PERFORMANCE: Core 2 Duo VS Core 2 Extreme

Discussion in 'iMac' started by thiagofll, Aug 7, 2007.

  1. thiagofll macrumors member

    thiagofll

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Location:
    MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
    #1
    I have researched everywhere but I can't seem to find a comparisson between the two.

    I was going to buy an iMac from the Apple Store but the taxes are almost $200, so I decided to stick with Amazon.

    Anyways, Amazon does not have the Core 2 Extreme Version of the iMac.

    Is it a big difference? Anyone knowledgeable would care to explain? Percentage-wise what would be a comparisson of the 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo vs the 2.8 Ghz Core 2 Extreme?

    I can't make a decision. Money is not "an issue" but at the same time I don't want to waste it for a minimal result..

    Thanks in advance...
     
  2. iW00t macrumors 68040

    iW00t

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2006
    Location:
    Defenders of Apple Guild
    #2
    If money is truly not an issue than instead of spending it on this stupid iMac (I hate iMacs on principle, the 24" is the same price as a Mac Pro! Geez) just buy a Mac Pro instead.

    4 cores trumps 2 cores for multitasking, and with the Mac Pro you get WAAAAAAY more upgradability and GPU options.
     
  3. Gymnut macrumors 68000

    Gymnut

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    #3
    Well, do be fair the top of the line 24" iMac is $200 cheaper than the entry level Mac Pro.
     
  4. Flowbee macrumors 68030

    Flowbee

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Alameda, CA
    #4
    Yeah, I love the Mac Pro's built-in 20" monitor. :rolleyes:
     
  5. thiagofll thread starter macrumors member

    thiagofll

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Location:
    MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
    #5
    Unfortunately i don't have space for a Mac Pro. So back to the iMac, performance-wise what is the difference between the Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme?
     
  6. Umbongo macrumors 601

    Umbongo

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Location:
    England
    #6
    16.7% ;)

    The real world performance increase will be less than that depending on application. The reality is that a core2 2.4GHz processor is very fast and unless your time is very important it's probably not worth the $250 upgrade, add whatever you'd pay in tax difference on that and I'm sure it goes way beyond unappealing. It's there because Apple probably got a deal on it enabling them to make some extra profit on the processor and upselling to a higher end mac, not to offer people a great price to performance option.
     
  7. freddiecable macrumors 6502a

    freddiecable

    Joined:
    May 16, 2003
    Location:
    Sweden
    #7
    I'm buying 24" but the only thing keeping me from choosing is that I would like to see some benchmark between them two. It will surface soon I hope :)

    and...what is the heat-difference. a quite iMac is of importance to me...
     
  8. DrDamn macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    #8
    I've tried a bit of digging around. The 2.8GHz is the X7900 chip. Usefully Intel doesn't even have this on their own website. It is also not due to be released until September according to other sites - though I guess/hope Apple have got some early supplies?

    There is a speed comparisson using benchmarks between the T7700 (2.4GHz Core2Duo) and the X7800 (2.6GHz Core2Extreme) on the Intel website :-

    http://www.intel.com/performance/mobile/extreme/

    So the speed increase in benchmarks is as you might expect just below the difference in clock speed increase (8.3% clock speed increase vs. 6-7% increase in benchmark performance). Extrapolate that out to a 16.7% clock speed increase and you get some idea anyway.
     
  9. ozone macrumors 6502

    ozone

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #9
    More comparisons?

    Good thread! I was thinking about the same comparison. So, I gather unless I'm doing video everyday, a Core 2 Extreme is NOT worth the extra money? I might be doing some quasi-heavy photo (editing/RAW conversion) on a much more regular basis (at least every week) however.

    So, are the Intel Core 2 Duo/Extreme chips in the iMacs the mobile versions? I thought they were the desktop versions - are there two different versions? What are the versions in the Mac Mini? (I assume the mobile versions given the really small form factor.)

    How would the iMac Core 2 Duo or Extreme stack up against, say, an Intel Quad 6600 or an AMD X2 5600+? I've looked at Tom's Hardware for the CPU comparison, but am not sure what I'm picking in terms of the iMac chips. :confused: I know the Quad or AMD "should" be (much) faster, but would I notice?

    Thanks!
     
  10. mothergoose45 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2006
    #10
    I went with the 2.4 COre 2 Duo on my 24" I ordered last night. For the price difference I ordered 4 gb ram from OWC. I didnt think for what I will be doing I will notice much difference.
     
  11. bartelby macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #11
    Let's not let trivial points like that get in the way of a pointless comment.
     
  12. Much Ado macrumors 68000

    Much Ado

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    Or 24" monitor, for that matter.
     
  13. ozone macrumors 6502

    ozone

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    #13
    Okay... well, uh, thanks for the comments. Any other comments on actual performance comparisons? :rolleyes:
     
  14. AlanTheBrit macrumors member

    AlanTheBrit

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2007
    Location:
    Runcorn, Merseyside UK
    #14
    The Core 2 Extreme in the high end 24" iMac is in fact an overclocked (modestly! to 2.8GHz) 2.6GHz X7800.
     
  15. toru173 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2007
    #15
    Ooo! That could unleash the moders! I know it's fairly easy to get the x7800 to 3 ghz, and THAT would be interesting. On a side note, what makes you say x7800 over x7900?
     
  16. Mollemand macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    #16
    Well, the X7800 @ 2.66GHz vs. Q6600 @ 2.4GHz scores:

    3DMark*06 CPU: 2225 3680
    PCMark*05 CPU: 6434 7735

    Looks like the X7800 is outperformed by 65% in the 3DMark06 CPU, and 20% in the PCMark05 CPU.

    The 3DMark06 CPU is pure multi threaded - the PCMark05 is a mix of single thread, dual thread and multi thread. That is why the difference is so much bigger in the 3DMark06 test

    ref:
    http://www.intel.com/performance/mobile/extreme/index.htm
    http://www.hardware.info/productdb/bGNkbZiUmJLK/viewproduct/Intel_Core_2_Quad_Q6600/
     
  17. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #17
    The 2.8 GHz version is 400 MHz faster. We won't know what chip it is until we can get its CPUID.
     
  18. WildPalms macrumors 6502a

    WildPalms

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Location:
    Honolulu, HI
    #18
    Not wanting to sound rude but.. With what???

    "Hi, will this tractor do the job?"
    "For shopping sir, no. For performance driving, no. For plowing fields, yes"
     
  19. torrid30 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2007
    Location:
    Illinois
    #19
    I was deciding between this option as well.

    I do want to save as much money as possible, so the Core 2 Duo seems to be the obvious choice. My only concern is will there be a noticable different once Leopard is released?

    I'm sure it won't be as extreme as XP -> Vista was, where users needed to do massive overhauls to their systems. But I don't want to go with the Core 2 Duo, and then have my computer start to bog down when Leopard is released.

    What I'd be doing on my iMac will be: Schoolwork, Web browsing, playing WoW, and eventually I plan on utilizing iLife, especially recording music and possibly eventually editing video. Nothing extensive, but I've never had the opportunity to edit video or record music before (as this will be my first Mac) but I want the system to run well for a long time.

    Thanks

    Torrid
     
  20. Mollemand macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    #20
    I count 140 MHz from 2.66GHz to 2.8GHz. But you're right - the X7900 or whatever it is has not been benchmarked in public.

    Worth noticing is that the X7800 has the AMD 64 X2 5600+ licked in both PCMark CPU and in 3DMark06 CPU...
     
  21. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #21
    It's 400 MHz from the T7700 to the X7900 or overclocked X7800 at 2.8 GHz.
     
  22. chewietobbacca macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    #22
    Read through this article: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3038

    Granted, those are desktop CPU's on the PC platform and clock for clock aren't exactly the same as notebook cpu's BUT the benchmarks are going to be a good idea of relative performance increases in frequency speed

    (Note that the Q is for Quad Core and doesn't pertain here unless you are comparing it to the Mac Pro with quad core. Look towards performance of the E6*50's as a good idea of how much extra speed matters in gaming, encoding, etc.
     
  23. RRK macrumors 6502

    RRK

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2007
    Location:
    USA/Ohio/Columbus
    #23
    Ok now somebody explain this thing about the graphics card. Apple lists it as ATI 2600 Pro 256MB with GDDR3, right? But all of the bad statistics that are showing up are for the 2600 pro with DDR2. Is this another unreleased component or what?
     
  24. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
    #24
    The HD2600 Pro can be sold with slower GDDR2 memory.
     
  25. roland.g macrumors 603

    roland.g

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Location:
    One mile up and soaring
    #25
    I ordered the 24" 2.8 with 2Gb last night and changed it today to the 24" 2.8 with 1GB - $150 less. Then ordered 4GB RAM from OWC for $234 shipped. With the $150 saving + less tax, it cost me $73 more to get the 24" 2.8 and add 4GB RAM than to order the 24" 2.8 from Apple with 2GB stock.
     

Share This Page