Is 160 MHz worth $300?

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
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 Perhaps that extra speed will go a little bit towards keeping the computer from getting outdated as soon.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.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    Use the money on the faster HD and ram. It isn´t the processor thats the bottleneck on that system.
  • Reply 2 of 29
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    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 3 of 29
    What if one has already maxed out both the HD and the RAM? Is it worth $300 then?
  • Reply 4 of 29
    toweltowel Posts: 1,479member
    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 5 of 29
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    160Mhz is not worth $300.



    Having the absolute fastest system might be if you're into that kind of thing.
  • Reply 6 of 29
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    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.
  • Reply 7 of 29
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    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 8 of 29
    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?
  • Reply 9 of 29
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    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.
  • Reply 10 of 29
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    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
  • Reply 11 of 29
    Intel's current price list: http://www.intel.com/intel/finance/pricelist/



    ps. don't expect Merom before 4Q
  • Reply 12 of 29
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,605member
    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.
  • Reply 13 of 29
    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.
  • Reply 14 of 29
    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 15 of 29
    aplnubaplnub Posts: 2,605member
    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?
  • Reply 16 of 29
    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 17 of 29
    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 ... ;-)
  • Reply 18 of 29
    "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 19 of 29
    wmfwmf Posts: 1,164member
    Core Duo is Core Duo; I don't know where people are getting this stuff.
  • Reply 20 of 29
    andersanders Posts: 6,523member
    I just wish I could buy the slowest model with a 256 mb GPU ram.
Sign In or Register to comment.