How much of a difference is there between the 2.0 and 2.4 Macbooks? I'm looking for a MB for photo editing, basic video editing (short clips of the kids, etc), would like to run Windows as well. I'm going to up the RAM to 4gb as well. Can I get by with the 2.0?
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.
2.0Ghz vs 2.4Ghz Macbooks
- Thread starter t-rev
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The 2.0 is pretty quick. It's a good processor. However, as obvious as this sounds you're going to get a 20% faster processor. You won't notice the difference when emailing or surfing the web but if you're doing a lot of photo and video editing involving large images and video rendering then you'll notice that 20%.
The 2.0 stacked with ram will handle that well but I would just get the best you can afford. If you can afford the 2.4 without breaking the bank then go for it. If you can't, you'll have a great machine.
I bought a 2.2GHz MB, instead of the 2.4GHz (2nd last revision of the white plastic macbooks). To be honest, after using mine and trying out my friend's 2.4GHz, there's not much of a difference apart from maybe a few split seconds quicker in say, rendering something in Photoshop. Mine was upped to 4GB RAM, while his was stock 1 or 2GB 
.
For this 2.0 you're talking about, I assume that it's the plastic white MB vs the aluminium MB; my MB is already lightning fast, and they've even updated the plastic MB recently (I belive the FSB too), so 2.0 should be enough.
.For this 2.0 you're talking about, I assume that it's the plastic white MB vs the aluminium MB; my MB is already lightning fast, and they've even updated the plastic MB recently (I belive the FSB too), so 2.0 should be enough.
^^^No, he's likely talking about both aluminium models.
From what you told us, you won't notice a difference, or that difference won't be worth the money to you, since the 3 or 4 seconds required in iMovie are likely inconsequential to you.
The only reason to pay is if you really don't mind paying for the extra 20% increase in performance, since it also includes the illuminated keyboard. The 2.0 GHz version doesn't have it.
From what you told us, you won't notice a difference, or that difference won't be worth the money to you, since the 3 or 4 seconds required in iMovie are likely inconsequential to you.
The only reason to pay is if you really don't mind paying for the extra 20% increase in performance, since it also includes the illuminated keyboard. The 2.0 GHz version doesn't have it.
Here's a link to Macworld's benchmark tests of the 2 models:
http://www.macdeveloperjournal.com/article/136236-2/2008/10/aluminummacbook.html
To quote from the article:
"Comparing the top of line 2.4GHz MacBook to its less expensive, lower-powered 2GHz sibling, we find the high-end model nearly 9 percent faster in overall Speedmark performance, with narrower performance gaps in graphics tests and wider gaps in processor tests, like Cinema 4D. Speaking of Cinema4D, weve just received Cinema4D R11 and well be adding that application to our testing repertoire soon."
Best wishes!
http://www.macdeveloperjournal.com/article/136236-2/2008/10/aluminummacbook.html
To quote from the article:
"Comparing the top of line 2.4GHz MacBook to its less expensive, lower-powered 2GHz sibling, we find the high-end model nearly 9 percent faster in overall Speedmark performance, with narrower performance gaps in graphics tests and wider gaps in processor tests, like Cinema 4D. Speaking of Cinema4D, weve just received Cinema4D R11 and well be adding that application to our testing repertoire soon."
Best wishes!
I have been using my 2.0 MacBook for a while and a few weeks I went to the Apple Store and I played around w/ the 2.4. There's not much of a difference. I don't really care much about the backlit keyboard, but I think the 2.0 was a better option that the 2.4. The 2.4 is expensive and it's not worth the price difference.