Macbook Pro 2.16Ghz or 2.33Ghz Core 2 duo?

I am going to purchase a core 2 duo macbook pro. However I am undecided on which model I should purchase. I am attracted to the lower price of the 2.16ghz model but I am also tempted to get the 2.33ghz model due to the extra gig of ram and extra video ram. How much of a performace difference is there between the two? and is it worth the increase in price?

Thanks
thekingdavids

 

The extra gig of ram will make quite a bit of difference, but you could easily upgrade that yourself. The v-ram would only be helpful if you plan on playing games and the like.

 

I do plan on playing games, will there be a big difference in performance?

 

It depends from game to game, but on the whole there should not be a huge difference. The benchmarks don't show a big gap. Your limiting factor is realyl more in the video processor, not the VRAM.

 

so do you advise me to get the 2.16ghz macbook pro and save myself some cash!

 

Well I don't want to make the decision for you. Try googling a bit and see if you can find some framerates from your favorite games and see if there is a huge difference. If you got the money to spend, and you want the absolute best performance get the 2.33. If you are on a really tight budget, or you are ok with a little less performance get the 2.16.

 

Are there any other laptops with a 128mb ATI X1600 graphics card?

David

 

I asked this question from both the apple phone rep and the salesperson at our local apple retailer. They both strongly suggested the 2.33 without hesitation.

 

Yeah, I had to make a similar decision. Once I factored in the cost of buying the extra gig of memory separately, the cost difference between the two models wasn't quite so great. Ultimately I decided it was worth the extra money to have the extra RAM included, the faster processor and the extra video memory.

Having said that, if you do decide to get the 2.16 GHz model and buy the extra RAM yourself, you'll still end up with a very nice machine and performance should still be fine most games. I think the kinds of games that would benefit most from the extra VRAM are those that might ultimately be kind of limited by the X1600 anyway, so it doesn't end up being quite such a big difference.

 

There are other laptops with 128mb x1600s.. like the Acer 5672 wlmi. It scored poorly in 3dmark05. BUT there is one major difference between MacBook Pros and most other Laptops. The x1600 in the MBP uses DDR3 memory vs most others using DDR2. So in conclusion the 128mb DDR3 can score a ~3800 in 3dmark05, and a 256mb DDR2 can score about the same. I believe both require some tweaking to achieve those speeds, and laptops do vary in maximum potential. MBP is on par, but speed is one factor. Video ram, system ram, and processor speed affects frame rates in games to different degrees, just as it does for Applications.

 

I am considering buying a the 2.16ghz macbook pro on ebay uk for about £1000. The 2.33ghz macbook pros cost about £1350+. So I think that the extra £350 or so it not worth it.

 

Am I right is saying that the 2.16ghz core 2 duo macbook pro 128mb is far superior to the old macbook pro core duo 2.00ghz 256mb.

 

It's not FAR superior, but it is somewhat better. It has a faster processor and the GPU isn't under clocked as much.

 

I don't think you'd be far off. Outside of the extra VRAM at least.

The X1600 in the C2D MBP's is clocked much closer to stock speeds (the X1600 in the original Core Duo MBP was drastically underclocked). The C2D MBP's feature an improved vent design in the rear, which I think makes some of this possible, and allows it to run cooler overall.

 

Does the original Core Duo MBP has DDR3 or DDR2?

 

DDR3

http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/macbook_pro/stats/macbook_pro_2.0.html

Ya, the C duos were underclocked because of CPU heat being such a factor. I'm not aware what the difference in clock speed is between the two versions, but mine runs incredibly cool. So I can believe it's got head room to OC. When I looked at benchmarks,the Core duos were around ~2600 stock speed. I think the C2D is about 3300~3800 according to benches I've seen online. I'm not sure which is true stock and if any of that includes best performance settings or best energy savings. Also, Windows needs a good ati driver to work well with the x1600, but you can also use the homemade Omega Drivers. Some reports online have reported in excess of 4200+ and 4500 in 3dmark 05, but that's really tempting fate with a mostly passively cooled laptop.

Many DDR2 variants at stock speed are ~3600 but don't have extreme potential because they're limited by the memory speed. Core speeds are increased to up the bench score..maybe gaining 3-5 fps in the best case.
Best efficiency is to have core and memory at the same speed. Diminishing returns on an OC will result if there's an imbalance.

Check this out, CD vs C2D http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd9.html
The clock speeds are at the bottom. That's a big difference. The C2D is at the top end of speed here so it's no slouch if you can tap the power

 

The extra gig of ram will in fact make a much bigger difference than going from 2.16ghz to 2.33ghz.

 

I just ran 3DMark05 and got a score of 3687. This is a 2.16 C2D with 2gb of ram.

 

xprohx - did you use any special treatments or settings.. or is this as stock as possible?

 

I personally think you should go with the 2.16GHz MBP and buy a stick of 1GB RAM yourself. It'll only be $80 tops, and the extra 167Mhz and 128MB VRAM of the 2.33GHz MBP are simply not worth $400.

 

This is as stock as possible as you mentioned in Windows via bootcamp.