2.1 Ghz vs 2.0 Ghz vs 2.4 Ghz

If you can only spend money one one things, sync your money into RAM. With today's processors More Ram will make more of a difference than .3 or less bump in GHz power.

But look at front side bus and L2 cache in the processors. Choose a processor with higher in these will make a difference as well.

Stuart Vandeventer wrote:
If you can only spend money one one things, sync your money into RAM. With today's processors More Ram will make more of a difference than .3 or less bump in GHz power.

But look at front side bus and L2 cache in the processors. Choose a processor with higher in these will make a difference as well.

I think it all depends on the user and the applications run. Most users would likely function just fine on 2 GB RAM but will notice a slight benefit with a faster processor. That should make for better web browsing, especially with multiple processor intensive embedded applications on many websites. Power users who tax their systems (like editing video) will probably benefit from more memory.

All of that should be factored in. However - the newer MacBooks come with 204-pin PC3-8500 memory. It's more expensive right now, although I would expect that the prices should drop in time. The 4GB kit from Crucial isn't too bad at $142, but the PC2-5300 modules that the previous MacBooks used were $80 for the pair. I notice they don't support more than 4GB, which at this time doesn't sound too bad. The 4GB modules are $590 each or $1180 for the pair.

I chose the 2.4 ghz macbook with 4 gigs of ram as I make music and it is probably the best for me.

To continue this thread, can you compare these specs?

Right now the price points between the new Macbook and a yesterday's entry-level refurbished 15" MBP is about $50, so what performance differences will you have when:

Entry level MacBook has a C2D 2.0 GHz processor with 3MB L2 cache and 1066 MHz front side bus and 1066 MHz DDR3 SDRAM for $1299

Refurb entry-level 15" MBP has a C2D 2.4 GHz processor with 3MB L2 cache and 800 MHz front side bus and 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM for $1349.

So how does the slower processor, yet faster memory and bus affect software when compared to faster processor but slower memory and bus?

Also, information about Snow Leopard is sparse, so is there any inklings of which characteristic, processor speed or bus/memory speed, will be most important to run Snow Leopard?

I'm currently using a 3 1/2 year old iBook. I'm the prototype of the consumer, internet, productivity software, a few games i.e. Civilization. No heavy gaming, no heavy video processing. The main reason for upgrading is my Grad school classes that require software that runs on Windows.

Anybody got any suggestions or links to places that will compare process to bus/memory speeds?

"Anybody got any suggestions or links to places that will compare process to bus/memory speeds?"

Try www.barefeats.com although they haven't done any new MacBook tests yet. But, I'm sure they're in the works.

It is interesting that the 2.1GHz processor is faster, and that DDR 2 has a lower latency. I wonder if the 1066 bus compensates for these two bottlenecks? Regardless with the 9400M the new system will definitely shine, or should I say glare.

Nick A wrote:
It is interesting that the 2.1GHz processor is faster, and that DDR 2 has a lower latency. I wonder if the 1066 bus compensates for these two bottlenecks? Regardless with the 9400M the new system will definitely shine, or should I say glare.

I think the latency is at the bus clock frequency/peiod, which is 333 MHz (3.33 ns) for PC2-5300 and 533 MHz for PC3-8500. My crude calculation is that the newer CL=7 PC3-8500 modules should actually be faster than the older CL=5 PC2-5300 modules at getting the first data out after a read request.

Well I'd need to see newer benchmarks to know for sure , but I suppose you're right. The last DDR2 v DDR3 benchmarks I've seen were from almost a year ago. Those tests had DDR3 lagging slightly, but again that was a while ago.

I've been running CL4 DDR2 667 on my MacBook for a while with positive results, especially with the integrated GMA.

Steven I would say that the 2 laptops would probably be very close to the same speeds. you have the 2.4 ghz with the extra clock speed, but then u have the 2.0 ghz with the faster RAM and probably an updated processor. U would probably have to have the 2 laptops next to each other doing the exact same things under the exact same conditions to tell a difference.