for apple and by this time next year they're going to be lightyears better.
I agree with everything you say, especially this MBP being a stop-gap model. I have an iMac but with the same specs you're getting and I couldn't be anymore impressed. The thing just flies through anything I throw at it. I know you'll be impressed with your MBP.jaguarx said:
I usually like buying whatever is the best at the time but in this case I really don't think the $300 is worth it. If you've got the extra speed of the HD and the extra RAM, the machine will fly anyway.
The extra speed isn't really 8% or 10% speed difference. How fast do you work at photoshop. Is the extra speed going to speed you up? Do you really use the applications they run those speed tests on? Does anybody?
I got my Dual powermac G5 1.8, instead of the 2ghz because the extra 200mhz equated to only 5% speed boost under certain circumstances. It just wasn't worth the extra 400 for the difference, and I'd say the same applies to the 2ghz & 2.16 160mhz is nothing to write home about at all.
Save the $300 and put it towards getting apple care for your machine. If you plan to keep your laptop for a long while it will prove a wider investment. Should anything change in a years time, a 2ghz machine with apple care is going to be more attractive to buyers than a 2.16 without any day of the week.....
I got my Dual powermac G5 1.8, instead of the 2ghz because the extra 200mhz equated to only 5% speed boost under certain circumstances. It just wasn't worth the extra 400 for the difference, and I'd say the same applies to the 2ghz & 2.16 160mhz is nothing to write home about at all.
Save the $300 and put it towards getting apple care for your machine. If you plan to keep your laptop for a long while it will prove a wider investment. Should anything change in a years time, a 2ghz machine with apple care is going to be more attractive to buyers than a 2.16 without any day of the week.....
I agree...people on ebay go gaga over applecare. Frequently it will go for a few hundred dollars more just because of that added assurance.MacRumorUser said:
ya, i would also like to know if adding that additional power, will there even be a small difference in photoshop?
i have seen people use photoshop on the intel mac and it is really really slow. (imac, 2.0, 2GB ram)
It took like 20 bounces (icon) just to start the application running.
i have seen people use photoshop on the intel mac and it is really really slow. (imac, 2.0, 2GB ram)
It took like 20 bounces (icon) just to start the application running.