Do I need Core 2 Duo?

core 2 duo is faster and 64-bit. 749 is cheap, but for around 100 more, you can probably score a c2d.

not to say the original CD is dead tech, it's def not. but in the grand scheme of it all, you'd probably want to get core 2 duo.

wyatt23 said:

core 2 duo is faster and 64-bit.

Click to expand...

The 64-Bit part is important as a lot of things especially within Leopard are 64-Bit. I would agree that overall you would be much happier with the C2D....

You would never know the difference between CD and C2D, doing those tasks. CD is more than capable for that and much more.

you don't need it, but I would get it if I was in your shoes.

It'll run cooler, and have a better battery life.

aquajet said:

You would never know the difference between CD and C2D

Click to expand...

You would notice the difference when it comes to things that are 64-bit. However in things that are only 32-bit your right there wouldn't be much difference. I would go to apple.com and read the 64-bit section of the Leopard preview before you choose to go with a not non 64 CD....

agree with aquajet , after all a G4 can do those tasks.

I have the first generation MacBook Pro 2.16Ghz and I am sure everyone would be hard pressed to feel the difference between this and the current model (sans graphic intensive tasks of course).

The difference between a Core Duo and Core 2 Duo is very small.

olliebraves20 said:

The 64-Bit part is important as a lot of things especially within Leopard are 64-Bit. I would agree that overall you would be much happier with the C2D....

Click to expand...

haha ok

you will NOT see a differnce for the tasks you are using. i have a core duo and i still cant tell a difference even with the most recent macbooks. if there was any difference, certainly not enough to pay extra for

I have a Core Duo macbook, and I can't tell the difference between it and my friend's Core 2 Duo.

Also seeing as it's cheaper, you might as well go for it.

dukebound85 said:

if there was any difference, certainly not enough to pay extra for

Click to expand...

"Now the Cocoa application frameworks, as well as graphics, scripting, and the UNIX foundations of the Mac, are all 64-bit."-From Apple's website.

I am certainly not arguing that the speeds on the processor between the CD and C2D are enough for most people to notice. However that seems to be the only thing that people want to compare between the two. In case you have not noticed everything is going to 64-bit. As example the quote....I'm not saying that 64-bit is even at this time all that important, it will be in the not so distant future tho....well that is if you want to take advantage of future progress....

I guess it comes down to how long you want to keep the computer..if only for a year or two then certainly yes get the cheaper CD...anything else would be foolish and a waste of money. However if you are going to be keeping it for some time then why would you not want the capability of 64-bit as everything is headed that way??

Recently replaced my Core Duo laptop with a Core 2 Duo laptop (not for this reason). I can't notice a difference. For your purposes, you definitely won't. Grab the deal.

I would not let the fact it is a Core Duo scare me away from a good price on a purchase. There is not a lot of speed difference and for most applications you are never going to notice the difference. There is nothing "slow" about the Core Duo. I have 2 Core Duo machines, an iMac and a Lenovo notebook and I never find any speed issues for the tasks that I am doing. They both are very responsive (well the Mac feels faster, but that is more because Vista can be a dog at times).

By the time the whole 64bit deal is going to really effect you the notebook you purchase today will be in the dump.

64 bit doesn't really mean that much when your ram architecture can only address in 32 bit!

I just bought the 1.83Ghz C2D for $799 last night from the Store. I went with this over the CD because I just couldn't stand buying technology that was first generation. But if you don't have the extra cash for it, get the $749. The $50 extra I paid was only for a sense of security that the laptop won't crap out on me.

jmack549 said:

Do you have a link to it? This is the only one I can find...

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?nplm=FA255LL/A

FWIW here's the one I'm looking at...

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?nplm=FA254LL/A

Click to expand...

Don't know how to find a link since it sold out last night at 1:30 AM, but it basically has the same exact specs as the 1.83 CD.

All those quotes are great, but do you know what that actually means?

64-bit is not relevant at all for most users. A 64-bit system can have more system memory, but the MacBook is constrained by it's 2 slots anyway.

All that being said, it depends on the price difference. You're mainly buying it for the slight uptick in clock speed if anything, it just depends on what you can afford.

olliebraves20 said:

"Now the Cocoa application frameworks, as well as graphics, scripting, and the UNIX foundations of the Mac, are all 64-bit."-From Apple's website.

I am certainly not arguing that the speeds on the processor between the CD and C2D are enough for most people to notice. However that seems to be the only thing that people want to compare between the two. In case you have not noticed everything is going to 64-bit. As example the quote....I'm not saying that 64-bit is even at this time all that important, it will be in the not so distant future tho....well that is if you want to take advantage of future progress....

I guess it comes down to how long you want to keep the computer..if only for a year or two then certainly yes get the cheaper CD...anything else would be foolish and a waste of money. However if you are going to be keeping it for some time then why would you not want the capability of 64-bit as everything is headed that way??

Click to expand...

madmaxmedia said:

All those quotes are great, but do you know what that actually means?

64-bit is not relevant at all for most users. A 64-bit system can have more system memory, but the MacBook is constrained by it's 2 slots anyway.

All that being said, it depends on the price difference. You're mainly buying it for the slight uptick in clock speed if anything, it just depends on what you can afford.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it is pretty much useless unless he plans on using 4GB or more RAM.

64-bit arithmetic can still be done on the processor to a benefit even without the benefit of 64-bit memory addressing.

olliebraves20 said:

I guess it comes down to how long you want to keep the computer..if only for a year or two then certainly yes get the cheaper CD...anything else would be foolish and a waste of money. However if you are going to be keeping it for some time then why would you not want the capability of 64-bit as everything is headed that way??

Click to expand...

Because 64-bit for all intents and purposes has only barely begun to enter the mainstream. By the time the future is now, it won't matter which machine the OP purchased. They'll both be old and creaky. The C2D MacBook isn't some huge revolutionary step above the older model, which is what you seem to be implying. Furthermore, saying it would only be useful for a year or two is a completely baseless assertion.

The fact is, there really isn't anything that can be done on the C2D MacBook which can't be done on the CD, and this will likely be the case tomorrow as well.

I think you've missed out on what I mean earlier - they probably won't be able to use more than 3.4GB as macbooks are limited in their ram upgrades by their architecture despite the 64bit processor. It might be the case that the newest ones don't have this anymore, but it's certainly the case with my imac and my friends notebook.

Fuchal said:

Yeah, it is pretty much useless unless he plans on using 4GB or more RAM.

Click to expand...

A common misconception is that 64-bit architectures are no better than 32-bit architectures unless the computer has more than 4 GB of memory. This is not entirely true:

Some operating systems reserve portions of process address space for OS use, effectively reducing the total address space available for mapping memory for user programs. For instance, Windows XP DLLs and userland OS components are mapped into each process's address space, leaving only 2 to 3.8 GB (depending on the settings) address space available, even if the computer has 4 GiB of RAM. This restriction is not present in 64-bit Windows.

Memory mapping of files is becoming less useful with 32-bit architectures, especially with the introduction of relatively cheap recordable DVD technology. A 4 GB file is no longer uncommon, and such large files cannot be memory mapped easily to 32-bit architectures; only a region of the file can be mapped into the address space, and to access such a file by memory mapping, those regions will have to be mapped into and out of the address space as needed. This is an issue, as memory mapping remains one of the most efficient disk-to-memory methods, when properly implemented by the OS.


-Granted we are not talking to much about Windows XP because as most people here I hate Windows...however I have it loaded on my MacBook Pro as I have to have it for work.....plus I found very interesting the second part about the memory mapping of over 4GB.....as it isn't uncommon to find a video file over 4GB on my computer or other Mac users as we usually fancy ourself as working a lot with multimedia....

aquajet said:

You would never know the difference between CD and C2D, doing those tasks. CD is more than capable for that and much more.

Click to expand...

Yep, I do pretty much the same and recently Apple upgraded me from CD to C2D, and its hardly faster...nice and cool during Photoshop though...