MBP 2.16 vs. 2.33

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by PharmD, Apr 2, 2007.

  1. PharmD macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon Coast
    #1
    This is the decision I'm trying to make. Aside from the everyday use, I will be using Parallels and eventually bootcamp (probably when Leopard is released).

    My main dilemma lies in difference in the GPU RAM. Do the extra 128 MB provide that big of a difference in the graphics-heavy apps? I will be using Final Cut Express right away and will probably get Aperature or Photoshop in the future. I do a bit of PC gaming with Half-life 2 and other Source games mainly, but don't want to be limited should a great game come out. I would have 2GB in each regardless.

    I'm a grad student with a wife and child with another on the way so I'm trying to keep costs as low as possible. However, I want this laptop to last for at least 3 or 4 years though, since my current iBook is not meeting my needs after only 1.5. Thanks for the input.
     
  2. deadpixels macrumors 6502a

    deadpixels

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    #2
    it's not exactly what you looking for but here is a benchmark between two 24" iMacs, one with 2.16ghz and 128mb VRAM and the other is 2.33ghz with 256mb VRAM. :D
     
  3. v-ault macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    #3
    I'd say go with the top 2.33 ghz model. I have a 2.16 model, and I wish I had gotten the 2.33 model; that's only because I plan to use this laptop for 3 years, and I don't think paying a few extra hundred for something better is that big of a deal if it is going to be used for 3 years.


    If a few hundred is an issue for you, don't worry. The 2.16 model runs very well and is the fastest computer I've ever had.

    Hope that helps.
     
  4. luminosity macrumors 65816

    luminosity

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Location:
    Arizona
    #4
    Consider getting a refurb, which is what I did. I got a 2.33 for the price of a 2.16, and it's clearly a new machine. The extra RAM is major luxury.
     
  5. macenforcer macrumors 65816

    macenforcer

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Location:
    Colorado
    #5
    GO 2.16.

    I overclocked my Core Duo E6600 from 2.4ghz to 3.2ghz. Big woop. Can't really tell. That is 800mhz faster. You won't notice a 166mhz jump. Benchmarks are useless unless it is double the speed difference. Heck, I don't know if I notice that much of a difference going from a dual G5 to a quad xeon and I encode video daily. Ok, its a little faster. :D
     
  6. Fearless Leader macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Location:
    Hoosiertown
    #6
    128 is really enough unless you are pro, and you do this every day. get a refurb and save more cash. Mathmatically speaking you get .36ghz in all between the 2.16 and 2.33 or a 7.7% more GHZ. Humans don't normally notice a difference until about 15%. And that 7.7% does NOT equate to 7.7% faster computing.
     
  7. PharmD thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2005
    Location:
    Oregon Coast
    #7
    Thanks again for the input guys. I went with a refurb 2.16 and will add 1GB to it.
     
  8. Collin973 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2006
    #8
    Good choice. That's what I have and I'll boot in to windows to play games like Medieval Total War 2 (which is a monster of a game) and it plays wonderfully on my mbp. I plan on installing half life 2 when I get home from college and hopefully it runs really well. Maybe in a few years the gpu size will matter, but right now I'm happy with the 128 mb.

    -cPhil
     
  9. SSpiro macrumors 6502a

    SSpiro

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #9
    Good choice..

    I had the same dilemma.. but went with 2.16.
     

Share This Page