2.2 MB C2D 120GB vs 2.16 MBP C2D 160GB HELP!

[a.c.earley]

Hi Guys,

I can either go for

1. A new Macbook 2.2Ghz Core 2 Duo with 120gb HD & 1GB ram (white) or....

2. A refurbished Macbook Pro 2.16G Core 2 Duo with 160gb HD & 2 GB ram (128mb X1600)

for exactly the same price (about 720 GBP).

What should I go for (MBP does not come with leopard though)?

Probable uses:
Ripping DVDs
Music & Photos
Some gaming
Web browsing

Thanks,
Austin

 

[djellison]

Some gaming

MBP it is then

Doug

 

[neiltc13]

The 128MB X1600 is actually quite comparable to the new Intel X3100 found in the new generation of MacBooks. The Intel chip is not quite as quick and there are a few areas where it is lacking (pixel shader etc) but if you're doing casual gaming on games which aren't cutting edge (anything but UT3, COD4, Crysis etc) then MacBook will actually be sufficient.

 

[TBi]

The 128MB X1600 is actually quite comparable to the new Intel X3100 found in the new generation of MacBooks. The Intel chip is not quite as quick and there are a few areas where it is lacking (pixel shader etc) but if you're doing casual gaming on games which aren't cutting edge (anything but UT3, COD4, Crysis etc) then MacBook will actually be sufficient.

I beg to differ. Go with the pro, much better machine for the money.

 

[neiltc13]

I beg to differ.

As someone who has run 2004 era games on his 2.2GHz MacBook with the chip, I'd say gaming on the machine is reasonable. It's not far off my old 1.83GHz Core Duo iMac with the X1600.

 

[a.c.earley]

Thanks both. Like you both say:

1. MBP is better for gaming (with a bigger screen/ram/HD)...

2. But only very marginally (and MB is new with slighty faster CPU)....

It's difficult!! Anybody else have an opinion?

Must..... get..... mac.......

 

[TBi]

As someone who has run 2004 era games on his 2.2GHz MacBook with the chip, I'd say gaming on the machine is reasonable. It's not far off my old 1.83GHz Core Duo iMac with the X1600.

I have an original macbook and had an original MBP. The MBP with it's X1600 ran rings around my macbook (2-3 times faster). The new macbook chip is only slightly faster than the original (no where near twice).

Unless you are saying that the frame rates aren't higher on the pro, which might be true but you the pro will run at 30FPS at a much higher resolution than the MB.

Thanks both. Like you both say:

1. MBP is better for gaming (with a bigger screen/ram/HD)...

2. But only very marginally (and MB is new with slighty faster CPU)....

It's difficult!! Anybody else have an opinion?

Must..... get..... mac.......

Get the pro, it's a better machine. I wouldn't worry about the marginal speed difference, rather think about everything else. Bigger and much better screen (a lot better IMHO), back lit keyboard, better & louder speakers for a start.

I've had both and i would get a MBP in a heartbeat. If i could sell my MB i'd have an MBP right now!

 

[Batt]

Thanks both. Like you both say:

1. MBP is better for gaming (with a bigger screen/ram/HD)...

2. But only very marginally (and MB is new with slighty faster CPU)....

It's difficult!! Anybody else have an opinion?

Must..... get..... mac.......

MBP. More "stuff", like a backlit keyboard and larger screen.

 

[QCassidy352]

MBP it is then

Doug

what he said.

The 128MB X1600 is actually quite comparable to the new Intel X3100 found in the new generation of MacBooks. The Intel chip is not quite as quick and there are a few areas where it is lacking (pixel shader etc) but if you're doing casual gaming on games which aren't cutting edge (anything but UT3, COD4, Crysis etc) then MacBook will actually be sufficient.

x3100 equivalent to the x1600... ho ho ho. I'd LOVE to see the benchmarks that support that statement. The x3100 is a nice step up from the epically bad GMA 950, but it's nowhere near the x1600.

MBP. More "stuff", like a backlit keyboard and larger screen.

what he said.

 

[Ryan T.]

I have an original macbook and had an original MBP. The MBP with it's X1600 ran rings around my macbook (2-3 times faster). The new macbook chip is only slightly faster than the original (no where near twice).

Unless you are saying that the frame rates aren't higher on the pro, which might be true but you the pro will run at 30FPS at a much higher resolution than the MB.



Get the pro, it's a better machine. I wouldn't worry about the marginal speed difference, rather think about everything else. Bigger and much better screen (a lot better IMHO), back lit keyboard, better & louder speakers for a start.

I've had both and i would get a MBP in a heartbeat. If i could sell my MB i'd have an MBP right now!

If you're saying the X3100 is only marginally faster than the original GMA950, you're sorely mistaken my friend.

 

[TBi]

If you're saying the X3100 is only marginally faster than the original GMA950, you're sorely mistaken my friend.

Am I?

MB SR is an average of 36% faster than the older MB.

X1600 MBP is on average 346% faster than the old MB.

I'd take an X1600 anyday!

 

[Ryan T.]

Am I?

MB SR is an average of 36% faster than the older MB.

X1600 MBP is on average 346% faster than the old MB.

I'd take an X1600 anyday!

Oh I'm not denying that the X1600 isn't faster than the X3100, but I don't think the jump from the 950 to X3100 is "marginal". I believe it was a nice substantial bump to a much more competent GPU.

 

[TBi]

Oh I'm not denying that the X1600 isn't faster than the X3100, but I don't think the jump from the 950 to X3100 is "marginal". I believe it was a nice substantial bump to a much more competent GPU.

Oh apologies, for that instant i thought you were neiltc13 backing up his case that the X3100 and the X1600 were around the same speed.

You are right the X3100 is much better than the older GMA. Especially with the new beta drivers on windows!

I'll make sure to re-read user names before i go panning people in future.

Again, sincerest apologies!