Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

kizilelma · 03:28 PM

As i was scanning the picture thread here on the forums, and i had a thought... Theoretically, wouldnt the 1.83 run cooler and use less battery than the 2.0Ghz model? or am i mistaken...

Eug Wanker · Jun 2, 2006, 03:34 PM

Yes and no. Some 1.83 chips may run cooler, but it's not guaranteed. Remember that both the 1.83 and the 2.0 are rated for a max TDP of 31 Watts.

For me it was moot. I had to get the 2.0 anyway, because I wanted a SuperDrive.

Actually, instead of my 2.0, I might have actually preferred to get the low power 1.66 GHz. It's only 15 Watts TDP, less than half that of the 1.83/2.0. This T2300E chip actually costs the same as Core Solo.

BTW, given the price premium of Core Duo 2.0, I'm still surprised we got them in the MacBook. The price of the 2.0 for small manufacturers is $294 per chip in batches of 1000. The 1.83 is over $50 less.

kizilelma · Jun 2, 2006, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Yes and no. Some 1.83 chips may run cooler, but it's not guaranteed. Remember that both the 1.83 and the 2.0 are rated for a max TDP of 31 Watts.

For me it was moot. I had to get the 2.0 anyway, because I wanted a SuperDrive.

Right. Haha, I thought I had discovered some great secret, then I realized I would lose the SuperDrive, which is definitely not worth it. Well, I guess now I'm going to order the white Macbook with the 60gb HD and 512 RAM, buy 2gigs of RAM and a 100Gb 7200RPM HD from Newegg and OWC respectively, return the old HD and RAM to OWC for my rebates, and have a fully loaded Macbook for under $1900!!!

photoeditor · Jun 2, 2006, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by moose31

As i was scanning the picture thread here on the forums, and i had a thought... Theoretically, wouldnt the 1.83 run cooler and use less battery than the 2.0Ghz model? or am i mistaken...

I would actually expect the 2.0 to run cooler except in a situation where you have the processors maxed out for an extended period of time and even then the 2.0 might have an advantage.

Basically processor manufacturers "demote" substandard parts to the next level. If it can't run at 2.0 reliably, give it a shot at 1.83. If it works, it gets sold, but it is probably running just as hot at 1.83 as the 2.0 chip does at 2.0 anyway. Plus the 2.0 chip has more overhead to get tasks done efficiently and some benchmarks have showed a larger edge for the 2.0 than one might expect on the basis of about a 10 percent boost in speed. So it's also probably not running at maximum power for as long as the 1.83 in running particular tasks.

All these Intel chips also have SpeedStep technology, which means they downclock when idling or in light use. Seems that 1.5GHz is the popular idle speed on Mac OS X so far, but run it in Windows and it will go all the way down to 1GHz for light use. Let's hope this shows up soon on the Mac as well -- the last generation Powerbook G4 in the 15 and 17 versions throttled all the way down to 417 MHz and in the 15 inch version that meant a significant increase in battery life for things like light office tasks.

For what it's worth Intel also reports dissipation at 31 watts across the board for these chips.

As an earlier poster in the thread said, let's hope Apple gets around to offering us a low-voltage one. For a modest penalty in speed, the improvement in cool running and battery life is very impressive.

galarneau · Jun 2, 2006, 09:56 PM

I went for the 1.83 GHz model for a couple reasons:

1) I have a nice external 16x dual layer DVD-R that I can use, and have never missed having a DVD-R with my old iBook G4

2) I used the $200 I would have spent on the 2.0 GHz model on maxing out the RAM

Lucky8 · Jun 3, 2006, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by galarneau

I used the $200 I would have spent on the 2.0 GHz model on maxing out the RAM

Which RAM did you get?
Does it have to have 2 identical RAMs or can I just get 1GB for now and add another 1GB later on?

snoopy199 · Jun 3, 2006, 07:24 PM

With speed step my Macbook runs at 1.5GHz most of the time, and then ramps up to 2.0 when needed that being the case I'm not sure that you'll see a huge difference between the 1.8 and the .2.0

powerbook867 · Jun 3, 2006, 10:49 PM

my 1.8's magic number seems to be 1500 as well...I really feel the base model is a steal! (that's what I have)

galarneau · Jun 4, 2006, 09:38 AM

Originally Posted by Lucky8

Which RAM did you get?
Does it have to have 2 identical RAMs or can I just get 1GB for now and add another 1GB later on?

I got this from NewEgg.com

http://www.newegg.com/product/produc...82E16820221043

Cost about $175

ghporter · Jun 4, 2006, 09:53 AM

There's a tradeoff involved in going for one clock speed or another. You generate less heat per minute, but you may have to process longer-maybe MUCH longer-to reach the same result, so while the chip doesn't get hot as fast, you run it longer and it gets at least as hot, maybe hotter. The difference in speed between 1.81 and 2GHz is relatively small, but the principle holds, assuming the same thermal management solution is used. Some PC laptops used different heatsinks for different speeds of processors for this reason-I saw one taken apart with a HUGE space around the CPU and a dinky heatsink because it had the low end processor.

harrisjamieh · Jun 4, 2006, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

maybe MUCH longer-to reach the same result,

Whilst I agree with you, I think we should keep this in context for this thread, that the difference in speed between the 1.83 and the 2.0 is so neglilagable, heat and the speed at which things are processed will be VERY similar between the 2 processors.

ghporter · Jun 4, 2006, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Whilst I agree with you, I think we should keep this in context for this thread, that the difference in speed between the 1.83 and the 2.0 is so neglilagable, heat and the speed at which things are processed will be VERY similar between the 2 processors.

I completely agree:

Originally Posted by ghporter

The difference in speed between 1.81[sic] and 2GHz is relatively small, but the principle holds.

I merely wanted to point out that you can go overboard with this-"If the 1.83 is cooler, then I'll get a 1GHz chip and it'll be really cold!" while winding up running the machine much longer, and generating even more heat than the 2.0GHz processor would.

(Sorry for the "1.81" bit-stupid fingers got me again!)

snoopy199 · Jun 4, 2006, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by powerbook867

my 1.8's magic number seems to be 1500 as well...I really feel the base model is a steal! (that's what I have)

So the 1.8 sits at 1.5GHz too, I was wondering if that was the case.

TomR · Jun 4, 2006, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by powerbook867

my 1.8's magic number seems to be 1500 as well...I really feel the base model is a steal! (that's what I have)

Same here! LOVE LOVE LOVE my Macbook!

AND it runs Ubuntu Dapper Drake GREAT as well!

Tom

F*ckDell · Jun 30, 2006, 06:04 PM

What do you guys think about the T2050 (1.60ghz) and the T2400 (1.83ghz)? Would I see a big difference between the two processor speeds? Which one would you choose from if cost was an issue?

mduell · Jun 30, 2006, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by F*ckDell

What do you guys think about the T2050 (1.60ghz) and the T2400 (1.83ghz)? Would I see a big difference between the two processor speeds? Which one would you choose from if cost was an issue?

Do you mean T2300?
It's only about a 10% difference, so if cost is an issue I'd go with the slower one.

F*ckDell · Jun 30, 2006, 06:31 PM

Dell's website says: T2500, T2400, and T2050... whatever...

My girlfriend is looking for a new Dell laptop, she'd like to be able to play her Sims games, but worry about heat issues. What do you think, should she go with Intel's $7 video card or go with 128 or even 256? I know she won't be able to play The Sims 2 on Intel's vid card, but it won't run as hot and be more "ultra-portable". She's a pain in the ass, wants something she can use on her lap, but whats to play games! Would you say going with the lower CPU will also keep the heat issues down, but will I see a performance decline with our without playing games...

Damn girlfriends...

mduell · Jun 30, 2006, 07:00 PM

Originally Posted by F*ckDell

Dell's website says: T2500, T2400, and T2050... whatever...

My girlfriend is looking for a new Dell laptop, she'd like to be able to play her Sims games, but worry about heat issues. What do you think, should she go with Intel's $7 video card or go with 128 or even 256? I know she won't be able to play The Sims 2 on Intel's vid card, but it won't run as hot and be more "ultra-portable". She's a pain in the ass, wants something she can use on her lap, but whats to play games! Would you say going with the lower CPU will also keep the heat issues down, but will I see a performance decline with our without playing games...

Damn girlfriends...

Hrm, Google shows other sites using the model T2050, but Intel's own site has no mention of such a thing.

Buy something with a discrete video card; 128MB should be fine, just watch out for "HyperMemory" or similar (which means shared memory).

If it's uncomfortable on her lap, hand her a pillow.

F*ckDell · Jul 1, 2006, 02:47 PM

We probably will go with T2400, 128MB vid card and she'd like to get 2GBs of ram...

If she puts the laptop on a pillow, won't that prevent the fans from pulling air in and cooling the system? I have an Inspiron 9100 and I used to leave it on my bed at college, not the greatest idea. Now I have it sitting on a $15 box fan to keep it cool until I get around to making a home made laptop cooler...

kobi · Jul 2, 2006, 07:15 PM

I'm going with the 1.83.

TomR · Jul 2, 2006, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by kobi

I'm going with the 1.83.

You'll love it! Get at least a gig of RAM with it though.

Tom

kobi · Jul 2, 2006, 08:01 PM

I'm going to max that baby, trust me.

masugu · Jul 3, 2006, 12:41 AM

Get ready to replace the plastic case ;-)

F*ckDell · Jul 15, 2006, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by masugu

Get ready to replace the plastic case ;-)

Are you hinting that there will be heat problems with a 1.83 cpu, 256 vid card, 1 gb ram in a laptop around an inch thick??

harrisjamieh · Jul 15, 2006, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by F*ckDell

Are you hinting that there will be heat problems with a 1.83 cpu, 256 vid card, 1 gb ram in a laptop around an inch thick??

Since when does the MB have a 256 vid card?

Dillon-K · Jul 15, 2006, 04:47 PM

What are these OWC rebates you speak of...?

F*ckDell · Jul 21, 2006, 12:04 AM

I'm not talking about Apple guys.

Dell's running some sales and my girlfriend got her money back from her last laptop due to nothing but problems. She's decided to stick with Dell because of the deals.

jamez bond · Jul 21, 2006, 06:22 AM

okeeey...
F*ckDell....you did realise on the way on here, it said Macbook forum...right?

not dell, not windows, not intel, not anything like that...

And yes, dell has some good offers, but not on Macbooks.

ginoledesma · Jul 21, 2006, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Dillon-K

What are these OWC rebates you speak of...?

OWC is offering trade-in rebates for the stock memory and hard drives that came with your MacBook [Pro] should you choose to purchase the upgrades from them.

F*ckDell · Jul 30, 2006, 05:49 PM

jamezzz, I can read and am aware this is a Mac site. I ask questions on this site for the fact that people here are educated. When asking questions I typically get educated answers back.

Jeff. · Jul 30, 2006, 06:32 PM

Interesting name, considering your inquiry!

F*ckDell · Jul 31, 2006, 11:11 AM

I told my girlfriend to get a MacBook, she's worried about the heat issues and wants to be able to play her sims games...