Do I need Core 2 Duo?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by jmack549, Nov 29, 2007.

  1. jmack549 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    #1
    I see the refurbed Macbook 1.83 for $749...what a steal. Only thing is it is not Core 2 Duo. Here's what I will be using the laptop for.

    1. iChat (with video on a rare occasion)
    2. Torrents (work related)
    3. Browse the web
    4. Write papers
    5. Play videos

    That's about it. $749 is very cheap to me and if I can get away with the stuff I need to do I would be thrilled.
     
  2. wyatt23 macrumors 6502a

    wyatt23

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Location:
    Forest Hills, NY
    #2
    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.
     
  3. olliebraves20 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Location:
    Lansing, MI
    #3
    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....
     
  4. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #4
    You would never know the difference between CD and C2D, doing those tasks. CD is more than capable for that and much more.
     
  5. thejadedmonkey macrumors 604

    thejadedmonkey

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Location:
    Pa
    #5
    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.
     
  6. olliebraves20 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Location:
    Lansing, MI
    #6
    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....
     
  7. xUKHCx Administrator emeritus

    xUKHCx

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Location:
    The Kop
    #7
    agree with aquajet , after all a G4 can do those tasks.
     
  8. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #8
    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.
     
  9. dukebound85 macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #9
    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
     
  10. Osarkon macrumors 68020

    Osarkon

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2006
    Location:
    Wales
    #10
    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. :)
     
  11. olliebraves20 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Location:
    Lansing, MI
    #11
    "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??
     
  12. desenso macrumors 6502a

    desenso

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    #12
    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.
     
  13. DakotaGuy macrumors 68040

    DakotaGuy

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    South Dakota, USA
    #13
    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.
     
  14. jmack549 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    #14
    I'll be keeping it until I get out of college, probably 2 years. Thanks guys!
     
  15. Tarkovsky macrumors 6502

    Tarkovsky

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Location:
    London/Norwich
    #15
    64 bit doesn't really mean that much when your ram architecture can only address in 32 bit!
     
  16. goodtimes5 macrumors 6502a

    goodtimes5

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #16
    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.
     
  17. goodtimes5 macrumors 6502a

    goodtimes5

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #18
  18. madmaxmedia macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #19
    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.

     
  19. Fuchal macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    #20
    Yeah, it is pretty much useless unless he plans on using 4GB or more RAM.
     
  20. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #21
    64-bit arithmetic can still be done on the processor to a benefit even without the benefit of 64-bit memory addressing.
     
  21. aquajet macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2005
    Location:
    VA
    #22
    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.
     
  22. Tarkovsky macrumors 6502

    Tarkovsky

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2007
    Location:
    London/Norwich
    #23
    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.
     
  23. olliebraves20 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Location:
    Lansing, MI
    #24
    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....
     
  24. psychofreak Retired

    psychofreak

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #25
    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...
     

Share This Page