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

new macbook vs. $175.00 / worth it or not?

G

greendragon

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jul 28, 2006
104
0
this is what i bought and recieved this past saturday for $1299.00...

MacBook 2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo - White
13.3-inch glossy widescreen display
1280 x 800 resolution
1GB memory (2x512MB SODIMMs)
80GB 5400-rpm Serial ATA hard drive
SuperDrive (DVD±RW/CD-RW)



today i can get a $175.00 discount or should i send it back for this?

2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB memory
120GB hard drive1
Double-layer SuperDrive

$1299.00


?? thanks
 
I'd take the discount because you can probably get a bigger HD if you wanted to, for less than $175 or one thats bigger than 120GB. plus the only other upgrade is the .16 in processor speed...almost unnoticable so definitely not worth much there. I'd take the partial refund.
 
send it back.

i think 160mhz extra, 40gb of HD, and DL burning are worth about (if not more) $175. and dont forget about wireless n being enabled. thats another $1.99!
 
Dice-K said:
I'd take the discount because you can probably get a bigger HD if you wanted to, for less than $175 or one thats bigger than 120GB. plus the only other upgrade is the .16 in processor speed...almost unnoticable so definitely not worth much there. I'd take the partial refund.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ...
New
NewMacBookclockspeeds.jpg

Old
OldMacBookclockspeeds.jpg
 
Draythor said:
I beg to differ...
Click to expand...
Aren't these fore Core 2 Duo versus Core Duo? I think we are comparing 2.0 Core 2 Duo versus 2.16 Core 2 Duo (same chip, different speed). I would hazard a guess that there isn't much real-world difference in the .16 speed difference.
 
mags631 said:
Aren't these fore Core 2 Duo versus Core Duo? I think we are comparing 2.0 Core 2 Duo versus 2.16 Core 2 Duo (same chip, different speed). I would hazard a guess that there isn't much real-world difference in the .16 speed difference.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there's VERY little real world difference in .16Ghz. The OP probably won't even notice it. Personally, I would take the refund and upgrade my HD myself (120GB drives are only about $80 nowadays). Plus, with the extra $100 leftover, you could also upgrade yourself to 2GBs of RAM (again, only about $80 now) - which would bring a MUCH bigger boost than the .16Ghz.
 
more info here, they said since it was an elective return, a 10% restock fee is acessed. does this sound correct? doesn't seem worth the trouble now.

:) thanks
 
Draythor said:
I beg to differ...
New

Old
Click to expand...
That's a rather decent improvement for 166.66 MHz increase. I wonder if they had the same amount of RAM too. Then again the version of OS X that comes on the newest MacBooks can have tweaks to take advantage of the processor over the older builds.
 
Eidorian said:
That's a rather decent improvement for 166.66 MHz increase. I wonder if they had the same amount of RAM too. Then again the version of OS X that comes on the newest MacBooks can have tweaks to take advantage of the processor over the older builds.
Click to expand...

Those statistics are referring to the differences between the CD MB and the C2D MB, not the 2.0 C2D MB vs. the 2.16 C2D MB.
 
Draythor said:
Both Baselines are based on a Core Duo if you read the small print.
The newer screenshot shows a C2D 2.16 core and the old one a C2D 2.0. Look again. The difference is quite remarkable
Click to expand...

You don't know if the "common application tasks" are the same in november and april. Most likely they are not. And most likely the tests were performed by different crews. You cannot make conclusions as you do without access to the raw data.
Logic dictates that you will see an approximately 7.5% speed increase.
 
Draythor said:
Both Baselines are based on a Core Duo if you read the small print.
The newer screenshot shows a C2D 2.16 core and the old one a C2D 2.0. Look again. The difference is quite remarkable
Click to expand...

So they are. I stand corrected.

IMHO, I still don't think people will notice the difference with the extra .16Ghz, but I may be wrong.
 
I'm surprised that no one's mentioned RAM. Max out the ram to 2Gb on the C2D 2.0GHz for now $79 at newegg, sell your 1G for $50. Now you've spent $29 and matched the "substantial increase" of the .16. Processor speed without ample ram is a bottleneck.

Pick up a 2.5 SATA for around $100 or so and now you've exceeded the "performance boost" of the new Macbook. What's the big deal about an extra .16 in *REAL WORLD* application anyways? I don't see the hype.

The only *real* performance increase that I see, from my perspective, is the 8x Superdrive vs the former 6x Superdrive.

In the end, the C2D is solid and with just increasing the memory, your setup is gonna be great. Get the extra HDD if ya need it, but what's the rush? Good luck to ya!
 
NJuul said:
You don't know if the "common application tasks" are the same in november and april. Most likely they are not. And most likely the tests were performed by different crews. You cannot make conclusions as you do without access to the raw data.
Logic dictates that you will see an approximately 7.5% speed increase.
Click to expand...

See for yourself.
Similar if not identical application tasks.
 
Draythor said:
See for yourself.
Similar if not identical application tasks.
Click to expand...

Alright, lets say it is identical tasks, everything identical except in the april tests it's a c2d 2.16 ghz.
I figure from your argumentation that the 0.16 ghz is significantly faster that you are saying that e.g. Garageband tasks are 50% faster on a 2.16 ghz MB (30% vs 20%).
Wrong.
That means that a 2 ghz C2D is 120% the speed of a 2 ghz CD, and that a 2.16 ghz C2D is 130% the speed of a 2 ghz CD.

Let's recalculate: (2.16ghz C2D/2.0ghz C2D)

iTunes 134%/112%=19.6%
iMovie 124%/120%=3.3%
iWeb 137%/127%=7.9%
iPhoto 125%/118%=5.9%
Garageband 130%/120%=8.3%

As you can see, the 2.16 ghz is between 3.3% and 8.3% faster in four of the five apps testet. Only in iTunes you see a dramatic difference (almost 20%). And I bet that is because the iTunes "common tasks" were not the same in the two different tests.
 
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