Is there a big difference in speed between 2.0 and 2.4 GHz Unibody MacBooks?

Discussion in 'MacBook' started by Adrianus, Jan 2, 2009.

  1. Adrianus macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
  2. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
  3. akbc macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2008
    #3
    The ~$300 difference between the two MacBooks are not worth it in my opinion.

    The ~$300 pays for a Backlit keyboard, 400Mhz in speed and... more HDD.

    So, in my opinion it's not worth it, and 400Mhz isn't really big of a difference.
     
  4. illegallydead macrumors 6502a

    illegallydead

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado!!!
    #4
    Yes. About .4 GHz worth of difference. Also known as ~400 MHz of difference :D

    Ultimately, it depends on what you are using it for. In most cases having multiple cores and a good amount of memory is more than enough. In other words, if you do not know that that .4 GHz will make a difference in what you do, you do not need it, especially considering the sizable $$$ premium that comes with that CPU choice...
     
  5. darngooddesign macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #5
    I consider it worthwhile because of the back-lit keyboard (I find that feature to be very desirable), bigger drive and the faster processor. If it were only the .153 mhz like the bottom and middle MBP I wouldn't think its worth it, but I think almost half a GHZ significant enough.
     
  6. Adrianus thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    #6
    The thing that interests me most about the 2.4 GHz version is the larger screen. Or can you get a chearper MacBook with the larger screen but lower processor speed?
     
  7. DeusInvictus7 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Location:
    Kitchener, Ontario
    #7
    Umm...the 2.4GHz MacBook doesn't have a larger screen...I think you're talking about the MacBook Pro. But 2.4 is the lowest configuration that comes in.
     
  8. iToaster macrumors 68000

    iToaster

    Joined:
    May 3, 2007
    Location:
    In front of my MacBook Pro
    #8
    You mean the MacBook Pro? All MacBooks have 13.3" screens, the unibody MacBook Pros have 15.4" screens, but they're $300 more expensive than the high end MacBook. Personally, I bought the 2.4 GHz MacBook because of the backlit keyboard, but the extra $300 for a nearly identically performing machine may not be worth it.
     
  9. DeusInvictus7 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Location:
    Kitchener, Ontario
    #9
    Yup, same here. But then again, I didn't pay the whole $1749 CAD, since my dad paid half of it as a graduation present, so I wanted to get the best that I could.

    And plus, to me, even though I know there isn't much of a performance difference, the "sound" of 2.0GHz just doesn't sound as nice as "2.4" :D

    And the backlit keyboard is SWEET! I never thought I would ever use it that much, but using my laptop in the dark a lot with the screen brightness all the way down, it really comes in handy.
     
  10. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #10
    Remember the days when having a 300MHz CPU mattered against a 400MHz one. 100MHz made a lot of difference. Or for that matter, a 300MHz vs a 500MHz >CPU machine back in 1996/7/8

    I lived thru many processors, and that tiny 100MHz made a difference. However, with today's beasts of 2.0+GHz, 400MHz still matters. It will matter even more once Snow Leo comes out and squeezes out every clock cycle of those extra 400MHz.
     
  11. petermcphee macrumors 6502a

    petermcphee

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2008
    #11
    I bought the 2.4 model for the inevitable snow leopard utilization of the extra power. There will probably be many programs that come along that I will want the extra oomph for. Now I can provide it. Also, the retail value is higher.
     
  12. svndmvn Guest

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Location:
    Italy
    #12
    I doubt Apple's plans with stripping down the Applications are to use more CPU power. And if 10.6 will run better than 10.5 on a 2.4 I don't see why it shouldn't on a 2.0. We're not talking about Vista>XP.
     
  13. jav6454 macrumors P6

    jav6454

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2007
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #13
    Touche about the whole Vista vs XP thing...

    Also, I agree, if a 1.66 or 1.86 GHz MacBook Air runs fine, why shouldn't a 2.0GHz machine?
     
  14. Adrianus thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2008
    #14
    Yup, this is where i was confused...

    I think i will just go for an iMac. Lower price and still high processor speed. I have no real need for a laptop and desktop would be better for gaming etc...
     
  15. Jpoon macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Location:
    Culver City, California
    #15
    Most people will not notice the difference in 400 MHZ / .4 GHZ

    Most people probably don't care about the backlit keyboard, provided that you touch type.

    Most people will just replace the HDD themselves, for a much more economical price, as well as the RAM.

    However, if you have the money to burn and you want the niceties of the more expensive model without having to do self upgrades, then go for it.

    My motto on the CPU clock speed and what not is:

    If you have to ask why it's better, you probably wouldn't have noticed the difference; thus you don't need it.
     
  16. VSMacOne macrumors 601

    VSMacOne

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2008
    #16
    I think you're making a very rational decision. If you don't NEED the mobility, you're much better off with an iMac.. makes more sense.
     
  17. ConnorScott macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    #17
    Too....many....posts....on....same....topic!!!
     

Share This Page