Paying for 1.8 GHz over 1.6 GHz

[NewGenAdam]

Is there any point in paying £190 = $380 for an extra 0.2 GHz processing power? As is, the lower end MBA is already almost at the top of my budget.
Would investing that bit more really pay off?

 

[trentiles]

I don't think it's worth it. It's such a small bump in speed.

 

[nintendude]

definitely not thats almost double the price for upgrade in the US

 

[Cyburnclassic]

isnt it techinally 0.4Ghz more as its Core 2 Duo

1.6Ghz Core 2 Duo = 3.2Ghz
1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo = 3.6Ghz

 

[NewGenAdam]

isnt it techinally 0.4Ghz more as its Core 2 Duo

1.6Ghz Core 2 Duo = 3.2Ghz
1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo = 3.6Ghz

Ooh, maybe! I don't get the maths of dual core processors though. I don't know how a difference in GHz would relate to a difference in performance. Or power needed.

 

[NewGenAdam]

definitely not thats almost double the price for upgrade in the US

Yes, we pay a double price premium for no apparent reason, here in the UK.

 

[ScottFitz]

I'd say not worth it, based upon my user profile (road machine that only uses internet, spreadsheets, word proc., customer database stuff).

This 1.6 mba is way snappier than my 17" white imac core 2 duo 2.0ghz w/ the same amount of ram (2 gb).

 

[rom]

Check again. Apple reduced the cost of 1.6 to 1.8 upgrade by USD100.

 

[MooCow]

isnt it techinally 0.4Ghz more as its Core 2 Duo

1.6Ghz Core 2 Duo = 3.2Ghz
1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo = 3.6Ghz

just wow...

 

[iSpoody 1243]

isnt it techinally 0.4Ghz more as its Core 2 Duo

1.6Ghz Core 2 Duo = 3.2Ghz
1.8Ghz Core 2 Duo = 3.6Ghz

its funny how people think this is the way dual core processors work.
its to hard to explain but in the end you will only get a 200mhz increase in performance, you might see the 400mhz if you are doing heavy multitasking, such as vmware fusion with photoshop.

 

[MatthewStorm]

I paid the extra for the 1.8 andim glad I did. This pup is snappy!

 

[nintendude]

I paid the extra for the 1.8 andim glad I did. This pup is snappy!

do you mean the CTO option or the SSD Model cause if you choose b, the SSD is the main reason

as mentioned in past threads .2 ghz really doesn't make a noticeable difference

 

[teh0ne]

I have a 1.8GHz HDD Air. Originally it was a 1.6 and really there is no noticeable performance difference for everyday tasks. It's possible that during more CPU intensive activities (rendering video, encoding, etc) you'd notice a difference but IMO the difference would be negligible.

As mentioned earlier, if you're going with the 1.8GHz, the performance difference is almost entirely due to the SSD rather than the marginal CPU upgrade.

 

[queshy]

Most people won't notice the difference. So use the money for something else.

 

[NewGenAdam]

Check again. Apple reduced the cost of 1.6 to 1.8 upgrade by USD100.

NICE you're right ^_^ . Well, it's gone down by £50 = $100 so yay!
But is this a sign that the Air/MacBooks are about to sign changes, or is it a sign that they're not planning on changing anything?

 

[idyll]

I've used both, and depite the 1.8GHz having the SSD there was very little difference performance-wise between the two... I'd get the 1.6GHz model (if you are set on the MBA, personally I'd rather get a MBP) and use the rest of the money on something else.

 

[Tom B.]

It probably won't make much of a difference on your decision, but the upgrade to the 1.8GHz processor had just dropped from £190 to £130, as expected.

The SSD has also dropped from £699 to £389.