Core duo vs. core 2 duo?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by KipCoon, Nov 25, 2006.

  1. KipCoon macrumors regular

    KipCoon

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2000
    Location:
    ATL
    #1
    So Curious question here.

    Is there a significant difference between the core duo and core 2 duo processor?

    Reason being: I can get a black macbook 2.0 ghz with 512mb for $1199 but its a core duo..

    Vs. the $1400 core 2 duo which does have 1 gig of ram, but I can always solve that problem in the older model fairly cheap.

    Is there any real performance value in the core 2 vs. the first version?

    Thanks for any input.
     
  2. macman2790 macrumors 6502a

    macman2790

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Location:
    Texas
    #2
    not as hot, not as underclocked on the video card and the processor is faster. Oh, use the search function to search the forums and you'll get better answers.
     
  3. Carguy172 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2006
  4. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #4
    ^^See a lot of 64-bit apps out?

    If you keep your computers for around 3 years, then even a 32-bit one is fine right now. Make sure your next system will be 64-bit (and it will definitely be), but for now, 32-bit is more than OK.

    I don't think there's a big difference, but if you do things that are processor intensive AND take a long time to do, then you'll notice a difference. If you do a processor intensive task that lasts for 4 seconds, you may be able to cut it down to 3.5 seconds or something with a Core 2 Duo. :eek:

    Heat is around the same. Heat density is higher, but it doesn't seem to matter like it did with the G5s. The Intel 950 runs around the same. It's the technology built into the card that matters anyway, rarely anything else. It'll still be too poor to run 3D games very well, but they'll run OK; 2D games will run just fine. :)

    If I were to sell my MB for a better model, it wouldn't be for Merom. I'd wait until next June or so before selling mine and getting a faster one. A really nice Intel graphics (still integrated) and a processor that will be noticeably faster than what I have now.
     
  5. stealthman1 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2006
    Location:
    Ca
    #5
    Some things are way faster. Saving an .aiff file in soundtrack used to take my 2.16 Core Duo about 10 sec per minute of audio, the 2.33 C2D does it in 4 seconds per minute of audio, both with 2gb or ram. I thought this was a stunning improvement and it's actually slightly faster than my MP!
     
  6. KipCoon thread starter macrumors regular

    KipCoon

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2000
    Location:
    ATL
    #6


    Didnt know that, thanks for hte input. WOuld have searched more but I was on a crummy dial up that kept locking up... Makes me realize why I love cable so much o.o;

    Isnt there going to be a 64 bit version of the next MAC OS? Guess it can be ran on the macbook then..
     
  7. jwp1964 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Enterprise, KS
    #7
    Is WiFi important to you?

    New MB and MBP duo's are carrying the next gen WiFi cards...this was very important in my decision to buy the mid-grade new MB CD2 rather than the old MB CD.
     
  8. wyrmintheapple macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Location:
    Southampton, UK
    #8
    This is NOT true, It sounds like some kind of 64-bit sales pitch.

    Here's the cliffs notes....

    Way back when we had 16-bit chips, people were writing programs that split their instructions into 2 16-bit parts. This was bad. Not all programs were affected, things like word processing weren't really affected. Graphics, music and complex number crunching however would often run into the limitations of 64-bit.

    32-bit instruction lengths were the answer.

    Now we are at the same point again. Thing is, once again, not all programs are affected. In fact, at this point, very few instructions are being split. Short of Mathematica (dealing with huge long number crunching instructions) I'm not aware of a great many apps that have truly been converted to 64-bit. Universal Binary, yes. 64-bit, no.

    The benefit of 64-bit is much smaller than the benefit 32-bit was. Many programs will never see a speed boost from it, and many more will never be recoded.
     
  9. YS2003 macrumors 68020

    YS2003

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2004
    Location:
    Finally I have arrived.....
    #9
    I heard C2D model is about 5 to 10 % faster than CD. If I were you, I would go with C2D model. MB CD is the rev A model which appears to be riddled with some quality issues.

    Macworld did some comparison.
     
  10. tim2006 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2006
    #10
    I post a similar threads. I have 2 macs one will be my primary computer one will go to a family member. MBP CD and MB C2D. I asked which I should keep for myself. What do the people on this thread think of my situation. I dont do graphic stuff.
     
  11. flir67 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    #11
    64 bit, just ordered mine and will be 64 bit ready when apples 64bit os comes out next year. can wait to see how it performs.
     
  12. wyrmintheapple macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Location:
    Southampton, UK
    #12
    Drop the i386 live CD of ubuntu into your Macbook....

    Then drop the x86-64 version in after.

    See what kind of (non) performance boost you see. It will be very similar to the (non) speed increase Mac OS X will get.

    http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/09/32-bit-vs-64-bit-performance/

    In fact, see here for a comparison of 64-bit vs 32-bit on an actual Mac program (and before you say leopard is 64-bit version yadda yadda yadda, thats only for the OS itself to run 64-bit. Apple added in the hooks for Apps to use 64-bit instructions in Tiger I think for the G5, maybe even one of the panther releases)
     
  13. adiosk8 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2006
    #13
    This is a terrible test....a live version is ran off ram and the cd drive, and the cd drive is a bottle neck...PLEASE dont test it like this.
     
  14. Cybergypsy macrumors 68040

    Cybergypsy

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    Central Florida!
    #14
    Have the CD and i am happy with it,,,,,No issues with mine and its a week 19..........not worth the extra price for 7% faster........
     
  15. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #15
    if money isnt a problem, why not go with C2D?
    altho i serious dont think 64 bit will be anythin big in 4-5 years, 64bit CPU were out for 3-4 years, did u see any big time 64-bit software? lol.
     
  16. Me1000 macrumors 68000

    Me1000

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    #16
    64bit is a biggy!

    thats like saying DVDs have been out for a few years, why dont we have OS's on DVDs? well after a while, we had tiger, leopard will be on a Dual Layer DVD...

    Soon Apple will make their OS so that it is only 64bit compatible!

    C2D is your best bet if you want a computer that will last you a while longer.
    if you want a good deal for a computer you wont need (or want to sell for more) in 5 years (maybe less) CD is a great buy!
     
  17. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #17
    lol, only if they are crazy, let me make this statement here: they wont make 64bit only OS for another 8 years. lol
     
  18. Me1000 macrumors 68000

    Me1000

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2006
    #18
    Their abandoning their G3's
    G4's are next

    once all the PPCs are non supported they have only had one intel processor thats non 64bit... the only thing apple has right now thats not 64bit is the mini

    id say 10.8 will be only 64bit
    and if OS 11 is after 10.8 it will be only 64 bit!

    11.1 will be 64 bit only no matter what!
     
  19. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #19
    hehe, well say, i just dont think so, they need to wait for 32bit cpu user to upgrade first b4 they can introduce any 64bit only OS, otherwise they are losing customers.
    also, based on the progress of 64bit software development, its hard to believe the PC/Mac market will move to 64 bit only in 6 years at all. not to mention in 6 years, the unexpected CPU development might well dump 64Bit totally at all,
    think about it, CPU is developing so fast, if they got a different structure than X-86 64/32 in next 2 years, whats the point for Adobe, MS to move to 64 at all?
    be realistic, total 64bit isnt near, and maybe not have a certain future after all.
     
  20. KipCoon thread starter macrumors regular

    KipCoon

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2000
    Location:
    ATL
    #20
    Thanks everyone for the input.. Going to go for a new White Macbook and just Vinyl the heck out of it ;)

    On Bootcamp, figured I'd do the Windows XP... I got a coupon for vista, hope that'll run okay on it o_O;
     
  21. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #21
    hoho, good luck.
     
  22. wyrmintheapple macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 8, 2006
    Location:
    Southampton, UK
    #22
    Actually, one your App is loaded into RAM, its no longer running from CD..... and RAM is no bottleneck. There are plenty of small linux apps that fit into RAM that can test your speed.

    Or just install the damn thing if you want to get picky.

    Anyone remember the Atari Jaguar??
     
  23. Garden Knowm macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Location:
    California
    #23
    I have a C2D 17 inch ... I use FCP several hours everyday...

    The C2D is worth every penny....

    cheers
     
  24. KipCoon thread starter macrumors regular

    KipCoon

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2000
    Location:
    ATL
    #24
    ....

    Why, why must you crush my dreams? Its all I have left for Windows...


    ... *sniff*

    ;.;

    Anyways, Macbook ordered yay!
     
  25. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #25
    LOL, did I?
     

Share This Page