Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

iMAColata · Sep 26, 2006, 02:04 PM

I have seen the thread about 1.83 ghz vs 2.0 ghz. I am inclined to buy the small version and add more ram to it.

But have anyone tried both next to each other for more than just tippy typing and browsing the web? There are obvious advantages to more megahurtz when you do heavy duty stuff like encoding, rendering and working with stuff like Photoshop. I am not doing a lot of that however.

I just wonder if there is a perceptible day to day difference in performance once a macbook has more than 512 MB?

Do apps launch slower? Is the nifty MAC OS X effects more jerky? Will scrolling word docs or picture heavy pages in Safari be perceptibly slower? Is running multiple applications noticeably slower on the 1.83 ghz model?

bradbissell · Sep 26, 2006, 02:14 PM

Most of the time, my 2.0Ghz macbook runs at 1.5Ghz due to intel's speedstep technology. Only under load (encoding video, audio, etc) does the processor increase to 2.0Ghz. The 1.8Ghz model also runs at 1.5Ghz most of the time.

If the extra money means you can install 2GB of RAM then I would go for the 1.8Ghz model. Extra memory increases performance more than 166Mhz of processor speed.

houstonmacbro · Sep 26, 2006, 04:02 PM

how do you know it is running at certain speeds? is there an app or widget that tells you this?

neverskatewsandles · Sep 26, 2006, 04:15 PM

core duo temp

houstonmacbro · Sep 26, 2006, 04:19 PM

gotcha.

iMAColata · Sep 27, 2006, 04:11 AM

Thanks. I ordered 1.83 version. 12% student discount and iPod deal. Arriving on 10/11.

houstonmacbro · Sep 27, 2006, 04:14 AM

cool! i saw the refurbs online for under $1000. wish i could just go ahead and take the plunge, but willing to wait out for c2d.

confusion · Sep 27, 2006, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by iMAColata

Thanks. I ordered 1.83 version. 12% student discount and iPod deal. Arriving on 10/11.

Congrats on your purchase

I have the 2GHz version and am quite annoyed by the fact that as soon as the macbook runs at that speed, the fan kicks in - gone are the days of my quiet titanium...
It would be interesting how the 1.83 version compares to that.

iMAColata · Sep 27, 2006, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by confusion

Congrats on your purchase

I have the 2GHz version and am quite annoyed by the fact that as soon as the macbook runs at that speed, the fan kicks in - gone are the days of my quiet titanium...
It would be interesting how the 1.83 version compares to that.

Ill make sure to let you know how I perceive fan noise. I am picky when it comes to that, I hope it won't annoy me too much.

houstonmacbro. Wait? Why? The C2D gives a small performance increase, nothing else. The 64-bit is snakeoil and something you won't feel any benefit from. Especially not in a memory limited macbook. The new Mac OS X Leopard or panther or what ever it is called, will run just fine on the 32-bit chips.

boomerdang · Sep 27, 2006, 01:40 PM

hey I have a week 33 refreshed 1.83 macbook and I've only had the fans come on once when I was running five apps at once. I think this was neoword, itunes, camino, transmission, and seashore.
I do always shutdown and unplug the macbook when I'm not using it so I don't know if that helps or not.
Honestly the only noise I notice is from the cd drive.

houstonmacbro · Sep 27, 2006, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by iMAColata

Ill make sure to let you know how I perceive fan noise. I am picky when it comes to that, I hope it won't annoy me too much.

houstonmacbro. Wait? Why? The C2D gives a small performance increase, nothing else. The 64-bit is snakeoil and something you won't feel any benefit from. Especially not in a memory limited macbook. The new Mac OS X Leopard or panther or what ever it is called, will run just fine on the 32-bit chips.

guess i don't want buyer's remorse like when i bought my 2005 civic late in the year and the next thing i knew, the new honda civics (the sleek ones with space age design) were out.

steve65 · Sep 27, 2006, 02:43 PM

yeah, i would have bought the 1.83ghz but I got the 2.0ghz mainly because it came with the superdrive, which I believe you cannot retrofit.

iMAColata · Sep 27, 2006, 05:32 PM

You CAN retrofit the superdrive with a lil DIY operation and a spare superdrive costing 2/3s of the price that going 1.83 to 2.0 is. So that was probably nice you did so. Me, I think the superdrive is too expensive considering its not all that super. No DL, 4 speed? Pff.

houstonmacbro · Sep 27, 2006, 05:36 PM

i've lived without a superdrive for a long time. the ONLY reason i could see needing to burn disc onto a dvd is for my photo files. i think i'd rather not tie up my computer (processor and dvd drive) burning discs and rather would prefer to do it off machine on a stand alone product.

 · Sep 27, 2006, 05:38 PM

I have. I had two on my desk last month, but now I'm back to my MacBook Pros. The 1.83GHz is not much slower than the 2.0GHz during normal application use i.e., Safari, Mail, iLife. However the 2.0GHz really pulls ahead of the 1.83GHz during Rosetta app usage, like Photoshop or Office. I had 2Gb of RAM in both, fyi.

iMAColata · Sep 27, 2006, 05:56 PM

Interesting. How many apps use rosetta? Does this affect Parallels aswell ? I should think it would.

 · Sep 27, 2006, 06:21 PM

Parallels is not affected by Rosetta because it is for Intel Macs only. If you buy an app that doesn't use Rosetta, it should say Universal, and have the Universal symbol as seen at Apple - Universal

iMAColata · Sep 27, 2006, 06:36 PM

Curses. I thought I had it all staked out now. But the extra money is like $225 for superdrive and 170 MHz. Gah. I already ordered the 1.83. I guess Ill stick with that >.<

steve65 · Sep 28, 2006, 03:36 AM

Originally Posted by iMAColata

You CAN retrofit the superdrive with a lil DIY operation and a spare superdrive costing 2/3s of the price that going 1.83 to 2.0 is. So that was probably nice you did so. Me, I think the superdrive is too expensive considering its not all that super. No DL, 4 speed? Pff.

Yes you're right, you can retrofit anything if you try hard enough. I havent been able to find anywhere in the UK that supplies a superdrive for a macbook though (is it a unique size?).
Also the price difference doesnt quite justify the risk to me.

I agree its woefully underspecified for a dvd writer though, why limit the write speed? surely its cheaper to mass produce 1 higher speed drive than make a special slow one for the macbook?
Why put the latest cpu in a machine then put an outdated dvd writer in?

As for the diff between 1.83ghz and 2.0ghz, you'll probably get better value performance from spending the money on RAM (but not from Apple!).

iMAColata · Sep 28, 2006, 06:13 AM

Hehe no, Apple wants 660$ for the privilege. I am told by dram trade guys that the 2H of October will see some ram price drops. Right now DDR2 price is crazy. So I might try and squeeze by with 512 MB for a while untill prices drop.

steve65 · Sep 28, 2006, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by iMAColata

Hehe no, Apple wants 660$ for the privilege. I am told by dram trade guys that the 2H of October will see some ram price drops. Right now DDR2 price is crazy. So I might try and squeeze by with 512 MB for a while untill prices drop.

Noooo.. nobody buys ram from apple do they?
I paid ukp140 for 2gig from Crucial which funnily enough is equal to the uk price diff between a 1.83 and a 2.0 macbook