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

If there is no difference...

C

cujoca

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jul 24, 2006
205
0
Hi everybody...I'm going to buy a 20" C2D iMac and I've been reading that there isn't much difference between 2.16 and 2.33 CPU. If that is true, than why would Apple even bother making that an option. For people who have bought the 2.33 CPU, are you glad you bought it? Was it really worth the extra cash?

Thanks
 
Hey, I got a 20' 2.16 and it rocks! I guess if yu want that extra edge the 2.33 is the way to go but damn! I keep pushing the envelope of my Mac and I keep getting s amazed by the results! Wow, it's such an awesome computer that there's no need for fancy CPU's in my opinion!
 
cujoca said:
Hi everybody...I'm going to buy a 20" C2D iMac and I've been reading that there isn't much difference between 2.16 and 2.33 CPU. If that is true, than why would Apple even bother making that an option. For people who have bought the 2.33 CPU, are you glad you bought it? Was it really worth the extra cash?

Thanks
Click to expand...
They make it for those who need the most performance level and are willing to pay the price.

Personally, unless you do processor intensive tasks, you will probably never see a difference between the 2.16 and 2.33 processors.

YMMV.
 
No, I don't think there is much of a difference in speed. My mom has the 1.83 GHz CD MacBook, and I have the 2.0 GHz CD MacBook Pro, and the speed difference is negligible. Definitally not worth the extra cash. It's going to be pretty fast either way.
 
So instead of upgrading the CPU keep it at stock 2.16. If I were to do this do you think it would be wise to upgrade the RAM to 2GB?
 
If your gonna upgrade something go for the RAM and not the CPU. The CPU upgrade is a huge waste of money in my opinion, and you can never have too much RAM.
 
Sobering said:
If your gonna upgrade something go for the RAM and not the CPU. The CPU upgrade is a huge waste of money in my opinion, and you can never have too much RAM.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, RAM over CPU any day (at least when the CPU difference is so small).
 
Definately go with more RAM than the CPU bump, I got it anyway (had the cash at the time) and when dealing with large files I can actually notice a difference in mine over my friends 2.16, but if your a basic user there's no point.
 
Interestingly enough, it was not that long ago that a choice between a 16 MHz machine and a 33 MHz machine would have been obvious: the second one is twice as fast. Now that MHz is just the decimal value on the back end of processor speed, I agree with everyone else: put your money into RAM.
 
emptyCup said:
Interestingly enough, it was not that long ago that a choice between a 16 MHz machine and a 33 MHz machine would have been obvious: the second one is twice as fast. Now that MHz is just the decimal value on the back end of processor speed, I agree with everyone else: put your money into RAM.
Click to expand...

I'm glad I wasn't around at that stage. My forst proper computer was a 1Ghz celeron! which was still super slow @ the time, hey I was like 7 so it was the 1337est thing on earth! It ran windows '98!
 
dr_lha said:
LOL. My first computer had a 3.5Mhz CPU and ran BASIC. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZX_Spectrum
Click to expand...

Discounting a used C64 (1.02MHz) that I never used much, my first ran on a 4.77MHz 8086 with MS-DOS 1.25 (later 3.3) and 256k of RAM. To this day I'd rather use DOS than Windows.

My first Mac was an LC520 with a 25MHz '030 and a whopping 80MB of HD space. CD-ROM had to be loaded into its own tray. I remember waiting anxiously for System 7.

God, I'm getting old.
 
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