Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBook' started by puffnstuff, Oct 14, 2008.
Why 2.1 to 2.0
possibly to keep the prices competitive...
led screens aren't really that cheap.... but either way it sucks, technology shouldn't be moving backwards.
Because you touch yourself at night.
(jk I think it's because the price went down to $999)
So, I guess the 33% faster 1066mhz FSB and the move to 65% faster DDR3 doesn't mean anything to you guys? It should, because those two things alone will make up for a meaningless loss of 0.1ghz.
The main GHZ number you see listed for a CPU is fairly meaningless by itself. Its the sum of all the parts in the chipset that determines how quick a computer runs, not just that ONE SINGLE number.
Ok thanks for that info
oh, without looking into it, i was told it was the same chip set... ok then, that makes sense.
Same chipset? Who told you that? They're using an nVidia chipset now.
Calm the frack down with out looking at the specs in detail I did not see the FSB speed
I'm totally calm. Please note that I'm NOT the one who started a thread about a 0.1ghz decrease.
I was simply pointing out to you, and anyone else wondering, that there are other factors involved in the performance of a computer. And those other parts play a much bigger part than that one number everyone gets so focused on.
I posted this thread to understand something whats so wrong with that even if it is minute in your world. Yes, I understand that you were trying to point something out and I do appreciate your explanation but it came off as very rude.
there was nothing "rude" about what he said
it's just like people jumping to the conclusion that a digital camera with a larger Megapixel number automatically assumes it's a "better" product.
should do more reading before asking
Its a .4 downgrade, since the old 1299 model had 2,4Ghz... it was the 1099 that had 2.1 Ghz;-)
"Sum of all the parts in the new model > old model" and "I'm NOT the one who started a thread about a 0.1ghz decrease." aside, it's a valid point for discussion. Apple's been running the three tiered good/better/best type layout for quite a while now, and dropping a slower processor in the middle tier leaves an odd marketing rough spot.
I'd bet a good number of non-pro shoppers out there don't know what FSB and DDR3 means to them, but they probably notice things like that $1299 2.4Ghz 2GB/160GB/SuperDrive MacBook model that was available yesterday is now only 2.0Ghz. Yeah, better video at $1299 I know, but come on... Apple is usually a bit smoother than that.
very good point!
it sounds like Apple are restricted by the hardware suppliers and had to manage their profit margins etc...
The tear apart was interesting, surprising how quick it hit.
This doesn't fit when ALL the processors are made by the same company (Intel) versus MP sensors made by a variety of companies.
And yes, a 0.4 decrease does suck, and yes its true that there are other factors. However, your analogy doesn't really apply in this case.
Lol - too funny!
ignore the ghz number drop, are they using the same penryn processors?
i am wondering the same thing
I posted that in sept and the mods erased it (its a good thing someone quoted me on it)
Because the base clock is higher, to prevent the maximum from getting too high (to the point that is possible that the processor may not function or the yields would be too low), Intel decreased the multiplier.
The processor is a penryn-based processor designed for use with centrino 2 (or montevina). It is a core 2 duo p7350.
Also, I would assume they'll be about the same speed as the 2.1 just because of the bus speed and faster RAM, as for the 2.4, it will almost assuredly be slower, but not very noticeable for what you'll need to do w/a macbook.