Are the Intel Chips even into date on the MBP????

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by cootersgarage6, Dec 7, 2010.

  1. cootersgarage6, Dec 7, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 25, 2011

    Nov 6, 2010
    the 13 INCH, 13INCH, 13INCH, Lol sorry I have to keep saying it because the 13 inch only has a Intel Core 2 Duo, and some people think I am talking about the other inch screens, with the I chips...
    Anyways, I am about to get the 13 INCH macbook pro hast the Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHZ chip in it. But Apple is the only company who still sells these chips, everyone else has a min. of i3 Chips... So does this mean that the 2010 2.4 GHz Core 2 duo chips good? Some people have told me that they are in most ways better then the i3, but I don't understand. Isn't the Core 2 Duo about to be pulled off the line forever? What's going on.
    Bottom Line Questions.
    1.) Is the Intel Core2Duo 2.4GHz powerful and good for doing a lot of things, like the new mac app store?
    2.) Should I just buy the new Imac i3 computer (3.04 GHz) instead? Would it last longer? how much faster is it anyways?
    3.) How is that InteL chip in the MBP still good?
  2. Dalton63841 macrumors 65816


    Nov 27, 2010
    I will answer your question with an example. I have been converting all my videos (700GB worth) from mkv to mp4 with HandbrakeCLI(command cline version of Handbrake, if you didn't know) on my 2009 13" Macbook Pro.

    The day before yesterday I had Terminal open with 6 tabs, and a HandbrakeCLI process going in every tab, converting 6 movies simultaneously. At the same time I was exporting a movie I had edited in iMovie, as well as using iTunes, Safari with at least 5 tabs(I jump around alot), Yahoo messenger, and iFlicks. At no point during that time did it even begin to feel slow, in fact it was snappy as if nothing was going on.

    So to answer your question directly, the I series might be better, but the C2D's are nothing to complain about.
  3. Intell macrumors P6


    Jan 24, 2010
    Apple as the only PC maker that still uses C2D? Not even close, Dell is still using Celeron CPUs. The C2D is still very capable of doing heavy work. It'll probably still be a good CPU for another 3-5 years. It isn't as flawed as the Pentium 4, and those are still around.
  4. skiltrip macrumors 68030

    May 6, 2010
    New York
    I use my C2D 13" (2010) for audio recording and mixing using Pro Tools 9, and Studio One 1.6. Sure I'd get more horsepower with an i3 or i5, but I have no real complaints.
  5. wordoflife macrumors 604


    Jul 6, 2009
    Intel Core chips aren't bad at all, they are still fast.
    Currently, Apple had to chose from slightly better processor + weak graphics or Intel Core 2 Duo + better graphics. Down the line though. Apple might just use AMD graphics, continue using Core 2 Duos or maybe Intel and Nvidia will come to terms.
  6. MacVibe macrumors regular

    Dec 21, 2009
    The reason it still felt snappy is because of the way OS X throttles background processes. You are happy, fine, but if you are going to talk about handbrake performance, just refer to benchmarks and not your anecdotal experience.

    To answer the OP questions
    1) The C2D 2.4 GHz processor is just as "powerful and good" today as it was last year, and the year before that, and the year before that. It is really good for doing a lot of things and I doubt the app store will prove too demanding for it.
    2) The Imac will be much faster and more future proof. For example, a handbrake job on the 3.06 GHz C2D takes 3:27 and only takes 2:20 on the 3.06 GHz i3 ( ). So, it is roughly twice as fast as the 13 in MPB you are considering.
    3) How is the Intel chip still good? Refer to my response to item 1.
  7. Stvwndr219 macrumors 6502

    Jan 26, 2009
    This. Just because everything else runs doesn't mean that the processes are running fast...
  8. AdamRock macrumors 6502a


    Aug 30, 2010
    core 2 duo is still pretty fast, and if your getting a 13" then the chances you need a faster processor then the c2d are slim to none.
  9. Dalton63841 macrumors 65816


    Nov 27, 2010
    You are probably right. I agree that the Core I chips are much faster, but converting episodes of House in HD at roughly 8 minutes per episode seemed pretty good to me.

    And yes a new iMac would be far more "future-proof".
  10. dusk007 macrumors 68040


    Dec 5, 2009
    There is one thing where Core 2 Duos are still better than the current i generation, that is in the ULV space.
    The ULV core i Series CPUs are much faster but offer worse battery life. The 15h an Asus UL30 runs just doesn't work with the new chips. The reason is probably that the northbridge in the core iX's just isn't as good in Idle as the old one was.

    I am pretty sure this will change once Sandy Bridge show up with an all 32nm desgin and real integration not this patchwork kind of cpu the Arrendale is now. That the Arrendale is not the best one can hope for can be seen when looking at the memory latency that actually got worse from C2D to Arrendale. With Sandy Bridge it will be just awesome. That should be good for a serious IPC increase.
    I would wait for Sandy Bridge if I wanted to replace an old but still running machine and would want a 13".
  11. maflynn Moderator


    Staff Member

    May 3, 2009
    The only reason why apple is using C2D is because they don't want the intel integrated GPU but nvidia's.

    The chipset is long in the tooth, and the core i5 does bring a lot of improvements.

    Does the C2D fit the needs for most people probably. I think C2D performance is such that it can meet the needs of the average user. While not as sexy and not having the wow factor of the new stuff, its a good work horse.
  12. deeddawg macrumors 604

    Jun 14, 2010
    Agreed. Maybe I'm getting old, but the fact that something newer/faster/cooler is available doesn't change whether a previous platform continues to meet my needs.

    For the foreseeable future, a 2.4Ghz C2D will do what I need it to do, which is why I had no qualms about buying my base MBP13 last month as I came over to the Mac platform. Very little of the stuff I need to do is CPU bound, so even a 20 to 40% boost in CPU processing power would not make a noticeable difference in my usage. Maybe I'm the exception in that I don't game and I really don't do anything with video. Pretty much just office, web, email, and a little bit of photography; occasionally converting RAW files is the heaviest load I put on it and if it takes a couple extra minutes it's not a big deal, it's still processing them faster than I can do anything with the output files. :)
  13. aristobrat macrumors G5

    Oct 14, 2005
    OMG how many new threads are you going to make on the same topics?! :eek: You're getting the same advice in every thread.

    Attached Files:

Share This Page