 |
 |
How much is the 2.0->2.5 jump worth to you?
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Status:
Offline
|
|
How much would you pay to go from Dual 2.0 -> Dual 2.5. Right now it's $500 to move up to the faster procs, but you get the better video card as well. Is the $500 worth it? If not, what would be the most you'd pay for the upgrade? $400? $350? $300?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Earth
Status:
Offline
|
|
if you're already paying that much for a machine, why the hell wouldn't you just go all the way. 25% more is quite a bit. and a faster video card to boot...
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: State O' Maine
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by GSixZero:
How much would you pay to go from Dual 2.0 -> Dual 2.5. Right now it's $500 to move up to the faster procs, but you get the better video card as well. Is the $500 worth it? If not, what would be the most you'd pay for the upgrade? $400? $350? $300?
With the same 2.5-standard 9600 XT video card in the 2.0, the 2.5 is only $350 more than the 2.0, U.S. educational pricing.
At least that's how I rationalized the 2.5... 13% price increase for a 25% performance increase.
|
|
HWMO: 2.5gHz DP G5, 1.25 gHz 15" AL PB, 1st Gen iPod, Shuffle
SWMBO: 0.8 gHz 15" FP iMac, 0.5 gHz iBook, 3rd Gen iPod, Shuffle
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Nevertheless money is money and if you don't really need the extra power then why pay for it. If that 350 had been invested in apple stock a year ago when it was 15 a share you would have made 1470 dollars. Oh and it's a 20% increase not 25%. Just another perspective...
|
|
"Not all who wander are lost." ~ Gandalf
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: State O' Maine
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Olorin:
Nevertheless money is money and if you don't really need the extra power then why pay for it. If that 350 had been invested in apple stock a year ago when it was 15 a share you would have made 1470 dollars. Oh and it's a 20% increase not 25%. Just another perspective...
"Money is money." Please elaborate.
Likewise, "need?" Please define.
2.5 � 2.0 = 1.25, or a 25% increase... T-rue or T-wrong?
|
|
HWMO: 2.5gHz DP G5, 1.25 gHz 15" AL PB, 1st Gen iPod, Shuffle
SWMBO: 0.8 gHz 15" FP iMac, 0.5 gHz iBook, 3rd Gen iPod, Shuffle
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sitting in front of computer
Status:
Offline
|
|
If i had the money, or could get it quite easily then i think i would. As said earlier - if you are paying that much already.. why not a lil more
|
|
I free'd my mind... now it won't come back.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2004
Status:
Offline
|
|
it is definitely worth it, if you are going into that range anyway.. even if only because it makes it a little more future-proof.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Earth
Status:
Offline
|
|
you don't find increase in anything by going backwards.
it is a 25% increase. while the difference may only be 20%, the increase is 25%
Math get.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status:
Offline
|
|
(redundant discussion edited)
I picked the 2.0 because the 2.5 has had a greater share of reported problems. I think the 2.0 has been the sweet spot. But if I were in the market now, I think it would be more prudent to wait.
(
Last edited by Big Mac; Feb 6, 2005 at 03:00 AM.
)
|
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Downtown Austin, TX
Status:
Offline
|
|
Ok, lemme clear this up.
Relative to the 2.0ghz, the 2.5 is .5 ghz faster.
There are four .5's in 2.0.
Thus, the 2.5 is 25% (one .5 of 2.0) faster than the 2.0.
If you were to go the other way around, the 2.0 is 20% slower than the 2.5.
You start with 2.5 and subtract .5 which is 20% of 2.5.
But in the first example, you start with the 2.0 and add .5 which is 25% of 2.0.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Earth
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by jamil5454:
Ok, lemme clear this up.
Relative to the 2.0ghz, the 2.5 is .5 ghz faster.
There are four .5's in 2.0.
Thus, the 2.5 is 25% (one .5 of 2.0) faster than the 2.0.
If you were to go the other way around, the 2.0 is 20% slower than the 2.5.
You start with 2.5 and subtract .5 which is 20% of 2.5.
But in the first example, you start with the 2.0 and add .5 which is 25% of 2.0.
exactly what I am sayin
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
its a fact that im dope.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: macsterdam
Status:
Offline
|
|
I had two 2.5's. The first had it's cpu replaced twice in 10 weeks. Still noisy has hell, even when just surfing the net. Got a new 2.5 and the same problems persisted. I switched to a 2x2.0 and am once again a happy Mac user. I'd say, be careful with the 2.5's, there are a lot of problems with 'm!!
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top