2.16 or 2.33 GHz -- is the 2.33 worth the extra money?

[bastetbabe27]

So, I've settled on buying a MBP C2D 15". Currently debating over whether the 2.33 GHz processor is worth the extra $500 or so.

I will be getting the edu discount, so the 2.33 BTO version works out to $2299, without tax, AppleCare, or the printer with $100 rebate. With all of that we're talking about $2650.

The 2.16 BTO is $1799, but with a less nice graphics card and 1 GB of RAM. (I would upgrade the RAM to 2GB on my own). With all the extras listed above, it'd be about $2150.

I will be using the computer for web surfing, word processing, watching DVDs, listening to music, and photo editing (probably more advanced as the years go on, but right now I'm just using Elements). No gaming, and I won't likely be doing movie editing.

I want the computer to last me at least 4 years, through grad school. So, should I go for the 2.33, or just get extra RAM with the 2.16?

- bastetbabe27

 

[Mernak]

unless you do a lot of processor intensive tasks (and are very picky) the difference will be negligible. But since it looks like the most processor intensive task you will be doing is photo editing would say get the 2.16 ghz and get more ram.

 

[T-Stex]

I'd agree with the previous post, it looks like that for the tasks you'll be doing, you really won't notice the extra processor speed or graphics memory. You'd probably be able to spend the extra $500 better elsewhere.

 

[svejar]

In my case the answer was "no", so I saved my money and went for the 2.16GHz version. I kept reading about future proofing my MBP, but decided that it really doesn't work like that - my Ibook G4 1.07GHz is dirt slow, and if I'd bought a 1.2GHz instead, it would still be dirt slow. This is my personal opinion - put those extra $400 (after you buy another 1GB of RAM) in your private Mac savings account, that way you've got a head start in a couple of years time - when you want a new Mac

 

[MAcNIAC]

I will be using the computer for web surfing, word processing, watching DVDs, listening to music, and photo editing (probably more advanced as the years go on, but right now I'm just using Elements). No gaming, and I won't likely be doing movie editing.

a macbook would do those things very well, (as well as the MBP mostly) - why not save some more cash and get a C2D macbook?

 

[iñaki'sonMac'87]

a macbook would do those things very well, (as well as the MBP mostly) - why not save some more cash and get a C2D macbook?

I agree with this post, the only thought that i would add, is that a better graphic card would last longer, although it might be possible that when that happends, your processor would be outdated long before, so, better safe MORE money, buy a MB, add RAM, an that's it, your perfect notebook

 

[Chundles]

For your needs (both now and in the mid future at least) the extra grunt is really unnecessary.

Save your money and put it towards RAM, external HDD space and other accessories.

You could even drop from the Pro to the regular MacBook (if you don't see yourself doing much gaming or anything really graphics-heavy, Photoshop isn't graphics-heavy, Aperture is but that's probably a fair bit above what you need) and really max it out both internally and externally with a big external LCD and HDD.

 

[bastetbabe27]

Hmmmm, interesting....

I guess I was thinking the Pro b/c I liked the larger screen, the slimness of the design, and it wasn't much heavier for having a bigger screen.

Thing is, this laptop will be my only computer for the next several years, and the likeliest possibility right now is that I will be moving from the US to London for grad school. And I don't get the impression that I could stick an external LCD screen in my suitcase to take with me

I want to take the laptop with me to class and the library; is the Macbook considerably tougher than the Pro, b/c that's another factor I'm considering. I assumed since the Pros are aluminum, and the Macbooks plastic, that the Pros would be tougher, but in lurking on forums I've heard that the Pros are prone to denting and warping. Nonetheless, I take very good care of my things; I'm not one of those people who abuse their laptops. The Dell I'm typing this on is 4.5 years old, and still looks pretty good for it, I think.

But I'm thinking seriously about your comments, keep 'em coming!

-bastetbabe27

 

[Chundles]

Thing is, this laptop will be my only computer for the next several years, and the likeliest possibility right now is that I will be moving from the US to London for grad school. And I don't get the impression that I could stick an external LCD screen in my suitcase to take with me

See, these threads are like an episode of House. We need all the info to make proper, informed suggestions.

If this is going to be your only machine for "several" years then yes, by all means get the best you can afford. Not only does the 2.33GHz machine have the (ever so slightly) faster processor but it has a better video card and a really decent amount of RAM (2GB is damned good).

We were just trying to save you as much cash as possible.

It's not going to be feasible to carry an LCD to London, you're right. So the larger, 1440x900 display of the MBP will definitely help.

The MacBook is probably the tougher of the two designs - it's made of a polycarbonate plastic that is much stronger than the aluminium of the MacBook Pro. You should be fine with the MBP but you'll just have to be a little more conscious of taking care of it. I certainly wouldn't be treating an expensive laptop like a cheap mobile phone. If I spend a lot of money on something then I sure as hell am taking the effort to keep it in good nick.

If the money isn't an issue then get the more expensive model. If you want to save some cash then get the cheaper model and bung in some more RAM.