does 500 dollars justify 2.33 model?

Im debating which model i should get. I am planning on using aperture, playing half life 2, and using a 17in external. Should i just buy the better model or will the 2.16 model serve me well? Also i am trying to future proof it. Will leopard run the same with the 2.16 and 2.33? Thanks a lot hombres.

 

I don't think it'll make much difference. Maybe if you're a gamer and play a lot of 3d games the extra 128 megs on the vid card may help.
I can't remember what else comes along with the upgrade... so I dunno...

 

Unless you need everything else that comes with the more expensive model, then it is a waste of money. The performance will not be noticeable. The only time you may see any symblance of a slowdown would be in extremely processor dependent apps like matlab. Even then though, the price doesn't justify the increase of no more than a few seconds.

 

The things that come with the higher model are a 2.33GHz T7600, 2GB of RAM, and a 256MB MR X1600. I think the only real important thing there is the 2GB of RAM. Overall, you're just as well off with the lower model, but you should consider getting a RAM upgrade.

I'm among the many people who think the price difference isn't justified. Neither the main RAM or the video RAM cost that much so the only real expensive component is the CPU, about $200 more. But Apple, being Intel's flashy new partner would probably be getting a better price. Apple really aught to thrown in an upgrade to the 160GB HDD for the higher model.

 

thanks for replies, but more questions.
Will the x1600 128 mb handle vista with aeros feature?
Also will it handle aperture smoothly?
Will it run leopard with spaces smoothly?

 

Hrm, so the extra ram is a nice inclusion into the upgrade. I'm not sure though, if the RAM, processor and video card ram are worth the extra $500. As far as how the 128 and 256 meg version will performe under Vista, i'ts hard to tell. The drivers are neither optimized yet nor is vista optimized (from what I understand). I think it will be fine, it's crazy if they want a card with more htan 128 mb of ram to handle the "prettiest" parts of aero.
I assume that the 128 will be able to handle Vista with aero turned up.
I don't believe Aperature really needs a 3d video card, or utilizes it. If it does, then the 128 meg version will handle it fine. It's also not clear how spaces will be handled. If it does use 3d rendering, then the 128 meg version should still hold it's ground well.
I'm sure that the spaces are going to be made so that even the GMA950 in the MB can handle them.

 

The $1999 model should suffice. They have made the $2499 model a little more attractive, but I think if you are looking to save some money, the 1999 would be just fine.

 

I think that people who use the MBP for business would happily pay the extra $500 for a overall faster experience. But for the majority of consumers the $1999 MBP is probably more than they will already need. Oh vista runs in all of its glory on the 128mb GPU, there shouldn't be a problem there.

I just noticed that you play Half Life 2, in which case you may notice a improvement in the FPS. I think the bench marks place the 128mb GPU around 2600 and the 256mb GPU around 2900. I think it really depends how much you game.

MacMall has the best prices on the C2D macbook pro I could find, $1844 and
$2344 shipped(after rebate)