1.83 or 2.0?


sp44

macrumors member
Original poster
Sep 18, 2006
47
7
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. :)
 

Osarkon

macrumors 68020
Aug 30, 2006
2,161
4
Wales
you'll sleep better knowing you have 2.0 instead of something that's almost 2.0 but isn't. Also, you can burn dvds. :)
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
4,006
Republic of Ukistan
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. :)
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.:confused:
 

xfiftyfour

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2006
2,573
0
Clemson, SC
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.:confused:
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...

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.
 

miles01110

macrumors Core
Jul 24, 2006
19,264
30
The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
xfiftyfour said:
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.
Then again, if this is all you're doing on your computer then you don't need a Macbook in the first place :)
 

dmw007

macrumors G4
May 26, 2005
10,635
0
Working for MI-6
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. :D
 

crazydrumma

macrumors regular
Jan 31, 2006
190
0
Chicago
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.
 

dukebound85

macrumors P6
Jul 17, 2005
18,078
1,208
5045 feet above sea level
crazydrumma said:
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.

if you could write a script that outputted 2ghz in "about this mac" instead of 1.83, i dont think anybody would notice
 

Rod Rod

macrumors 68020
Sep 21, 2003
2,174
2
Las Vegas, NV
crazydrumma said:
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.
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.

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/recommendations.html
 

yojitani

macrumors 68000
Apr 28, 2005
1,855
10
An octopus's garden
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 :)
:confused: Then what do you need? Can't go any lower on a mac laptop these days unless you buy refurb or used.
 

darkcurse

macrumors 6502a
Nov 5, 2005
538
0
Sydney
Yeah, that extra .16GHz won't be noticeable in most tasks unless you're into video encoding, video editing or heavy photoshopping(sp?:p ) Even then the difference would be ~5-10%? Looks better though and you have better bragging rights.:D
 

awhitaker

macrumors newbie
Sep 8, 2006
29
0
I'd get the 1.83 and tell everyone you have a 2.0, then you'll save money and you won't feel inadequate.:)
 

pianoman

macrumors 68000
May 31, 2006
1,962
0
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

macrumors regular
Feb 11, 2006
184
0
Tampa, FL
I honestly wish I would have gone for the 2.0

Not for the CPU (I'd pay $50 at most for that upgrade), but for the Superdrive. It would be nice to keep my whole iTunes library backed up on a DVD now that iTunes 7 makes that easy to do.
 

miles01110

macrumors Core
Jul 24, 2006
19,264
30
The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
ncook06 said:
I honestly wish I would have gone for the 2.0

Not for the CPU (I'd pay $50 at most for that upgrade), but for the Superdrive. It would be nice to keep my whole iTunes library backed up on a DVD now that iTunes 7 makes that easy to do.
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.
 

net26

macrumors member
Aug 30, 2006
72
0
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)
 

ITASOR

macrumors 601
Mar 20, 2005
4,400
3
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.
 

xfiftyfour

macrumors 68030
Apr 14, 2006
2,573
0
Clemson, SC
ITASOR said:
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.
 

risc

macrumors 68030
Jul 23, 2004
2,756
0
Melbourne, Australia
Rod Rod said:
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.

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/recommendations.html
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? :rolleyes:

OP IMHO get the 1.83 and use the money you saved for extra RAM. Unless you really need a super drive?
 

BlizzardBomb

macrumors 68030
Jun 15, 2005
2,537
0
England
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.
 

FocusAndEarnIt

macrumors 601
May 29, 2005
4,321
297
BlizzardBomb said:
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.
...and if the SuperDrive is really worth the $$$.