Which Macbook to buy???

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by lil' brudder, May 22, 2007.

  1. lil' brudder macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #1
    I need some advice. I absolutely can't decide whether to get the new baseline model: 2.0 GHZ C2D, 80 GB HD, 1 GB RAM, combo, white for $1020.... or to get the old baseline 1.83 Ghz C2D, 512 MB RAM, combo, 60 GB HD and upgrade the RAM to 2 GB from crucial bringing it up to almost the same price of $1013. I am going to use it for some occasional games under bootcamp with windows xp pro, and other than that, your basic iLife and web browsing type stuff. What is better value? Will i get a major performance hit from losing the 0.17 Ghz? I don't NEED the extra 20 GB of hd space but it would be nice. I would be getting it from MacMall if that makes any difference. thanks!
     
  2. x Shadow Dragon macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #2
    i was like just about to make this post thanks for doing it for me... now someone please answer this
     
  3. Luigi239 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    #3
    Well first off, forget about using a Macbook to game on. 64mb of shared VRAM aint going to cut it.

    I would sugest getting the old baseline, and upgrading the ram. Ram is going to make much more of a difference then .17 ghz. I had a 1.83 CD before apple replaced it, (damn logic board) and it was plenty fast...that was with the old CD chips as well. Remember, you can also upgrade your hard drive yourself if need be.

    More Ram>More Processor.
     
  4. Jack Flash macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 8, 2007
    #4
    You don't need to "forget about gaming" on a MacBook. The GMA 950 is by no means something to write home about, but it is competent. Older games will run fine with 2GB of RAM on reasonably high settings and Call of Duty 2, etc will run well at low settings. Even at low resolutions, games will still look good.
     
  5. x Shadow Dragon macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #5
    do u think that the cheapest MBP would be best even if it only had a gig of RAM or would i have to uupgrade that?
     
  6. devilot Moderator emeritus

    devilot

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    #6
    I don't do much* on my 2.0GHz MB and w/ the stock 1GB of RAM, I found that my ration of pages in/out wasn't all that great. Got 2GB and haven't had so much as a blip since. :D RAM is relatively affordable (from 3rd party sellers).


    *Meaning I do nothing on my MB. Ha. Brose the 'net, MR, use Adium, Skype, and mail.app. Seriously. Oh and iTunes. :p
     
  7. lil' brudder thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #7
    I already know i'm not gonna forget gaming, not to mention under windows xp, which is what i would play games on. The GMA950 will actually borrow more memory under WinXP think with 2 gigs you get up to 224MB of shared. I do agree that gaming certainly won't be amazing, but remember, its just occasional. Anyway, to try to answer your question x, (not to be the blind leading the blind) but I would advise to think what you will be using it for. The MBP is much better for graphical stuff that needs more graphics power, but the macbook is great for web browsing and some light video stuff. Not to mention the MBP is much more expensive than a macbook. (excluding the blackbook of course)
     
  8. x Shadow Dragon macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #8
    im defintly ognna do video editing but what do u mean by "light video editing"?
     
  9. lil' brudder thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #9
    What I mean is basic iMovie type video clip editing DVD making. As opposed to 3D rendering and crazy GPU intensive stuff. and i said stuff not editing. get it right :p
     
  10. x Shadow Dragon macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #10
    o ok i think im just gonna get a MB then cuz i mean i dont 3d rendering...but i still dont know what im gonan buy im gonna have to think about it.
     
  11. doctosmith macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    #11
    If you want a gaming machine, the MacBook is probably not the right choice anyways. The Intel chip in there is quite limited. As a graphics programmer, I've run into a few of these limitations first hand. One really noticeable limitation is the lack of anti-aliasing, not even a basic 2x FSAA. And the small VRAM will severely limit any apps that use large vertex or texture buffers.

    If you really want the graphics, spend the bit of extra money to get a MacBook Pro with an ATi (sorry, that's AMD now) chip in it.

    Also, if you're doing a lot of graphics and video, the small screen may be an issue.

    The MacBook is a smaller, lighter laptop. If you want portability, it is the best choice. If you want graphics and video performance, get a different machine. You may also want to ask if you really need a laptop. For the same price, you could probably get a desktop that's more powerful.

    That aside, I'll agree with the others here that RAM has priority over CPU speed.
     
  12. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #12
    Depends on what you use it for. I have a low-end MBP with a measly one gig of ram, and there's no complaints here. Of course I'm not running Vista, and when I do run XP under Parallels, OS X can get sluggish, but all in all it's quite competent. I have yet to really have any ram issues, but all I play is blizzard games, Guild wars, and titan quest.

    I think in the long run (unless size and battery life are major issues for you) you'll be happier with a MBP, and it'll last longer.
     
  13. snood macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #13

    I would definitely go for the new baseline model. The old one only had 2mb of l2 cache, while the new baseline has 4mb. I think that will make a big difference speedwise. You can always upgrade the ram in the 2.0ghz later, but youll never be able to upgrade the l2 cache in the old one
     
  14. lil' brudder thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #14
    really? I didn't realize that. That makes a pretty big difference in my decision! Thanks alot snood!
     
  15. Bad Paper macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2007
    Location:
    graphite clamshell
    #15
    snood beat me to it. Stay away from the 1.83GHz machine. The cache will make a tremendous difference.

    And there is nothing wrong with gaming on the Macbook. It can even run World of Warcraft. The issue I have found is that when you have 3d graphics going (even with the chess program that comes on the new Macs), the computer gets hot and the fan cranks up. You will be listening to your fan a lot.
     
  16. Planner Dude macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    #16
    what programs will benefit from a higher l2 cache? Is it noticeable?
     
  17. lil' brudder thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2007
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #17
    Yea, I'm gonna get the newer baseline. Thanks alot everyone for the advice! Now I just gotta wait for this weekend to have money....
     
  18. Dynamyk macrumors 6502a

    Dynamyk

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Location:
    Toronto
  19. snood macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #19
    I don't think L2 cache is one of those things where you can say that program A will benefit but program B won't, it's more beneficial all around. The L2 cache is much faster than RAM, and it's where frequently accessed instructions/data are stored so that way the processor doesn't have to continually request them from RAM. Twice as much of that is always a good thing :)
     
  20. riotshield macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2007
    #20
    While I would go for the 2.0GHz, I doubt you will see a remarkable difference in everyday tasks between the 2.0 and 1.83. From the reviews I've read, the extra 2MB L2 cache speeds certain tasks like iTunes encoding up to 10%, but overall only a 3-4% increase.

    The only reason I would pick the 2.0 is because for everyday tasks I don't think 2GB RAM offers much improvement over 1GB.
     

Share This Page