AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Is 160 MHz worth $300?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is 160 MHz worth $300?

post #1 of 30
2/15/06 at 11:34am
Thread Starter 
This would be an upgrade from a 2.0GHz Macbook Pro to a 2.16GHz.

Forget the possible shipping delay for the change. I'm looking for opinions on the sole issue of value.

Is the upgrade to 2.16GHz (a 160 MHz upgrade) worth $300?

If so, for what reasons? If not, what's the rationale for opting out? Too pricy, or not enough of a performance gain?

It'd be best if we took into account longevity of the system, too. Perhaps that extra speed will go a little bit towards keeping the computer from getting outdated as soon. Assessments should include all factors.

Thanks for the help.
20" iMac Core Duo
15" MacBook Pro
Reply
20" iMac Core Duo
15" MacBook Pro
Reply
post #2 of 30
2/15/06 at 11:36am
  • Anders
  • Feared and Biased Moderator
Use the money on the faster HD and ram. It isn´t the processor thats the bottleneck on that system.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #3 of 30
2/15/06 at 11:43am
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Use the money on the faster HD and ram. It isn´t the processor thats the bottleneck on that system.

I second that !
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 30
2/15/06 at 11:44am
Thread Starter 
What if one has already maxed out both the HD and the RAM? Is it worth $300 then?
20" iMac Core Duo
15" MacBook Pro
Reply
20" iMac Core Duo
15" MacBook Pro
Reply
post #5 of 30
2/15/06 at 12:54pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Animal Farm
What if one has already maxed out both the HD and the RAM? Is it worth $300 then?

If money is little or no object, then why not?

Off-topic, did anyone notice the Apple Store config page is now AJAX? Cool. No more "Update price and shipping" button.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 30
2/15/06 at 1:01pm
160Mhz is not worth $300.

Having the absolute fastest system might be if you're into that kind of thing.
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
Living life in glorious 4G HD (with a 2GB data cap).
Reply
post #7 of 30
2/15/06 at 1:09pm
Quote:
Originally posted by CosmoNut
160Mhz is not worth $300.

Having the absolute fastest system might be if you're into that kind of thing.

I agree. Although you can also think of it like this, the extra 160MHz is an 8% increase. And compared to the previous 1.83 GHz processor, its an 18% increase.

This upgrade is the one thing that will boost the machine that is really hard to upgrade later. It will probably be possible to upgrade it later, but not as easily as RAM or the HD.

If that extra speed boost will help you out you may want to go for it, but it probably won't be worth it for most users.

That said, with the ADC discount, I'd probably go for it.

Also, the CPU upgrade is a different type of intel processor whereas the 2.0 and 1.83 are practically the same. If you're worried about problems the safe bet is to stick with the 2.0.
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
post #8 of 30
2/15/06 at 1:26pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Animal Farm
What if one has already maxed out both the HD and the RAM? Is it worth $300 then?

If money is not a problem, the more is the better
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 30
2/15/06 at 1:47pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Xool
Also, the CPU upgrade is a different type of intel processor whereas the 2.0 and 1.83 are practically the same. If you're worried about problems the safe bet is to stick with the 2.0.

where did you get that info from?
Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off of my property!
Reply
Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off of my property!
Reply
post #10 of 30
2/15/06 at 2:54pm
Quote:
Originally posted by dr. zoidberg
where did you get that info from?

I don't remember exactly, but I've seen several lists of the exact chips intel is shipping and I read that the 2.16 chip is the next level up from the others. But I'm not certain and where I read it is not official by any means.

What I can say for sure is that the 1.63, 1.83, and 2.0 chips are all the same line and are identical in the iMac and MacBook Pro.

If I can find a source I'll post back.
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
post #11 of 30
2/15/06 at 3:00pm
I may be wrong. According to Wikipedia, all of the Core Duo chips are different part numbers, but that may not mean much.

* Intel Core Solo Processor T1300: 1.66 GHz, single-core
* Intel Core Duo Processor T2300: 1.66 GHz, dual-core
* Intel Core Duo Processor T2400: 1.83 GHz, dual-core
* Intel Core Duo Processor T2500: 2.0 GHz, dual-core
* Intel Core Duo Processor T2600: 2.16 GHz, dual-core
* Intel Core Duo Processor L2300: 1.5 GHz, dual-core, low power
* Intel Core Duo Processor L2400: 1.66 GHz, dual-core, low power
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
post #12 of 30
2/15/06 at 3:18pm
Intel's current price list: http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/

ps. don't expect Merom before 4Q
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 30
2/15/06 at 6:46pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Xool
I agree. Although you can also think of it like this, the extra 160MHz is an 8% increase. And compared to the previous 1.83 GHz processor, its an 18% increase.

Wouldn't the 8% increase really be 16% since there are two cores. J/K


I think since rosetta is being used, it just may be worth it to a few people. Gotta squeeze all you can out of it.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #14 of 30
2/15/06 at 8:18pm
Quote:
Originally posted by Towel
If money is little or no object, then why not?

Off-topic, did anyone notice the Apple Store config page is now AJAX? Cool. No more "Update price and shipping" button.

It's been like that for awhile.
"Humankind -- despite its artistic pretensions, its sophistication, and its many accomplishments -- owes its existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains."
Reply
"Humankind -- despite its artistic pretensions, its sophistication, and its many accomplishments -- owes its existence to a six-inch layer of topsoil and the fact that it rains."
Reply
post #15 of 30
2/15/06 at 8:59pm
As an older PB G4 owner, I would be ambivalent about the highest speed until there are reports from users. How would battery life be affected? 8% less would be a loss, depending on what battery life actually is. How hot would it run? My Ti PB can be uncomfortably hot, or uncomfortably slow set on "Low Performance", which halves the processor speed.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 30
2/16/06 at 4:55am
Quote:
Originally posted by dh87
As an older PB G4 owner, I would be ambivalent about the highest speed until there are reports from users. How would battery life be affected? 8% less would be a loss, depending on what battery life actually is. How hot would it run? My Ti PB can be uncomfortably hot, or uncomfortably slow set on "Low Performance", which halves the processor speed.

I wish there was a "Super Reduced Performance" mode to get that battery life out there a few more hours. Know what I mean?
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #17 of 30
2/16/06 at 5:34am
There's a simple statement that will prove irresistible for some:
If you want the fastest Mac laptop you can buy today, it will cost you $300. That alone is enough to decide the matter for many customers. How much faster doesn't always matter enough to cause hesitation.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 30
2/16/06 at 11:06am
Quote:
Originally posted by ciparis
There's a simple statement that will prove irresistible for some:
If you want the fastest Mac laptop you can buy today, it will cost you $300. That alone is enough to decide the matter for many customers. How much faster doesn't always matter enough to cause hesitation.

wow, where can i order? $300 seems like a helluva deal ... ;-)
Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off of my property!
Reply
Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off of my property!
Reply
post #19 of 30
2/16/06 at 6:34pm
"Also, the CPU upgrade is a different type of intel processor whereas the 2.0 and 1.83 are practically the same. If you're worried about problems the safe bet is to stick with the 2.0"

I would really be interested in a link for this - I have heard this from many different people, but I can't find any hard references.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 30
2/16/06 at 7:46pm
Core Duo is Core Duo; I don't know where people are getting this stuff.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 30
2/19/06 at 2:48pm
  • Anders
  • Feared and Biased Moderator
I just wish I could buy the slowest model with a 256 mb GPU ram.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #22 of 30
2/19/06 at 8:27pm
Quote:
Originally posted by vgoklani
"Also, the CPU upgrade is a different type of intel processor whereas the 2.0 and 1.83 are practically the same. If you're worried about problems the safe bet is to stick with the 2.0"

I would really be interested in a link for this - I have heard this from many different people, but I can't find any hard references.

There won't be any hard references because the 2.16 GHz Core Duo is exactly like the 2, 1.83 and 1.66 GHz Core Duo CPUs, just clocked 167 MHz faster. They are Intel Yonah chips.

In late Q2, a 2.33 GHz Yonah Core Duo will likely show up as a Core Duo T2700.

Intel does have a naming convention issue in 2007. By then Merom mobile chips would be shipping, but there's only 2 names left for the naming convention: 2800 and 2900. The "2" identifies it as a "Duo" or dual-core processor. A "1", eg. T1300, indicates a "Solo" or single-core processor. So when Merom shows up, after 2.5 and 2.67 speed grades take up the 2800 and 2900, what happens with a 2.8 GHz mobile processor. T2950?
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 30
2/19/06 at 8:36pm
And yeah, like others, I think I'd spend the $300 on more RAM and a 7200 RPM hard drive.

ALso, if you've maxed out RAM and drive, umm, would the 2.16 GHz upgrade really be a problem?
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 30
2/19/06 at 9:55pm
Quote:
Originally posted by THT
Intel does have a naming convention issue in 2007. By then Merom mobile chips would be shipping, but there's only 2 names left for the naming convention: 2800 and 2900. The "2" identifies it as a "Duo" or dual-core processor. A "1", eg. T1300, indicates a "Solo" or single-core processor. So when Merom shows up, after 2.5 and 2.67 speed grades take up the 2800 and 2900, what happens with a 2.8 GHz mobile processor. T2950?

Merom uses 5 for single core and 7 for dual core.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29514
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 30
2/20/06 at 8:20am
Quote:
Originally posted by wmf
Merom uses 5 for single core and 7 for dual core.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29514

Heh. Interesting.

1000 series for Yonah single core
2000 series for Yonah dual core
3000 series for ???
4000 series for ???
5000 series for Merom single core
6000 series for Conroe
7000 series for Merom dual core
8000 series for Woodcrest???
9000 series for extreme editions???

Anyways, what happens after the next 3 speed grades. This sort of nomenclature stuff takes millions of dollars to figure out inside Intel.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 30
2/20/06 at 8:37am
  • Anders
  • Feared and Biased Moderator
3XXX and 4XXX are the extra secret Apple chips Intel has developed just for Apple.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #27 of 30
2/20/06 at 9:00am
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
3XXX and 4XXX are the extra secret Apple chips Intel has developed just for Apple.

Steve mentioned those in episode 2 of Super Secret Apple Rumors.
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
Download BARTsmart BART Widget, the best BART schedule widget for Mac OS X's Dashboard.
Reply
post #28 of 30
2/20/06 at 10:48pm
just to be clear it is not 160mhz. it's 160x2
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 30
2/21/06 at 9:33am
  • Anders
  • Feared and Biased Moderator
Quote:
Originally posted by Xool
Steve mentioned those in episode 2 of Super Secret Apple Rumors.

I have a link to the stream of it.

http://www.enomer.dk/supersekretxxxx.mov
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #30 of 30
2/21/06 at 9:35am
  • Anders
  • Feared and Biased Moderator
Quote:
Originally posted by webmail
just to be clear it is not 160mhz. it's 160x2

Yes. But its not on top of 2ghz, but 2*2 ghz.

The difference is the same. 8% in a system where it isn´t the processor that is the bottleneck.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Is 160 MHz worth $300?