[rpgsupermarket]

I am buying a Macbook Pro and I have 2 options. I can get a 2.13 ghz Core Duo with the ATI 256 MB card or I can get a 2.13 ghz Core 2 Duo with the ATI 128 MB card. both are the same price.

I will be using the laptop mostly for work (some dreamweaver, photoshop, & word type work), but i will also be using it to play games on the side (battlefield 2, half life 2, and other higher end games like this). so my question is... where will my money be most noticeably spent? on the 256 card of the core 2 duo processor?

also, something else to consider is that I will be getting the 802.11n wireless card with the core 2 duo.. unless i am mistaken. (someone please confirm, i will be buying refurb)

and finally, is the increase in speed from the core duo to the core 2 duo a substantial and noticeable one or...??

thanks.

[hemant]

In your scenario:

C2D config would give you:
64 bit processor - useful if your applications are 64 bit (Leopard is 64 bit), hopefully in future we would see a lot more 64 bit apps.
802.11 n - useful if you need better range and speed (if transferring data over the wireless LAN)
128 MB graphics card - not a downer but 256 is better for games

CD conifg would give you
256 MB graphics card - would help while gaming.

Depending on what you primarily use your machine, you should be able to decide between the 2. I would go for the C2D.

[MattJeff]

well apple puts up c2d's with 256 every once in a while (refurb) and that might be a good option as well.

[highstakes]

I'd go with C2D for gaming, because you wont notice much difference between 128/256 graphics card. I play Warcraft on a Core Duo-256 MB card, but the game runs lot smoother on the C2D machines.

[rpgsupermarket]

Originally Posted by MattJeff 

well apple puts up c2d's with 256 every once in a while (refurb) and that might be a good option as well.

yes, they are up there right now... but out of my price range.. hence why i have to choose between the 2 instead of just buying a laptop with the 256 & c2d.

Originally Posted by highstakes 

I'd go with C2D for gaming, because you wont notice much difference between 128/256 graphics card. I play Warcraft on a Core Duo-256 MB card, but the game runs lot smoother on the C2D machines.

really now? that's interesting...

[f1400]

Do NOT make the mistake of thinking the 256 core duo will perform better because it has more VRAM. The truth is it will perform MUCH WORSE!!! The videocard is much more underclocked in the Core Duo than the Core 2 Duo, the speeds are about 25-30% less as far as I remember, you will definitely lose performance if you pick up a CD. Go with the C2D 128 MB x1600, you won't regret it.

[tinkered]

The only reason to go with the CD w/ 256 is if you plan on running multiple monitors all displaying somewhat graphically intensive stuff, like multiple videos for video editing or aperture and gimp, side-by-side, or whatever silly thing you want to do with out learning good screen real estate habits. The same reasons you would go with two 7300 GT's over a x1900 on a Mac Pro .

[Simon]

Originally Posted by f1400 

Do NOT make the mistake of thinking the 256 core duo will perform better because it has more VRAM. The truth is it will perform MUCH WORSE!!! The videocard is much more underclocked in the Core Duo than the Core 2 Duo, the speeds are about 25-30% less as far as I remember, you will definitely lose performance if you pick up a CD. Go with the C2D 128 MB x1600, you won't regret it.

This is correct. The extra VRAM will likely not make up for all the downclocking. I'd get the C2D model.

[macgeek2005]

Also, even if there wasn't a difference in video card clockspeed, the C2D processor will make up for the difference, and perform better with games no matter what. Theres no way the Core Duo can win over the Core 2 Duo.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005 

Theres no way the Core Duo can win over the Core 2 Duo.

That's true, but there are also several tests which show hardly any gain. The performance advantage of the C2D over the CD at the same clock depends very much on what you do.

[shrakner]

I would agree with f1400- the extra VRAM makes it about equal to the Core 2 in terms of gaming performance. Besides raw performance, the Core 2 machine is better in terms of overall speed as well as heat issues and other minor improvements made from the first version. I just got the Core 2 refurb model (128 VRAM) and can run Doom 3 at native resolution with 2x antialiasing. Also, the machine runs a bit cooler than my previous 1.5 GHz Powerbook, versus the Core Duo machines that are significantly hotter.

[olePigeon]

I'd go with the Core 2 Duo mostly because of Leopard and future OS X releases. It's all going to be 64-bit, so once you start getting some nifty 64-bit 3D renderring (maybe even Photoshop) and other memory intensive programs, you'll really appreciate the 64-bit memory addressing.

[mfbernstein]

With the C2D, you also gain a Firewire 800 port (faster backups) and the ability to upgrade to 3GB RAM (rather than 2). Neither enormously important, but perhaps useful in the long-term (what with 64-bit, Leopard, etc.).

[zign]

C2D!!! It will perform better for games and work!