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.
1.83 or 2.0?
- Thread starter sp44
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes. Although, not having both, I have absolutely no idea in practice. But it makes me feel better.sp44 said:
Considering that everyone seems to ridicule the idea of paying £150 extra for the same speed bump on the iMac, many seem perfectly happy to spend the same on a faster MacBook. Strange, really.sp44 said:1.83 Buffalo and 2.0 Giraffes! Sorry, looking at Macbooks. Trying to justify the extra $200 for upgraded CPU and SuperDrive. Or I could buy a refurb and it would only be $100.
hm. never thought of that. it's true though, i'd never consider the lowest MB, and yet I'd also never pay the extra to step up the iMac. wonder why that is...skunk said:Considering that everyone seems to ridicule the idea of paying £150 extra for the same speed bump on the iMac, many seem perfectly happy to spend the same on a faster MacBook. Strange, really.
perhaps because 2.16 is already above the MB, and 2.33 for $225 more seems silly, whereas the 1.83 is below 2.0, which in our heads equates a much bigger speed loss.
to be fair: i tried out the 1.83 MB in store, and with upped RAM, the "loss" was really unnoticeable. if you're just doing regular day-to-day stuff (web, email, chat, etc etc), then i don't think it's worth the extra money.
xfiftyfour said:
Then again, if this is all you're doing on your computer then you don't need a Macbook in the first place
The difference in performance between the 1.83GHz MacBook and the 2GHz MacBook is going to be minimal. But I would go with the 2GHz MacBook just for sake of having the slightly faster processor.
Silly perhaps, but as skunk said, it makes me feel better.
Silly perhaps, but as skunk said, it makes me feel better.
Well...
Is price an issue? If it is, then just go with 1.83. However, if money isn't an issue, by all means, go big or go home. I have a 15 inch 1.83 GHZ macbook pro, since I was an early buyer, but this thing is FAST! I don't wish I had a 2.0, but that's a personal thing.
Is price an issue? If it is, then just go with 1.83. However, if money isn't an issue, by all means, go big or go home. I have a 15 inch 1.83 GHZ macbook pro, since I was an early buyer, but this thing is FAST! I don't wish I had a 2.0, but that's a personal thing.
crazydrumma said:
if you could write a script that outputted 2ghz in "about this mac" instead of 1.83, i dont think anybody would notice
The difference is that a dual core 1.83 GHz CPU is good enough for 720p H.264 playback, and dual core 2.0 GHz CPU is good enough for 1080p H.264 playback.crazydrumma said:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/recommendations.html
Rod Rod said:
unless you have a external monitor you cant even see a whole 1080 movie on the macbook lol
miles01110 said:Then again, if this is all you're doing on your computer then you don't need a Macbook in the first place
Then what do you need? Can't go any lower on a mac laptop these days unless you buy refurb or used.
the way Apple is moving, it seems the 1.83s won't be around much longer, anyway (disclaimer: this is my opinion and has not been supported by any statement from Apple or Intel or any technological report). i think you'll appreciate the increase in speed, even if you don't actually notice it on a day-to-day basis.
ncook06 said:
I agree with this- in the Macbook the upgrade is not just a processor speed boost, but the Superdrive as well. This is in contrast to the iMac, which can have a faster processor without changing the superdrive. In the Macbook the bump is worth it, in the iMac it's generally not.
due to the fact that i am yet to see a superdrive anywhere near in quality to that of some pc dvd burners like the nec, i vote you buy the low end MB - especially if you have a home or other computer with dvdr. the processor speed diff is practically nothing and what good is a dvd burner that occasionally spits out a disc halfway through the burn and says oops (happened to me on multiple macs, older and brand new)
I bought the 1.83 and when I get around to it, will use my savings to buy a 16x dual layer external drive. I would rather use an external FW drive for a cheaper amount of money than spending more for an internal and getting a 4x drive. I think my Quicksilver had a 4x drive many years ago, lol.
yeah, the superdrives pretty much suck. even if you have a superdrive in your laptop, then i'd still recommend buying an external burner if you're going to be burning dvds on a regular basis.ITASOR said:
Rod Rod said:
So if the OP buys a 2.0 GHz MacBook somehow they get a 128 MB video card which is the other recommendation for 1080p playback?
OP IMHO get the 1.83 and use the money you saved for extra RAM. Unless you really need a super drive?
You'd only notice the difference if you put the two side-by-side, set up an iMovie task (or something similar) and continuously yelled "Go, go, go!". I think a better question would be SuperDrive or no SuperDrive.
