Macbook 1.83ghz Cd Vs. C2d

[TyleRomeo]

Ok, i really am puzzled here, what is the update to the baseline $1,099 1.83GHZ Macbook C2D vs. the first revision Macbook CD. The price stays the same, so that leads me to believe that there is some good reason that something was upgrated to be better than the macbook from this spring. All I see is that it has a CD2 chip inside, which is 64 bit. 64 Bit is great except that unless you're doing some high high end work on your laptop you will not notice any differce from the old 32 bit Macbook Core Duo.

The clock speed is still at 1.83GHZ and the L2 is still at 2MB. Its the same FSB, 512MB RAM, 60GB hard drive and intel graphics. It's the same size, color and weight as before. Maybe someone here can explain how the C2D is going to make things faster, if the L2 was doubled I'd understand but its not on the base model. Maybe the wireless card is pre-N but I have not heard this to be confirmed and even then its a minor bonus since its still an early draft of N. So please someone fill me in or show me a link where one can pick up a first gen Macbook CD for less than $1,099.

 

[Transeau]

Core2 Duo is a more advanced processor than the Core Duo.
the 1.83GHz C2D is about 10~25% faster than the 1.83GHz CD.
Performance gains are dependent on what you are doing with it.

 

[typecase]

Another thing different is Core 2 Duo is 64 bit while Core Duo was 32 Bit. I don't think it's going to make much of a difference in terms of performance even on 64bit apps when they arrive (especially with the limiting 32bit chipset) but it makes some people sleep better at night

 

[TyleRomeo]

Core2 Duo is a more advanced processor than the Core Duo.
the 1.83GHz C2D is about 10~25% faster than the 1.83GHz CD.
Performance gains are dependent on what you are doing with it.

Where do you see these facts, i see apple telling us that the 2.0GHZ C2D is 25% faster than the 2.0GHZ CD but thats mainly due to the L2 being twice as large the 1.83GHZ does not get that benefit. I hope when someone reviews the new macbook C2D they will compare the difference because I can't imagine it being any greater than 3-5% faster at the same clock and the same L2.

 

[glitch44]

doesn't the C2D run cooler as well?

 

[iW00t]

doesn't the C2D run cooler as well?

No, they actually run hotter on full load.

 

[kalun]

doesn't the C2D run cooler as well?

Don't you just love rumors?
C2D does NOT run cooler than CD, it does not consume less energy, and it does not provide a performance increase more than 7-10%. This is according to most of the benchmarks (pc magazine, toms hardware guide, please look it up yourself).

Now I am not saying the macbook will not run cooler, because they may have redesign it. However, C2D does not run cooler than CD.

 

[gr8tfly]

There are other architectural improvements too, aside from being 64-bit. Either core can access the entire cache, for instance. There are also improvements to the vector processor (SSE, SSSE).

Tiger already supports 64-bit enabled apps. The pro apps will no doubt become 64-bit optimized in the near future. In 6 months or less, the OS will also take advantage of 64-bit architecture. (64-bit is more than just memory addressing)

The C2D is just a better investment. As technology improves, it will be much longer before it gets "left behind".

 

[MikeyWord]

I received my CD 1.83 MacBook about 2 weeks ago. Best thing I ever did! Such a wonderful fast computer... with 1.25 gig of RAM (The other gig was DOA) just insane! I now leave programs open 24/7! And I still have RAM to burn!

Hey, get the c2d if you want to spend the extra dosh. Better performance etc... but the 64bit and stuff, well.... I cant see when leopard comes out that im going to miss having it. You are still limited to this graphics card, its a MacBook for goodness sake!

If the case design was upgraded, i would get the new one. But im just silly like that. Get the refurb and spend that money left over and get a bigger/faster HDD or some RAM, hell! donate the money