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

Any disadvantages of getting the 2.4 over the 2.0 AluBook?

2

226896

Guest
Original poster
Sep 13, 2008
204
0
So next week, I'll finally be able to afford my first MacBook (my first Mac ever). I was thinking of getting the 2.4ghz, simply for the backlit keyboard and the fractionally higher specs, seeing as I have the money for it. Though without realising it, last night I was typing on my current laptop in the dark without any trouble at all, which has made me wonder whether I really need a backlit keyboard... so now I'm also considering the 2.0ghz, because people have said the performance is pretty much the same between the two models, and the only time you'll notice the difference is when rendering, encoding etc, plus I can just upgrade the hard drive if I find myself needing more than 160GB.

I'm still considering the 2.4ghz however, and just wanted to know if hardware wise, the 2.4 has any bad points when compared to the 2.0? Does the 2.4 get hotter than the 2.0, for example?

Thanks guys.
 
Does the 2.4 get hotter than the 2.0? Not to the best of my knowledge.
The 2.4 and backlit keyboard is 100% worth it to me, but that's just me. I'm not here to tell you how to spend your money.

To answer your questions, there are no disadvantages of getting the 2.4 over the 2.0 unless you somehow think performance is a bad thing.
 
dinaluvsApple said:
get the 2.4 is futureproofing yourself for snow leopard.

the 800mhz will be very handy later on.
Click to expand...

I do not know how many times this has to be explained but I guess I'll do it again.

1) The difference is not 800MHz (there are two cores, yes, but even when both are running at full capacity you still won't see 800MHz difference).
2) Clock Speed has never and will never be an accurate measure of computer performance. The system might have a 400MHz faster clock, but does that mean you will see a 20% difference in performance? Of course not.
3) If anything, Snow Leopard should be less CPU intensive than Leopard, so in what way would having a processor which is clocked slightly faster aid performance?

I also reiterate the point which is made time and time again here that the processor being faster is only going to make a difference when you are at 100% load. When you're at 60% or 50% it's not going to be any quicker than the 2.0GHz model.

To me the difference is not worth $300. If you think of all the additional things you can get for your computer for $300 those far outweigh the insignificant performance boost you'd get by buying the higher model MacBook.

I continue to advise against the 2.4GHz model because it represents incredibly poor value for money, not only against Apple's other computers but against the overall market for notebooks.
 
neiltc13 said:
I do not know how many times this has to be explained but I guess I'll do it again.

1) The difference is not 800MHz (there are two cores, yes, but even when both are running at full capacity you still won't see 800MHz difference).
2) Clock Speed has never and will never be an accurate measure of computer performance. The system might have a 400MHz faster clock, but does that mean you will see a 20% difference in performance? Of course not.
3) If anything, Snow Leopard should be less CPU intensive than Leopard, so in what way would having a processor which is clocked slightly faster aid performance?

I also reiterate the point which is made time and time again here that the processor being faster is only going to make a difference when you are at 100% load. When you're at 60% or 50% it's not going to be any quicker than the 2.0GHz model.

To me the difference is not worth $300. If you think of all the additional things you can get for your computer for $300 those far outweigh the insignificant performance boost you'd get by buying the higher model MacBook.

I continue to advise against the 2.4GHz model because it represents incredibly poor value for money, not only against Apple's other computers but against the overall market for notebooks.
Click to expand...

thanks, glad you did explain this again, first time I'm hearing it but it's a compelling argument!
 
for the amount of money you're paying extra it really is just for the backlit keyboard because if you buy the 2.0ghz then buy a 320gb harddrive(the faster ones) and 4 gigs of ram it only costs (for me) 183.40 (shipped w/ tax included) from OWC. THEN it is worth the money. and even then if you buy refurb, for both of those upgrades and the mac (once again including tax) it would only cost you 1,355$ which is a very good deal in my eyes.


the backlit keyboard and .4ghz processor speed wasn't a big factor since i'll be keeping my macbook on a stand attached to a 22 inch monitor 80% of the time, the other 20% will be at school during the day, i dont look down at keys when i type anyways so it was only aesthetic (and looks good) but not 300$ worth.
 
The main question you should ask yourself is are you the type of person who gets a new computer every 1-2 years, or are you a person who keeps your computer for 4-5 years? If it's the latter, then definitely buy the 2.4.

In 4 or 5 years from now, when a certain new piece of important software comes out, the minimum requirement might be a 2.4GHz processor.

But if you replace your computer every 1-2 years, save your money and get the 2.0.
 
Well if you don't have problems typing in the dark then go for the 2.0. I myself am planning to buy one (maybe base Pro, not sure yet) but if I go the MacBook way, I will definitely get the 2.4, because the backlit keyboard is definitely worth just the 300$ for me. But of course, all people are different.
 
ThomasJL said:
The main question you should ask yourself is are you the type of person who gets a new computer every 1-2 years, or are you a person who keeps your computer for 4-5 years? If it's the latter, then definitely buy the 2.4.

In 4 or 5 years from now, when a certain new piece of important software comes out, the minimum requirement might be a 2.4GHz processor.

But if you replace your computer every 1-2 years, save your money and get the 2.0.
Click to expand...

Don't mislead people by saying that a program might require a 400mhz bump in processor speed to run. These days the requirements for a program to run rely more on available ram, possibly graphics card speed, but not on a tiny processor speed bump.

Sure a bit faster processor may give you a higher benchmark in 3DMark, or a higher rating in Vista or Windows 7 (if that even matters to you) but the core architecture of the chips are the same.

This has been gone over many times in many threads but here it is again: If you can live without a backlit keyboard, take the $300 you will save and bump your ram to 4GB and put a 320GB or 500GB hard drive in your computer. It will be more useful than the 400mhz processor bump and you will still have money in your pocket for an extra power adapter or laptop case.

-Clay
 
neiltc13 said:
I do not know how many times this has to be explained but I guess I'll do it again.

1) The difference is not 800MHz (there are two cores, yes, but even when both are running at full capacity you still won't see 800MHz difference).
2) Clock Speed has never and will never be an accurate measure of computer performance. The system might have a 400MHz faster clock, but does that mean you will see a 20% difference in performance? Of course not.
3) If anything, Snow Leopard should be less CPU intensive than Leopard, so in what way would having a processor which is clocked slightly faster aid performance?

I also reiterate the point which is made time and time again here that the processor being faster is only going to make a difference when you are at 100% load. When you're at 60% or 50% it's not going to be any quicker than the 2.0GHz model.

To me the difference is not worth $300. If you think of all the additional things you can get for your computer for $300 those far outweigh the insignificant performance boost you'd get by buying the higher model MacBook.

I continue to advise against the 2.4GHz model because it represents incredibly poor value for money, not only against Apple's other computers but against the overall market for notebooks.
Click to expand...

Isn't Snow Leopard supposed to use more of the GPU instead of the CPU?
 
I got my 2.4 MB from Amazon for $1450. To me $150 was worth it for the bump in specs and hardware. That's just FYI, you can find them for quite a bit lower if you look at some online retailers.
 
brop52 said:
Disadvantage=Price
Click to expand...

Sure, exactly. If you have the money, and you feel that it's justifiable, then I think it's well worth it. Which is apparent, because I bought one.

You can buy a corolla, but if you're a billionaire you might as well get a ferrari. Now, not that the performance discrepency between the two MBs is the same as the one between the two cars, but you get the idea.
 
SteveMobs said:
Sure, exactly. If you have the money, and you feel that it's justifiable, then I think it's well worth it. Which is apparent, because I bought one.

You can buy a corolla, but if you're a billionaire you might as well get a ferrari. Now, not that the performance discrepency between the two MBs is the same as the one between the two cars, but you get the idea.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to lie as I contemplated getting the 2.4GHz MB when it first came out, but I'm in enough student loan debt as it is and didn't want to add on more. Plus the honest thing is that there shouldn't be any reason to need to look at the keys. If someone does a lot of CPU intensive things then of course it would probably be worth it. FYI, I think the car analogy sucks. Though yes I do get the idea despite the over exaggeration. :b
 
Lukeeeee - What do you use your computer for?

What will 0.4Ghz be worth in 3 years? The money saved can be put towards the next computer, or when you feel the 2.0GHz is slowing you down - buy RAM, add a new HDD (SSD will be more affordable).

You could always wait until May for the small bump in spec, but the waiting game is another can of worms.

Cheers,
OW
 
brop52 said:
FYI, I think the car analogy sucks. Though yes I do get the idea despite the over exaggeration. :b
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, it was bad, the two are way to far apart. Maybe this one is better;

A 2.0 MB is like a Porsche Carrera with 345 horsepower, a 2.4 MB is like a Carrera S with 385 horsepower. Those two are a little closer together. I like cars.
 
SteveMobs said:
Oh yeah, it was bad, the two are way to far apart. Maybe this one is better;

A 2.0 MB is like a Porsche Carrera with 345 horsepower, a 2.4 MB is like a Carrera S with 385 horsepower. Those two are a little closer together. I like cars.
Click to expand...

I can tell. :)
 
i spent the extra $250 (student discount) on the 2.4, the only reason was the backlit keyboard... and it was completely worth it!

I don't look at the keyboard when i type, but i still like to see the keys lighting up.
 
I have a 2Ghz unibody and I thought, nah the backlit keyboard is too gimmicky. But I use my Macbook in bed so much in the dark that now I kinda wish I had gotten it. Is it worth the price? Spec wise not imo, I can replace the HD and RAM for cheaper so it all comes down to that backlit keyboard. They should have made it standard across the unibody line.

If you can type fine in the dark I would say its not worth it, I on the other hand cannot type in the dark very well so...Its a toss up, sorry for being such little help :p
 
As people said : No,for normal user it might not be worth the money.

For me it was.

Working with the computer (photo) and for me the backlit keyboard is nice (dark enviroments in the shoots etc..),the extra oomph is nice to have for one reason : The time is invaluable when I am in a hurry,say,showing the client some quick proofs on the set with lightroom or when doing some quick tests with photoshop.
Is it absolutely mandatory to have the extra speed? No. But on those occasions the extra 20-30 seconds of waiting is 20-30 seconds of waiting too much.

And opposite to many peeps on this forums who upgrade the computer every 6-12 months,I tend to keep my computers as long as they are feasible.Hell,had my iBook for over 4 years..
A trusty workhorse wich quirks you know lets me keep my brain on more important matters. The extra 20% speed will not be the dealbraker in the next 1 or 2 years but in the longer run they might let me run the computer for an extra year.

But that is just me and my 0.2$.
 
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