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

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by greendragon, May 15, 2007.

  1. greendragon macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    #1
    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
     
  2. Draythor macrumors 6502

    Draythor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Location:
    Exeter University, UK
  3. Dice-K macrumors newbie

    Dice-K

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2007
    Location:
    Calgary
    #3
    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.
     
  4. Cybergypsy macrumors 68040

    Cybergypsy

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    Central Florida!
  5. moonzilla macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Location:
    Berkeley, CA
    #5
    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!
     
  6. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #6
    you could buy an external hard drive to back up your files with the $175
     
  7. Draythor macrumors 6502

    Draythor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Location:
    Exeter University, UK
    #7
    I beg to differ...
    New
    [​IMG]
    Old
    [​IMG]
     
  8. Telp macrumors 68040

    Telp

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
  9. Dynamyk macrumors 6502a

    Dynamyk

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Location:
    Toronto
    #9
    Hmmm depends what your needs are, personally I'd ask for the money back and get 2GB Ram.
     
  10. mags631 Guest

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    #10
    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.
     
  11. xfiftyfour macrumors 68030

    xfiftyfour

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2006
    Location:
    Clemson, SC
    #12
    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.
     
  12. greendragon thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2006
    #13
    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
     
  13. onebloodonelife macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Location:
    Twin Cities, MN
    #14
    Assuming that the Macbook you got on Sat. was new, it already has a DL Superdrive. I say get the money and do some upgrades yourself.
     
  14. plux79 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2007
  15. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #16
    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.
     
  16. onebloodonelife macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Location:
    Twin Cities, MN
    #17
    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.
     
  17. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #18
    The base model is the 2.0 GHz Core Duo. I noticed.
     
  18. Draythor macrumors 6502

    Draythor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Location:
    Exeter University, UK
    #19
    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
     
  19. Bobjob186 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2005
    Location:
    Laguna Beach
    #20
    send it back, I just got your exact 2.0ghz c2d computer for $999 today.
     
  20. NJuul macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Location:
    Boston
    #21
    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.
     
  21. onebloodonelife macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Location:
    Twin Cities, MN
    #22
    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.
     
  22. Mpulsive81 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    #23
    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!
     
  23. Draythor macrumors 6502

    Draythor

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Location:
    Exeter University, UK
    #24
    See for yourself.
    Similar if not identical application tasks.
     
  24. NJuul macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Location:
    Boston
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page