Gonna be getting a new laptop soon and I was thinking about a refurb MBP. Does the C2D have any REAL advantage over the CD? I am a photographer by trade and do video stuff from time to time. I am just not sure the C2D is worth the extra few hundred bucks. Thanks for your time.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
CD vs C2D,,MBP
- Thread starter :DRS:Church
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Just had another question like this, next time maybe try a search of the forums before starting a new topic, thanks! 
If it'll save you extra money that you really need, no it's not worth it. However, it'll future proof your Mac more, as it gives 64-bit compatibility (which Leopard may utilize) and a slight preformance increase.
If it'll save you extra money that you really need, no it's not worth it. However, it'll future proof your Mac more, as it gives 64-bit compatibility (which Leopard may utilize) and a slight preformance increase.
In my opinion, its worth it. It will help with the video work you do. And, considering that it is 64-bit compatible as is leapord, it is kind of future-proofing to get the C2D.
Do a search for previous opinions on this. I would think for heavy media (ex. video) editing the C2D would be worth the extra few hundred.
However, I just bought a 17" core duo (2.16GHz, 1GB RAM, 120GB HDD) for $1799, brand new. I couldn't pass up that deal. I didn't think the new C2D 17" was worth an extra $1000. Got the last one in stock at my local Micro Center. So far, the CD is pretty fast for me. I'm coming from a 17" 1.33GHz PowerBook, and use it for work and personal. I just loaded Parallels with XP Pro for those pesky Windoze apps that I need (ex. MS Project). Not regretting going with "older" model at all.
However, I just bought a 17" core duo (2.16GHz, 1GB RAM, 120GB HDD) for $1799, brand new. I couldn't pass up that deal. I didn't think the new C2D 17" was worth an extra $1000. Got the last one in stock at my local Micro Center. So far, the CD is pretty fast for me. I'm coming from a 17" 1.33GHz PowerBook, and use it for work and personal. I just loaded Parallels with XP Pro for those pesky Windoze apps that I need (ex. MS Project). Not regretting going with "older" model at all.
the perfomance isn't very noticable, but the C2D can hold up to 3GB RAM so that will be handy if you're using Photo manipulation programs... it will come in handy for video editing as well, if you can spare the higher price go for the C2D.. if not, the CD will do you just fine.
I went with the CD because i needed a new comp right away (this was during the time C2D was soon to be released) and it's been great for me even though i only have 1GB RAM at the moment... i'll be upgrading it in the summer
I went with the CD because i needed a new comp right away (this was during the time C2D was soon to be released) and it's been great for me even though i only have 1GB RAM at the moment... i'll be upgrading it in the summer
I bought my CD MacBook Pro right before the C2D update and while I would really like the extra power of the C2D, I really don't regret getting the CD at all. (except that I would have spent a couple hundred less dollars with the C2D...) For the prices the CD are going for, I really think that the C2D is not worth the extra couple hundred dollars.
you really won't notice any difference. i dont notice a god damn difference between mine and my friends 2.33.
I think the problem with most of these opinions is they're purely using the CD and haven't actually use the C2D for any extended period of time.
I used to own a CD Macbook Black and when it had problems they replaced it with a C2D Macbook Black. Everything else was the same (2gb Ram, 120gb upgraded HD) and I noticed that the C2D is snappier.
I was perfectly happy with my CD, but the C2D is no doubt faster and noticeably so even on everyday applications. If you have the cash and you plan to do things that are CPU intensive (and photographer tends to count), I'd say spring for the Core 2 Duo. If you're strapped for cash but need the new laptop, then by all means go for the Core Duo.
Keep in mind I'm comparing them with everything else the same.
I used to own a CD Macbook Black and when it had problems they replaced it with a C2D Macbook Black. Everything else was the same (2gb Ram, 120gb upgraded HD) and I noticed that the C2D is snappier.
I was perfectly happy with my CD, but the C2D is no doubt faster and noticeably so even on everyday applications. If you have the cash and you plan to do things that are CPU intensive (and photographer tends to count), I'd say spring for the Core 2 Duo. If you're strapped for cash but need the new laptop, then by all means go for the Core Duo.
Keep in mind I'm comparing them with everything else the same.
cont'd
aside from theoretical resale value - will C2D's resell for $150 more than CD's?
There's also the question of running apps that come out 12 months from now -- my only experience with this is PCs, where if you don't update every couple years, software won't run (or runs slowly) on older machines... Is this the same way with macs?
Mike
aside from theoretical resale value - will C2D's resell for $150 more than CD's?
There's also the question of running apps that come out 12 months from now -- my only experience with this is PCs, where if you don't update every couple years, software won't run (or runs slowly) on older machines... Is this the same way with macs?
Mike
To address this... I guess in some instances this may be true, but up until just last year we still had a green imac g3 running pretty much anything and everything we needed at the house with very few problems at all, and for all those who may be new or clueless on the time frame of that... that's an 8 year old computer
So... i would say macs tend to hold their own a lot longer then pcs do in terms of updating, and I recall reading many other things to that extent on these boards as well.
Anyway, IF you are strapped (like I was) the CD is a perfectly great computer and I love mine and I do a lot of video/design/graphics work on it and it is working quite well even with limited ram (waiting on my order, it comes in tomorrow for the full 2gigs
) though I am coming from a 800mhz tibook hehe.... but I have used the c2ds my friends have and while there is no HUGE noticeable difference there is a bit and it seems theirs run a little cooler then mine (although compared to the tibook this thing is like ice) and I think if I had the extra couple hundred I would have sprung for the top of the line c2d instead just for the added power and updatedness.
If you dont' want to spend the extra money though I would get the CD and upgrade the ram and you'll be super happy, besides, give it a year and the will have yet another revolution out and perhaps then you can do another trade in, skip the 2 and move on to whatever their 3rd is.
gl, either way you'll :heart: your new intel machine
having owned a CD MBP, imo the 15" C2D is worth the diff if you are planning on keeping the MBP for 1+ yr.
15" C2D advantages - FW800, airport 802.11n, 64-bit processor, better heat/power management
in terms of performance; however, the diff between CD and C2D is negligible.
15" C2D advantages - FW800, airport 802.11n, 64-bit processor, better heat/power management
in terms of performance; however, the diff between CD and C2D is negligible.
Under normal circumstances, it is pretty clear that the C2D MBP has distinct advantages over the CD version. Check out the Macs Only! C2D speed test at http://macsonly.com/arch00611.html#_21
HOWEVER, if you buy a more recent C2D MBP, especially the 17-inch model, you could find problems with the screen. Check out other relevant threads on this forum - for example https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/277604/
If you are a photographer you have to make sure that the LCD is as it should be - that said, the faster C2D chip would be better for video work.
To me, it is more important to have a flawless 17-inch display than almost imperceptibly faster performance. But that's because I use my MBP for photography (among other things) - rather than for gaming or video editing.