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

17" MBP: Would you upgrade to 2.93 for £60 or keep 2.66?

A

apersianboyCOM

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Dec 28, 2008
328
0
London, UK
I have the 2.66 GHz MBP and because I've had problems since the beginning this was going to be my 4th replacement.

I called Apple and said I'm not happy and if they could upgrade me to the 2.93 GHz?

The offered me:
A replacement 2.66 GHz with £130 refund
A chance to upgrade to the 2.93 GHz but I'd have to pay £60 (£150 saving).

I went with the 2.66 and £130 refund.

Do you think I made the right choice or I should've got the 2.93GHz? It's not even a huge difference in speed is it?
 
apersianboyCOM said:
I have the 2.66 GHz MBP and because I've had problems since the beginning this was going to be my 4th replacement.

I called Apple and said I'm not happy and if they could upgrade me to the 2.93 GHz?

The offered me:
A replacement 2.66 GHz with £130 refund
A chance to upgrade to the 2.93 GHz but I'd have to pay £60 (£150 saving).

I went with the 2.66 and £130 refund.

Do you think I made the right choice or I should've got the 2.93GHz? It's not even a huge difference in speed is it?
Click to expand...

Would you see yourself regretting your decision in another 2-3 months? I would have went for the 2.93GHz since I don't change notebooks often...but then again it's me.
 
I think you made the right choice. 300mhz dont make much of a difference. Take the 130 and buy yourself some accessories. I bet you will be happier.
 
lixuelai said:
I think you made the right choice. 300mhz dont make much of a difference. Take the 130 and buy yourself some accessories. I bet you will be happier.
Click to expand...

300Mhz is a 12.5% difference, which is noticeable, especially when gaming, however Mhz and Ghz have meant nothing since pentium 4, because if they did, by your thinking, an 8 year old 3.0Ghz Pentium 4 would be faster than a 2.5Ghz Quad Core, but obviously thats wrong :rolleyes: but its too late to change his mind now, so no point talking about it.
 
When gaming you are GPU limited. Also both CPU are of the same architecture. So I dont know where you pulled P4 from... Not to mention what you are saying is contradictory. So you are saying that the 12.5% will be noticeable in gaming and then immediately saying that MHz means nothing... So why would it be faster in gaming then?
 
lixuelai said:
When gaming you are GPU limited. Also both CPU are of the same architecture. So I dont know where you pulled P4 from... Not to mention what you are saying is contradictory. So you are saying that the 12.5% will be noticeable in gaming and then immediately saying that MHz means nothing... So why would it be faster in gaming then?
Click to expand...

Your getting confused, 300Mhz ontop of another processor of the same generation, ie another core 2 duo will make a difference, but ontop of a pentium 4 its a pointless comparison, Mhz do mean nothing when comparing them cross generations, but within generations they have a small impact, and when gaming you aren't GPU limited, the processor still does most of the work.
 
You made the comparison on the P4 in the first place...

p.s. For the gaming what are you playing, Civ4?
 
I personally think you are better off taking the £130. Had a refund not been offered to you, I'd take the 2.93GHz upgrade, as I believe it is worth £60, but not £190.
 
I would have taken the £130 too, since to me in notebook battery life is more important than CPU performance.

Even from gaming pov, pitting against each other gf9600 vs. C2D@2.93GHz, I'd say GeForce would choke first.
 
kastenbrust said:
300Mhz is a 12.5% difference, which is noticeable, especially when gaming, however Mhz and Ghz have meant nothing since pentium 4, because if they did, by your thinking, an 8 year old 3.0Ghz Pentium 4 would be faster than a 2.5Ghz Quad Core, but obviously thats wrong :rolleyes: but its too late to change his mind now, so no point talking about it.
Click to expand...

Not quite.....

When comparing two processors from different generations (e.g. Pentium 4 compared to a Core i7), the clock speed obviously isn't the defining factor in which is most powerful, but comparing two processors from the same generation, the clock speed is almost always what decides which is faster.

EDIT: Obviously assuming the CPU is the only variable.
 
2.93 - 2.66 = 270 Mhz upgrade. But don't forget we are using dual core cpus, it's a 270 Mhz upgrade for each core. I also agree with the architecture discussion... a 270 Mhz increase on a C2D is a bigger increase than if it were a P4. No doubt it's a luxury item, personally I'd get it and keep the computer for 3 years.
 
Inside_line said:
2.93 - 2.66 = 270 Mhz upgrade. But don't forget we are using dual core cpus, it's a 270 Mhz upgrade for each core. I also agree with the architecture discussion... a 270 Mhz increase on a C2D is a bigger increase than if it were a P4. No doubt it's a luxury item, personally I'd get it and keep the computer for 3 years.
Click to expand...

So if/when they introduce the 3.06 MBP in June that will be a nice upgrade from the 2.66
 
Inside_line said:
Just realized he is on his 4th replacement?! What kinds of problems are you having?
Click to expand...

1st MBP: faulty GPU (vertical lines issue)
2nd MBP: RAM issues (kept on beeping all the time)
3rd MBP: really loud fans (can be heard from a feet away even when system is idle), and the space between lid on the side is quite big.
 
I would have taken the £130 too. If they didn't offer that, I would have upgraded. Down the line (with the £190 you saved), you could upgrade sooner than you would have.
 
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