difference in 1 year between 1.83 & 2.0 will be like old 400 & 500mhz TiPBs

Question

Level 1

75 points

difference in 1 year between 1.83 & 2.0 will be like old 400 & 500mhz TiPBs

i decided to get the 1.83 and load it up with RAM, also to change out the hard drive for a larger 7200RPM drive. once i add RAM to this thing it is just as fast if not faster than my old dual 1.8 G5. i love it. anyway i feel like yes, there is a slight difference between the 1.83 and the 2.0 NOW. but in a year or so things will have speed up so much again that the difference will look small in comparision in a years time. sooooo. if i bought the MBP for a few years worth of use. why pay a premium for specs that in those few years will look like the old 400 mhz TiPB vers the 500 mhz? in fact the speed bump beack then was a 25% increase with the 500. today you dont even get that much a difference. just makes sense to me to have gotton the 1.83. anybody else want to post their reasons for getting the 1.83 MBP over the others?

G5 Dual 1.8, iBook G4, Mac OS X (10.4)

Posted on Mar 17, 2006 7:28 AM

Reply

Answer 1

Nadacool

Level 1

0 points

Mar 17, 2006 7:58 AM in response to MINI VANIILI

You're forgetting the bump in the Video RAM. 256 from 128 is a very nice jump and helps everything run a little more smoothly. My $0.02

Reply

Answer 2

MINI VANIILI Author

Level 1

75 points

Mar 17, 2006 8:00 AM in response to Nadacool

good point. but beside that there is no compelling reason to pay out another $500 or even $800 for the 2.16. anybody else have a reason they got the 1.83.

Reply

Answer 3

djames42

Level 1

80 points

Mar 17, 2006 8:49 AM in response to MINI VANIILI

anybody else have a reason they got the 1.83.

For the same reason... I didn't want to shell out the extra dinero -- besides, a dual-core 1.83ghz machine is going to feel soooo much faster to me than my current 1.42ghz G4 mini that I probably wouldn't have (at least initially) noticed the increase to 2ghz. I've had second thoughts recently however since I intend on doing a bit of video editing on my machine, but as of last night it's too late to change since my order is no longer able to be canceled 🙂

Reply

Answer 4

cue180

Level 1

35 points

Mar 17, 2006 10:35 AM in response to djames42

lol...you think you will notice a big difference...I was using a 667 mhz G4 ti-book..My 1.83 mbp is light years faster.

Reply

Answer 5

Mar 17, 2006 10:56 AM in response to MINI VANIILI

There is a significant different in performance between a 1.83 GHz and a 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro. The 2.16 GHz is 18 % faster than the 1.83. You won't see that for many operations but if you do things like compress video or you use Rosetta for PPC applications that aren't universal yet, you probably will notice the difference.

My price vs. performance breakdown goes like this:

1.83 (CTO 1GB RAM, 100 MB HDD) -> 2.0 (stock) is $200 and you get another 128 MB of video RAM too. This gets you a 9% improvement in performance.

1.83 (CTO 1GB RAM, 100 MB HDD) -> 2.16 (stock) is $500. This gets you an 18% improvement in performance and the additional video RAM.

2.0 (stock) -> 2.16 (stock) is $300. This gets you just an 8% improvement in speed.

1.83 (stock) -> 2.0 (stock) is $500.
1.83 (stock) -> 2.16 (stock) is $800

So, if you don't care about the extra memory, the larger HDD or the 256 MB video RAM, then the upgrade to a 2.0 or 2.16 GHz MBP is probably not worth it. But if the extras are something you were going to buy anyway or if you want the extra video RAM the decision is easier.

If you want the extras but are trying to save money, perhaps the 2.0 to 2.16 upgrade isn't a particular good deal in comparison to the 1.83 to 2.0 upgrade.

MacBook Pro 2.16 1 GB 100 GB 7200 RPM Mac OS X (10.4.5) Mac mini 1.42 1 GB; PowerMac 450 MHz (Upgd. 1.2 GHz)

Reply

Answer 6

MINI VANIILI Author

Level 1

75 points

Mar 17, 2006 1:39 PM in response to Jim Bailey

i am actually a digital media artist/multimedia designer so i use alot of processor cycles. but i just dont see the advantage vrs. cost. 20% on an hour render is 12 min. and thats pushing it IMHO. i truly dont even believe that a 2.16 is 20% faster than a 1.83 with both sporting 7200 rpm HD and equal RAM. just aint happening.

Reply

Answer 7

MINI VANIILI Author

Level 1

75 points

Mar 17, 2006 1:40 PM in response to MINI VANIILI

more like 8-12% and thats in a heavy, heavy render.

Reply

Answer 8

Mar 17, 2006 2:04 PM in response to MINI VANIILI

i truly dont even believe that a 2.16 is 20% faster than a
1.83 with both sporting 7200 rpm HD and equal RAM.
just aint happening.

The CINEBENCH benchmark shows pretty much an 18% improvement between a 1.83 v. a 2.16 GHz Core Duo on the multiple CPU rendering step. It appears to be exactly on target for the prediction based on CPU clock speed.

I'm not advocating that a 160 MHz or a 330 MHz speed bump is worth the cost for everyone. But for long duration operations, you will see a speed improvement with the bump. The exact amount is dependent on what the computer is doing.

Reply