List time I checked, 2.4 is faster than 2.0. So in REALITY, it does matter. In fact, it matters about 20% more than you think.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
is the .4Ghz imporant? i dont really need a backlit keyboard...?
- Thread starter socorose
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
List time I checked, 2.4 is faster than 2.0. So in REALITY, it does matter. In fact, it matters about 20% more than you think.
I've never understood the draw of a back-lit keyboard. I know where the keys are. I know how to type. If a person needs a back-lit keyboard, maybe the extra money you spend for the higher end macbook would be better spent on some typing lessons. I'm sure I've Mavis Beacon buried somewhere. I could send it to a typing-challenged person if they'd like.
Agreed, but when you use the mouse and just dip into the keyboard for a quick Command+Shift+4 for example being able to see the keys is handy
Plus it looks cool, which is important
Personal taste
It really comes down to personal taste.
I just switched from a 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro to the new 2.0 GHz MacBook. What did I lose in the process? A larger screen and a backlit keyboard. I gained 40 gigs of disk space, a more portable laptop, and longer battery life.
I had considered going to a 2.4 MacBook, but for me, the backlit keyboard isn't a necessity. It's a neat little feature I can show off to friends and family ... but that's about it. I'm an excellent touch typist and never look at the keyboard when I type. If you do however, and you type in low-light environments, then the backlit keyboard might be more important.
As for the .4 GHz difference ... 2.0 GHz is plenty for me, and I'm typically running two VMware sessions (one Windows XP, one Linux), along with some 3D visualization software. For me, the biggest issue is RAM - I need at least 3 gigs in my machine (which was the upper limit of my old MacBook Pro). Now I can squeeze in 4 gigs (or possibly even more in the future).
I wouldn't worry about the .4 GHz difference in speed unless you're doing a *lot* of number crunching. I'd look at the other differences (backlit keyboard, larger HD) and ask "is that worth it to me?".
It really comes down to personal taste.
I just switched from a 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro to the new 2.0 GHz MacBook. What did I lose in the process? A larger screen and a backlit keyboard. I gained 40 gigs of disk space, a more portable laptop, and longer battery life.
I had considered going to a 2.4 MacBook, but for me, the backlit keyboard isn't a necessity. It's a neat little feature I can show off to friends and family ... but that's about it. I'm an excellent touch typist and never look at the keyboard when I type. If you do however, and you type in low-light environments, then the backlit keyboard might be more important.
As for the .4 GHz difference ... 2.0 GHz is plenty for me, and I'm typically running two VMware sessions (one Windows XP, one Linux), along with some 3D visualization software. For me, the biggest issue is RAM - I need at least 3 gigs in my machine (which was the upper limit of my old MacBook Pro). Now I can squeeze in 4 gigs (or possibly even more in the future).
I wouldn't worry about the .4 GHz difference in speed unless you're doing a *lot* of number crunching. I'd look at the other differences (backlit keyboard, larger HD) and ask "is that worth it to me?".
If you like to run apps like HandBrake then I would go for the extra .4GHz as it is very CPU intensive. It all depends on what your want to do with your computer: surf the web and check email or play games and encode/decode/convert files and such.
i think you could manage with the 2.0 if your upgrading. but remember, those upgrades and the computer are about the same for a 2.4ghz...
http://www.macworld.com/article/136214/2008/10/macbookbenchmarks.html
I guess it's for you to decide.
The 2.4 ghz white or black macbook from February seems to fair a lot better than the current 2.0 ghz aluminum model.
Not to mention you would be saving a few hundred bucks (especially if you buy a refurb) that you could upgrade RAM or HDD with.
I guess it's for you to decide.
The 2.4 ghz white or black macbook from February seems to fair a lot better than the current 2.0 ghz aluminum model.
Not to mention you would be saving a few hundred bucks (especially if you buy a refurb) that you could upgrade RAM or HDD with.
The backlit keys are one of the reasons I traded my 2.0 for the 2.4. They backlit keys are awesome. I can type w/o looking, but every once in a while I still look. i have a hard time going form a PC keyboard to my macbook still.
Are you high or just incompetent? Of course 20% more speed does not transfer into 20% more performance in most applications.
Sure, in rendering and archiving large chunks it will be quite faster, but it's still a matter of seconds. Overall performance does not increase with 20%.
How long do you plan to go between new machine purchases? If you upgrade every two years, save a few bucks and buy the low-end model. Since i run a machine into the ground before i buy a new one, i went for the 2.4 GHz.
Right now the benchmarks are showing little difference between the two models. But in 3 years when MacOS 10.8 is out, and all the apps are demanding more performance, that 20% more power could be helpful. If it prevents a few beachballs in the long run, it's worth it.
btw, don't ya think "Merecat" would be a good codename for 10.8 ?
Right now the benchmarks are showing little difference between the two models. But in 3 years when MacOS 10.8 is out, and all the apps are demanding more performance, that 20% more power could be helpful. If it prevents a few beachballs in the long run, it's worth it.
btw, don't ya think "Merecat" would be a good codename for 10.8 ?
Sometimes it'll be more than a 20% gain...go look at a few benchmarks, then get back to me...you know, the incompetent one waiting patiently.
I don't understand the notion or belief that buying the higher 2.4 model will justify you having the computer longer or running it into the ground. Here is the big picture: in 3-4 years, the 2.4 and the 2.0 will both be severely outdated.
I think a ram upgrade will go longer in a bump in performance rather than the .4 processor difference.
And btw, you can also run a 2.0 into the ground as well.
The difference is only a matter of seconds. No "real world" difference.
Most of those activities on the benchmark are ones that are not done on a routine or consistent basis by an average user.
Can you honestly not wait 5-6 seconds longer for a task to complete?
Apparently reading is not one of the things you know. I said that for most applications you do not see a 20% increase in performance, I also said that is is really only in rendering where you see that or higher.
Which is what benchmarks show, therefor the overall performance gain will be alot lower then 20%.
Guess you proven my point about the incompetence all on your own...