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

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by a.c.earley, Jan 17, 2008.

  1. a.c.earley macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #1
    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
     
  2. djellison macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Pasadena CA
    #2
    MBP it is then :)

    Doug
     
  3. neiltc13 macrumors 68040

    neiltc13

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    #3
    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.
     
  4. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #4
    I beg to differ. Go with the pro, much better machine for the money.
     
  5. neiltc13 macrumors 68040

    neiltc13

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    #5
    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.
     
  6. a.c.earley thread starter macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #6
    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.......
     
  7. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #7
    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!
     
  8. Batt macrumors 65816

    Batt

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2007
    Location:
    Syracuse, NY
    #8
    MBP. More "stuff", like a backlit keyboard and larger screen.
     
  9. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #9
    what he said.

    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.

    what he said.
     
  10. Ryan T. macrumors 6502a

    Ryan T.

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    #10
    If you're saying the X3100 is only marginally faster than the original GMA950, you're sorely mistaken my friend.
     
  11. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #11
    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!
     
  12. Ryan T. macrumors 6502a

    Ryan T.

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2005
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    #12
    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.
     
  13. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #13
    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!
     

Share This Page