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

MacBook 2.16GHz vs. 2.2GHz

C

ChicagoDude

macrumors newbie
Original poster
Jan 21, 2008
7
0
I am looking at buying a MacBook Refurb; (I am new to Macs)

I am looking to use it for general business purposes, some light web design, nothing too high end.


Refurbished MacBook 2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo - Black
13.3-inch glossy widescreen display
1GB memory / 160GB hard drive
8x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW) Built-in iSight camera
Original price: $1,499.00
Your price: $1,249.00

<OR>

Refurbished MacBook 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo - Black
13.3-inch glossy widescreen display
1GB memory / 160GB hard drive
8x SuperDrive (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW) Built-in iSight camera
Original price: $1,499.00
Your price: $1,299.00

Do you think the extra 0.04 GHz is worth the $50?

I don't think I can add to refurb; however are there any other recommendations for this? Very much appreciate the advice.

Thanks!
 
You might as well go for the 2.2GHz model. At the very least, it might get you $50 more should you decide to resell it. And 2.2GHz sounds better than 2.16GHz :)
 
Plus you get iTunes controls (and Exposé and Dashboard buttons) on the F keys with the 2.2 :)
 
Yes it is worth it. $50 for .04ghz is not worth it but the ability to use 4GB of RAM is worth it.
 
No one has mentioned this, so I will: If you want to have the option of running Tiger (instead of being locked into Leopard), get the 2.16 laptop; it's the last Tiger-compatible Macbook available. I've got one, and I'm still running Tiger, with no desire to move to Leopard.
 
2.2 GHz:

- slightly faster CPU (2.2 GHz vs 2.16 GHz)
- faster FSB (800MHz vs 667 mHz)
- ability to install 4 GB of RAM (vs 3 GB limit on 2.16)
- faster graphics (X3100 vs GMA950)
- runs cooler
- probably slightly better battery life
- weights slightly less
- media control buttons on F keys

You decide if its worth extra 50$ to you ;)
 
eXan said:
2.2 GHz:

- slightly faster CPU (2.2 GHz vs 2.16 GHz)
- faster FSB (800MHz vs 667 mHz)
- ability to install 4 GB of RAM (vs 3 GB limit on 2.16)
- faster graphics (X3100 vs GMA950)
- runs cooler
- probably slightly better battery life
- weights slightly less
- media control buttons on F keys

You decide if its worth extra 50$ to you ;)
Click to expand...

Yup, that post covers it very well. The 2.2 is by FAR the better choice.
 
Keep in mind it's actually an 8gb limit; 4gb sticks just aren't on the market yet. But if you're planning to futureproof via memory, the extra gigpspace may come in handy.
 
Note that the refurb page on the Apple website lists the 2.2GHz white Macbook as having the GMA950 graphics chipset and the 667MHz FSB, which I'm betting is a mistake on their part (since the one I ordered should be here on Friday). A guy on another forum ordered the same thing and has received an e-receipt from Apple with the serial number, and he said he looked it up on Apple's support site and it is indeed the Santa Rosa Macbook with the X3100 chipset and 800MHz FSB.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.
 
Definitely go with the 2.2 GHz. It's worth it because of the enhanced graphics capabilities and the Santa Rosa chipset which will allow you to install 4GB of RAM later on if you so desire.
 
heatmiser said:
No one has mentioned this, so I will: If you want to have the option of running Tiger (instead of being locked into Leopard), get the 2.16 laptop; it's the last Tiger-compatible Macbook available. I've got one, and I'm still running Tiger, with no desire to move to Leopard.
Click to expand...

why would you say that?
 
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