Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

1.83 vs 2.0 MBP

I

insomniac321123

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Jan 23, 2006
342
0
Sorry if this is a repeated thread(it probably is, I just couldn't find any others).

I am getting a MBP for college. I will use it mainly for word processing, work in iTunes w/ a lot of movies. I will also be doing some light photo editing in iphoto.
Now my question is shuld I go for the 1.83gHz of the 2.0 gHz? Also will the diffrence in vram be noticable. I don't play very many games. If I get the 1.83 i will bring all of the other specs up to par with the 2.0. The diffrence is about $200.

I have the money for the 2.0 but I could use it elsewhere.

So, sorry again if this is a repeat. If you have the link to another thread please post it.

Thanks,
Insomniac
 
If you are not playing games, then I would save myself the money and go with the 1.83.;)
 
I agree with the others. Save the $200. The 1.83 will seem identical to the 2.0 if you don't have them side-by-side, and, even then, it'd seem identical most of the time. You don't need the small speed bump.
 
People keep rambling on about the 1.83GHz machine not being enough for anything intensive, as if it's only good for light net browsing, what a load of hyperbole.

Go for the 1.83 and beef up the RAM and hard drive. I've managed more than fine on this model editing my animations, doing development work for my degree and writing, performing and recording music that is being released commercially.
 
You won't notice a difference in graphics cards unless you play intense powerful games, and even then the regular 128mb graphics card should do pretty well. The 1.83 is your best bet.
 
i have a 1.83 (wifes) and a 2.0... side by side there is no noticible difference in general tasks... at all.

infact, her's boots faster than mine, could be because i have more junk loaded on mine than her... dunno
 
mrkamputee said:
People keep rambling on about the 1.83GHz machine not being enough for anything intensive, as if it's only good for light net browsing, what a load of hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Very true. People have to remember that when the MBP was first introduced the "low-end" model was 1.67 and the "highest-end" was 1.83.
The 1.83 is fast! You'll always run into the "real pro's" who will swear by nothing less than the latest and greatest.
 
the 2ghz is the one of the biggest ripoffs ever. 500 dollars, you dont notice the processor upgrade at all.vram upgrade is a joke right now not too many games really utilize 256mb cards for textures and stuff. My best friend got the 2ghz and he regrets it bad, we've compared them on everything and theres no differences. sometimes mine is faster!!!!!. We have the same ram and hd. we even overclocked our graphics cards. 2ghz=n00bz


O word
 
Damn this topic makes me stupid. I order 2 2Ghz MBPs at my school and was a click away from ordering 2.16Ghz MBPs instead of the 2Ghz.
 
Re:

I think some of you guys are looking at it wrong. You have to basically match the 1.83 ghz with the 2.0ghz in terms of the hd and ram, from apple.com direct it would look like this.

1.83 ghz
100gb 5400 rpm hd ($100)
1x1gb ram ($200) (For future ability to upgrade to 2gb)
128mb X1600 g-card
$1999+$100+$200=$2300

2.0ghz
100gb 5400 rpm hd
1x1gb ram
256mb X1600 g-card
$2500

From apple directly, your paying for a faster 2.0ghz processor, 1x1gb ram, bigger hd,and more video ram all for $200 more than the 1.83ghz when comparably configured.

So in the end, you do get a better value with the 2.0ghz, it's whether you need it or not. That's how I look at the whole thing, and that's why I will be going with the 2.0ghz soon.
 
thairs said:
From apple directly, your paying for a faster 2.0ghz processor, 1x1gb ram, bigger hd, all for $200 more than the 1.83ghz when comparably configured.

So in the end, you do get a better value with the 2.0ghz, it's whether you need it or not.
Click to expand...
Actually, no, you get the faster chip and the extra 128MB VRAM for the $200. You've already upgraded everything else in your pricing.

For most, the 1.83->2.0 and 128MB->256MB jumps aren't worth the $200.
 
I'm a college student, I ended up ordering the 1.83.

Originally I was going to order the 2.0 and downgrade the ram to 2 X 512 and save $100. Making the laptop cost $2399. I was then going to sell the two 512 sticks and buy two 1GB sticks of ram and hope to come in just over $2499 (before tax).

I ended up getting the 1.83, upgrading the HD to 100GB and bought 1GB of ram from a third party site. Worked out great for me.
 
Actually, no, you get the faster chip and the extra 128MB VRAM for the $200. You've already upgraded everything else in your pricing.

For most, the 1.83->2.0 and 128MB->256MB jumps aren't worth the $200.
Click to expand...

That is why I say "when comparably configured". But like you said, most people wouldn't benefit from the extra mhz and vram for the extra $200, so it depends on what you need.
 
thairs said:
That is why I say "when comparably configured". But like you said, most people wouldn't benefit from the extra mhz and vram for the extra $200, so it depends on what you need.
Click to expand...

The 1GB chip (only 512MB extra RAM from stock) for an extra $200 is a joke. You can buy a 1GB chip elsewhere for around $100. If you sell the 512MB chip (say around $40-$50), it's only a extra net cost of ~$50. So, you're paying $350 for 128MB of VRAM and a slightly faster (<10%) chip. Hardly a good ROI.

In fact, I would say that $100 for 20GB more of hard drive space is a joke. Just get the stock 1.83. 80GB will probably be enough for you for awhile. Before year's end, I suspect there will be 160GB SATA notebook drives. The drive on an MBP is pretty easy to self-install (definitely easier than the AlPB).
 
w8ing4intelmacs said:
In fact, I would say that $100 for 20GB more of hard drive space is a joke. Just get the stock 1.83. 80GB will probably be enough for you for awhile. Before year's end, I suspect there will be 160GB SATA notebook drives. The drive on an MBP is pretty easy to self-install (definitely easier than the AlPB).
Click to expand...

Hmm... I thought it is pretty much the same inside?

Anyway I always thought the PB/MBP is a nightmare to service, after reading posts by some saying how the top panel will warp if you don't watch it, or open the casing too many times....
 
Thanks for all the input. I am going to stick with the 1.83. I will up the harddrive to 100gb/5400rpm, and the ram to 1gb and add another later.

But, thanks again for all the advice.
 
Another vote for the 1.83.

I would say get the 1.83 and boost the hard drive to 7200 RPM 100gb. Then go to newegg.com and get patriot or crucial DDR2 667 RAM they have been found to be Macbook Pro compatible and they are $89 for a single 1 GB chip.
 
insomniac321123 said:
Thanks for all the input. I am going to stick with the 1.83. I will up the harddrive to 100gb/5400rpm, and the ram to 1gb and add another later.

But, thanks again for all the advice.
Click to expand...

Don't buy RAM from Apple. It's a waste of money. You can buy Samsung (the brand Apple uses) memory on eBay for less.
 
Also a 1.83 vote. First, the VRAM in the MBP is clocked so slowly (something like 300MHz -- I think it was Anandtech that found Apple had clocked it even more slowly than the relatively slow standard clock speed on the Radeon Mobility) that for 3D applications the extra VRAM on the 256MB card simply doesn't get touched -- it is purely a feature for running the 30 inch Cinema Display with the laptop display at the same time with a lot of open windows, or perhaps some really big 2D video files. The five or so percent in game framerates that shows up on the 2GHz MBP seems to be solely down to the processor -- the extra VRAM is doing nothing, as demonstrated by the fact that the otherwise very similar iMac with the faster-clocked 128MB Radeon desktop chip runs rings around the 2GHz/256VRAM Radeon Mobility MBP.

Second, unless you really need the full 2GB of RAM, something to bear in mind is that the dual channel feature (RAM is faster if both modules are matched) is something that is irrelevant on the MBP because with graphics on a dedicated card, the computer can't even saturate one memory controller for general RAM let alone two. On a Mac Mini, with integrated graphics, matching modules makes a significant difference to speed.

So really the only need for the 2GHz version is if you need the specs like the hard drive, the 1GB module already in there and so on without having to do a CTO -- or perhaps 30 open windows on the maximum size Cinema Display and the computer at the same time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back