Does Core Duo or Core Duo 2 chip make big difference?

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by princealfie, Feb 10, 2007.

  1. princealfie macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #1
    I was wondering whether a MacBook with Core Duo 2 chip would be noticeably faster or better than one with Core Duo chip only.
     
  2. whateverandever macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Location:
    Baltimore
    #3
    No... it's not.

    But there are some bonuses you get.

    Draft-N wireless, bigger hard drive, and more RAM (if I remember correctly -- not sure if they apply to both MBP and MB or not). I know MBP models get a .13Ghz speed bump along with the ~10% increase from CD to C2D.
     
  3. Macmadant macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    #4
    not enough to get worried about, it's only 20% faster at certain things
     
  4. iW00t macrumors 68040

    iW00t

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Location:
    Defenders of Apple Guild
    #5
    No, but since most people intend to upgrade the ram and hard drive anyway, the C2Ds makes more sense.
     
  5. e12a macrumors 68000

    e12a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    #6
    With 64bit capability its more future resistant
     
  6. TheBrazilianGuy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    #7
    That's misleading information to say the least. By the time you enjoy
    any real benefit of 64bit technology, many people here will have
    upgraded/purchased a new piece of hardware. This "future-proof"
    idea works only for Apple marketing purposes.

    Did you forget the "future proof" 64 bit CPUs from AMD ?
     
  7. e12a macrumors 68000

    e12a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    #8
    You seriously can't compare Core 2 Duo to the X2 Turion...those things are horridly slow. And we are comparing Core Duo vs. Core 2 Duo. Let me know when Apple starts using the horrid Turion.

    I'm speaking from personal experience anyway. This is my second computer...i waited 7 years to upgrade. I think 64 bit will definitely be more mainstream in 7 years.
     
  8. princealfie thread starter macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
  9. e12a macrumors 68000

    e12a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    #10
    During the hertz race, their processors out preformed their Pentium 4 line, and were quite a value compared to the expensive Intel chips.

    But now with Core 2 Duo, the hertz race was debunked. AMD's coming out with a new chip so it will be interesting to see a Core 2 Duo competitor.
     
  10. Star Destroyer macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2006
    #11
    Also from i hear its alot easier and safer for gamers to overclock AMD chips then the intel ones...
     
  11. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #12
    Ok, but lets face it, most people don't use laptops for 7 years, so TheBrazilianGuy's advice was good for a large majority of the population. I'm not worried about 64-bit at all right now. I'll get in the game in 2 years. Hell, I'll probably get in the game this year once the new MacBooks get the improved GMA integrated graphics (this coming June?) just so that I can use Aperture at a speed that doesn't frustrate me. Or heck, I may get a MBP.
     
  12. TheBrazilianGuy macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    #13
    During that pre-historic age (are we that old ? :) ) when AMD released its
    64bit CPU, everybody was excited and many, many switched their machines.
    Looking back today, it is easy to see how much money was literally wasted.

    I have seen many people around looking for (real) advice as
    they can not afford the latest and greatest. That's ok as long as
    they also understand that a piece of hardware is not the end of their problems.

    Anyway, I just replied to this topic because this "future proof"
    argument is absurd. Now that we know Intel just had a new
    breakthrough and we might see another jump in speed in the next TWO
    years, it is even more clear that you must purchase
    something that will do the job now. If your equipment can last longer than
    5 years, good to you.
     
  13. EvryDayImShufln macrumors 65816

    EvryDayImShufln

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2006
    #14
    My first computer had an AMD chip, Athlon XP 2200+. Was blazing fast for its time and very cheap, could be overclocked slightly (the ones that followed were VERY easy to overclock to 30-50% faster clock speeds.

    I think the biggest downside of AMD was that their speeds were always lower than intels. This is not to say their performance was slower, just the speeds. Since people usually go for speed, they would pick an intel over an AMD.

    My 2200+ (named 2200 because it was equivalent to a pentium 4 at 2200 mhz) could easily outperform a similarly priced P4 at 1.8 ghz or more, and could outperform one at 2200 mhz no doubt. On top of being cheaper, it was faster.

    But yeah, now the Core chips are owning everything until AMD pumps out their next chip
     
  14. Cybergypsy macrumors 68040

    Cybergypsy

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    Central Florida!
    #15
    Having had both think the 2 is a better built and quicker laptop.......
     
  15. princealfie thread starter macrumors 68030

    princealfie

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Salt Lake City UT
    #16
    Does this mean that Core Duo will not support 64-bit applications?
     
  16. Macmadant macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2005
    #17
    No, it is capable of running 64 bit apps, and capable of running 64 bit Operating Systems,
     
  17. acoustics940 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    #18
    64 bit makes me laugh. :D If its such a big future thing then why has it been out for a couple of years and you still dont need one? Dont buy c2d just because it has 64 bit who gives a flip
     
  18. e12a macrumors 68000

    e12a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    #19
  19. polevault139 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2006
    Location:
    Illinois
    #20
    I wholeheartedly agree, unless the price difference between the CD and C2D is small then your better off going with the CD
     
  20. e12a macrumors 68000

    e12a

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2006
    #21
    With the popularization of Vista x64 and now Leopard, dont be surprised to see growth in 64 bit software.

    anyways, i'm just saying that going for the C2D has more than just 64 bit, but it has more features like FW800, DL superdrive, etc. for the same price as the CD was new.

    64 bit is a "bonus"
     
  21. whateverandever macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2006
    Location:
    Baltimore
    #22
    The Turion X2 is not "horridly slow". Yeah, the Core Duo and 2 Duo do outperform it at quite a margin, but the Turion is NOT a bad chip in general.

    Gamers chose (and may still choose) the Turion ML series (not the dual core) over Core Duo because it outperformed them in many cases. It was a very powerful single-core processor... the X2 just didn't stack up to being as nice.
     

Share This Page