Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Reasons for Choosing 2.16 VS 2.33?
- Thread starter farqueue
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
but it happens twice over 
it is far from just being the processor... the 2.33GHz version has 2GB RAM standard and a 256MB X1600 video card rather than the 128MB in the 2.16GHz.
it is far from just being the processor... the 2.33GHz version has 2GB RAM standard and a 256MB X1600 video card rather than the 128MB in the 2.16GHz.
I would have guessed that the 2.16 would have the better residual value. I doubt the 2.33 would sell for $500 more than the 2.16 in a year or so...
The extra videoram is good for some people, I chose the 2.33 over the 2.16 but to tell you the truth they are very similar. Even the old CD MBP was very similar to my 2.33, you won't notice the differences in every day work.
However, the CD heats up like crazy, and the C2D doesn't, which is the best improvement I find.
Anyhow 256 video ram could be useful, the tiny boost is nice and the extra ram is nice too. I guess the 2.16 is better value, but I got mine tax deducted anyway so it was only an extra 250
However, the CD heats up like crazy, and the C2D doesn't, which is the best improvement I find.
Anyhow 256 video ram could be useful, the tiny boost is nice and the extra ram is nice too. I guess the 2.16 is better value, but I got mine tax deducted anyway so it was only an extra 250
I learned long ago to buy the best and stick with it. Your 2.33ghz will stay with you just a bit longer, simply because you'll have a little less of an itch to dump it when faster things come along. The additional RAM and the better video card are also worth considering.
agreed - just look at how the core duo mbp models have already come together in price. the difference between the 2 Ghz (second version, with 512 RAM and 128 VRAM) and the 2.16 Ghz is now $150 on the apple refurb store. You're definitely going to take a bigger hit on the high end model. That said, it comes with more HD, more RAM, more VRAM, and more mhz, so I do think it's a meaningful difference.
Is it ever worth it.
The slower chip you get the cheap the computer is. For best value of Life/Price 1 year old Tech is best (Referbed MBP CD). But how long do you want to keep the system for before you upgrade 3 years? 5 Years? Having that one bit of extra CPU speed 4 years in the future may mean the difference between running slow and running sluggish or the application just doesn't want let you run the app. Or in 8 years it just may be the slight difference that will allow the new version of OS X run or not.
If you are using under normal use today you will probably not see much of a difference. But in the future where the thing is grinding to keep up with the request so if you are parcing out a photoshop filter in 4 year that takes 1 hours on 2.33 it will take an extra 5 minutes on the 1.16 (While a new system at the time will probably take 15 minutes to run) But in the extra 5 minutes can mean the difference of seeing it done or leave it running for tommorow. Or finishing on time or late.
I got the 2.33 myself. But I sometimes go into the heavy processing fit so I kinda like it. But if you are just going to be doing simple stuff and planning to upgrade in 3 year go with 2.16 (assuming all other features are equal). Disk IO, RAM (amount, and Bus Speed), Chache, and Video Cards are often what is the difference between a bad computer and a good one.
The slower chip you get the cheap the computer is. For best value of Life/Price 1 year old Tech is best (Referbed MBP CD). But how long do you want to keep the system for before you upgrade 3 years? 5 Years? Having that one bit of extra CPU speed 4 years in the future may mean the difference between running slow and running sluggish or the application just doesn't want let you run the app. Or in 8 years it just may be the slight difference that will allow the new version of OS X run or not.
If you are using under normal use today you will probably not see much of a difference. But in the future where the thing is grinding to keep up with the request so if you are parcing out a photoshop filter in 4 year that takes 1 hours on 2.33 it will take an extra 5 minutes on the 1.16 (While a new system at the time will probably take 15 minutes to run) But in the extra 5 minutes can mean the difference of seeing it done or leave it running for tommorow. Or finishing on time or late.
I got the 2.33 myself. But I sometimes go into the heavy processing fit so I kinda like it. But if you are just going to be doing simple stuff and planning to upgrade in 3 year go with 2.16 (assuming all other features are equal). Disk IO, RAM (amount, and Bus Speed), Chache, and Video Cards are often what is the difference between a bad computer and a good one.
I would say if you plan on reselling it any time soon, get the 2.16, forget 2.33.
I'm planning to keep mine for 4 years if not more, so I wanted to get the TOP that I could to make sure it would be fast during that entire duration (or most of it).
I did the same with my 1st pc, and it was even running current games the day I sold it 5 years after purchase (although at very low graphics)
I'm planning to keep mine for 4 years if not more, so I wanted to get the TOP that I could to make sure it would be fast during that entire duration (or most of it).
I did the same with my 1st pc, and it was even running current games the day I sold it 5 years after purchase (although at very low graphics)
I bought a ReFurby 2.16 CD 15" from Apple today. Arrives tomorrow. For $1500, it's got 1GB of RAM (I bought another GB), and 256GB of video RAM. Um, can you say no brainer? Woot!
I did this partially as a desktop replacement. So I needed something I can game on. The extra 128 (256 total) of VRAM is very nice. I have absolutely no issues with this machine and I'm glad for it every day. This thing knocks the pants off some PC Towers my friends use, and I love rubbing it in when they complain.
I went with the 2.16, upgraded to 2GB RAM and the 160GB drive. Based on past experience I doubted the processor speed was likely to be the limiting factor in most real-world situations; plus it's just not that much faster to justify the $$$.