Macbook Alu 2.4 = more for the $?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by matosbr, Jan 7, 2009.

  1. matosbr macrumors newbie

    matosbr

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Location:
    Norway
    #1
    Hei,
    I was fooling around in the Apple Store when I decided to take the Macbook's prices to the calculator, so here's what I found out:

    Macbook 2.0ghz + 250gig HD = $1399
    Macbook 2.4ghz = $1599

    Now let's use some elementary math to see the real price/performance:

    Macbook 2.0 + 250gig HD:
    1399/2 = $699.5 per Ghz
    Macbook 2.4:
    1599/2.4 = $666.25 per Ghz

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the Macbook 2.4 gives you more power for the money, plus you get the backlight keyboard!

    Not trying to convince people to buy one or the other. It's just a funny fact that I found out, and I haven't seen it anywhere in the internet...

    I haven't tried this with other macs, but feel free to give it a try.
     
  2. neiltc13 macrumors 68040

    neiltc13

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    #2
    While it's pretty novel to see someone express this in such a way, the clock speed of a computer is not the only measure of its performance.

    I for one believe that the 2.4GHz MacBook is one of the worst value for money products Apple has ever released. In the USA, it costs $300 more than the 2.0GHz model yet it has the same amount of RAM and has the same GPU. The 400MHz extra doesn't give very much of a performance boost - there are benchmarks on the web which show it being very marginal indeed.

    As for hard drive upgrades, I'd be doing that myself rather than paying someone at Apple to do it for me. Much cheaper that way.
     
  3. matosbr thread starter macrumors newbie

    matosbr

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Location:
    Norway
    #3
    The clock speed is not the only measure of performance, right, but it's the one and only diference between the two machines.

    I understand the low boost on performance given by the plus .4ghz in each core, but it doesn't change the fact that it's cheaper.

    Even if you'd change the HD yourself; let's say you're paying $40 US for a 250g HD (no idea what it really cost), the price per Ghz for the 2.0 would still be $669.5 ($3.25 more expensive than the 2.4).
    AND you get the two leds in the back of the keyboard - hehe

    But then again, in the real world, it is probably overpriced :p
     
  4. theMaccer macrumors 6502a

    theMaccer

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2006
    Location:
    SoCal
    #4
    That's not surprising. The more you buy, the cheaper price per unit gets.
     
  5. Demosthenes X macrumors 68000

    Demosthenes X

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    #5
    A better way to look at it might be how much you pay per Ghz that you'll actually use. As an example, say most people will never use more than 1.8 Ghz. From that perspective, the 2.0 costs $777.22/Ghz used, and the 2.4 costs $888.33/Ghz used. A massive difference.

    Think about it like two identical cars. One costs $100 000, and is electronically limited to 155 mph (like most German sports sedans are). The other is $120 000, and does not have the electronic limiter, so it can achieve a top speed of 190 mph.

    The 155 mph car is $645/mph.
    The 190 mph car is $605/mph.

    Great. But since you'll never actually drive 155 mph, never mind 190 mph, you're better off saving your money and buying the cheaper car. :)
     
  6. urkel macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2008
    #6
    I'm someone shopping to buy right now so I've been juggling the numbers, and your example makes a lot more sense. Once you get to120mph then going 130 or 140 isn't as big a deal as how comfortable the seats are or how many passengers you can hold.

    For me, I have written off the 2.4ghz Macbook simply because it isn't much better than the 2.0ghz model, and isn't too far off from the MBP which is big step up.

    BTW, I've been using my wifes Macbook on my 24" monitor and it's proving to be pretty impressive, but I'm still thinking about the Pro because of that GPU. It's tough to know how necessary it will be once 10.6 and the next gen of apps come out.
     
  7. zsft macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2008
    #7
    yeah except you actually do use all 2.4 ghz whether you like it or not, thus the metaphor is flawed. what you ought to say is you only do word processing so you don't use all 2gb of ram, or something along that line.

    and you could probably pay someone a hundred bucks to hack your ecu so you get 190mph for $100,100 with the first option. can't do that for computers.
     
  8. Demosthenes X macrumors 68000

    Demosthenes X

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2008
    #8
    I don't think the GPU in the Pro will make a huge difference with Snow Leopard, for the simple reason that I don't Apple would release a brand new, completely redesigned system that couldn't handle the OS that they know is around the corner. I would expect the GPU in the MacBook to be very future proof with regard to SL.

    It's not very often you'll use 100% of your CPU power. Right now, for example, running Firefox, iTunes, and Adium, idle CPU resources are fluctuating between 75-85%. The difference between 2.0 Ghz and 2.4 Ghz is minuscule to begin with (I believe benchmarks have said the 2.4 Ghz is faster, but the percentage figure is in the single digits), and the time you'll spend taxing your CPU to the point that it would be 100% budy is so miniscule for most users, that upgrading to the faster processor seems almost foolhardy. I'd say the vast, vast majority of users will never notice the difference.
     
  9. socco macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2008
    #9
    If you were only buying the processor, then this comparison would work. But you're buying a lot more than that. The 2.4GHz Macbook isn't 20% better than the 2.0GHz Macbook, even though it's processor is 20% faster. I better comparison would be to run some tests on the systems. And when that's been done the difference is very little. With that said I have the 2.4GHz Macbook and have no regrets, mainly because of the backlit keyboard. :)
     
  10. Manzana macrumors 6502a

    Manzana

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    #10
    What LEDs?

    Oh, nevermind i now see that the 2.0 MB does not have a backlit keyboard. That's lame.
     
  11. svndmvn Guest

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2007
    Location:
    Italy
    #11
    Both Aluminum Macbooks are probably overpriced and what annoys me is the 2 LEDs have become today's Black plastic option.
    Apple has "silently" made its portables more expensive, forget the white one, that one belongs to the refurb section. Keeping the black one at ~$999 would have been a better choice, in my opinion. Right now it looks like in a couple of months if Apple isn't selling many white ones, it is history, there could be an updated or current 2.0 at that price point and 2 other Aluminums with Backlit keyboard. I'm of the opinion the 2 leds+.4GHz are a simple way of fooling people. The best bangs for your buck are the 2.0MB and the 2.4MBP if you're into that.
     

Share This Page