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

256 mb graphics, or 160gb hard disk?

S

schmintan

macrumors regular
Original poster
Mar 1, 2007
181
0
here's my conundrum. i can get a macbook pro, 2.16, 128mb graphics, 160gb hd and 2gb ram new on the mac store for about 2100 euros.

on the refurb site i can get a macbook pro 2.33, 256mb graphics, 2gb ram , but only 120gb hard disk for about the same cost.

I really value hard disk space, being stuck for it all the time, but which would you go for?
 
theres also the fact that the more powerful one is a refurb, be that good or bad, im unsure
 
There's nothing bad about refurbs. You get the same 1 year warranty and they should look pracically new.

Pretty much the only real difference is that refurbs don't come in a fancy Apple box, but are more modestly packaged.
 
DEfinatly go with the faster machine, and more vRam those two components can not be upgraded, that harddrive however can. Good luck

:)
 
as everyone else here has said, faster machine/better grx card. 120GB hdd is nothing to sneeze at and if you REALLY blow through that, just grab a good external FW drive and dump the larger, lesser used files like home videos or ripped movies on that.
 
took the plunge, got the high spec machine!!! i just spent soooooooooo much more money than i wanted! i so hope its worth it!
 
Go for the faster machine definitely as you can upgrade the HDD. And as someone's said already, if you're really lucky you might find it has 160GB anyway. No question what you should go for IMHO.
 
iW00t said:
The Vram is overrated, you get a lot more performance increase from a new GPU than more Vram.
Click to expand...


That's not very helpful to the question...My vote is get the 2.33 with 256MB vid card. Can't be upgraded, but you can always get more HD space with an external.
 
iW00t said:
The Vram is overrated, you get a lot more performance increase from a new GPU than more Vram.
Click to expand...

I agree, to a point. However as the card is souldered on it is beneficial to get the better one as it cant be upgraded and the harddrive can.
 
schmintan said:
here's my conundrum. i can get a macbook pro, 2.16, 128mb graphics, 160gb hd and 2gb ram new on the mac store for about 2100 euros.

on the refurb site i can get a macbook pro 2.33, 256mb graphics, 2gb ram , but only 120gb hard disk for about the same cost.

I really value hard disk space, being stuck for it all the time, but which would you go for?
Click to expand...

If you are looking at the 2.16/128 vRam then skip the 2gb upgrade and HD upgrade and DIY. Apple charges about 2x the price of the RAM for the upgrade since ( in the states ) I can get a 1gb stick for $70 and BTO upgrade is $160. Because you onle get 1x 1gb on the 2.16 model you don't have to worry about removing the chip that's in there. If you are really inteested in performace I would pass on the HD upgrade as well and get yourself a 3rd party 7200 RPM drive.

As for the vRam, I think it's overrated myself. Faster CPU's are more important, but you are talking about less than a 10% speed boost.
 
schmintan said:
here's my conundrum. i can get a macbook pro, 2.16, 128mb graphics, 160gb hd and 2gb ram new on the mac store for about 2100 euros.

on the refurb site i can get a macbook pro 2.33, 256mb graphics, 2gb ram , but only 120gb hard disk for about the same cost.

I really value hard disk space, being stuck for it all the time, but which would you go for?
Click to expand...

Definitively go for the refurb. I've purchased a refurb mbp and it was in perfect condition the only difference was basically the packaging. No problems what so ever. Given the specs you've listed if their both at the same price you'll regret not taking the faster processor and increased vram. I know that apple has some lovely packaging but at the end of the day it’s just a box that gets thrown in the attic or out of sight. Go for the 2.33 mbp :)

I opted to get a refurb 2.16 c2d with 128mb and 120gb hd but there was also a 17" mbp but only came with the core duo processor, but like yourself i was tempted but don't regret the decision, i got the best specs for the money i had available at the time.
 
mattscott306 said:
Go with the vRAM, you'll thank yourself later.
Click to expand...

My friend bought an iMac like mine, except it had 2.16 and 128mb X1600... he is kicking himself now because he plays games and he can't do anything about it. Always go for the best, you will be glad later.
 
Zwhaler said:
My friend bought an iMac like mine, except it had 2.16 and 128mb X1600... he is kicking himself now because he plays games and he can't do anything about it. Always go for the best, you will be glad later.
Click to expand...

It is not a consequence of the 128MB Vram, but the X1600.

In PeeCee circles the X1600 is an absolutely **** pathetic card compared to the mainstream best bang for buck 7600GT card.

I have a a 2.33Ghz MBP with a 256mb card and I still can't play the one game that matters to me in an enjoyable fashion (Civ IV). The games that the machine handles smoothly are oldies like Warcraft III and WoW which I care nothing about.

There are also plenty of review sites out there that places the improvements you get going from 128mb of vram to 256mb of vram at virtually non-existent...

Another factor to take into account is if you are a frequent upgrader, the $500 premium you pay for the top model evaporates instantly when it is time for you to resell it. Just because you paid $500 more for it doesn't mean it will sell for $500 more.
 
my macbook pro has only 128mb and it runs graphics intense games just fine.

ive been playing battlefield 2 recently on medium settings pretty high res. i can go high but it lags a little bit so with 2gb of ram i could do it.

but i still recommend the graphics upgrade because in the future, the only things that are replacable are the hard drive and RAM.
 
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