Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

1.83 or 2.0?

I don't think the 1.83 GHz to 2 GHz jump is worth $50.


I'd rather buy the 1.83 GHz and go out and buy a nice lunch, or even just a fruit smoothie or coffee or something.
 
I'll get the 1.83 and use the money to upgrade the RAM. 512MB is too little. I'll get an additional 1GB but don't upgrage from apple.
 
radiantm3 said:
The 1080p quicktime trailers play perfectly fine on my wife's 1.83 macbook with 2 gigs of ram. Your post made me curious so I had to see for myself.
Click to expand...
Did you monitor the framerate while playing with the Info window open (command I)?
 
I am a bit interested in this myself. I would love to have a macbook. I would go with the 1.83 and ignore the 2.0. I save money that I can use for RAM and I don't find the superdrive particularly overwhelming. Not even DL and 4-speed... meh. How much will lost 170 MHz mean in day to day operation? Will apps load slower? Is it going to feel more sluggish to use than the 2.0 version?
 
i've got the 1.83 with 2 gigs of ram and i've played back 1080p just fine. the overwhelming majority of the time i'm using my macbook the processor doesn't even run at 1.83, its usually at 1.5 or 1.33 ghz.

save the money unless you need the superdrive. the difference between the two in practice is negligible.
 
Right. Ill do that. Ordered it a bit ago. 1,83 with the 80gb option and that nifty iPod rebate combo deal (I can alwasy refit a bigger drive and use this one a 2,5 external backup USB 2.0 thing).

Now to find some PC5300 SODIMM that fits the Macbook and doesn't cost an arm and a leg. quite hard these days. Apple wanted 660$ for the privilege of giving me 2 giga. Bloodsuckers...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back