Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Wrathlon · Jan 28, 2007, 10:11 AM

Howdy,
Looking for some possible advice as I am looking to purchase a MPB and have a few deals in the works. Here’s my situation, as short as I can explain. I started with a Mac and the Power PC 7500 was the last Mac I have owned, so its been a long time and I would like to check one out again. I am looking at a used Core Duo MPB that is available for a decent price but after doing some research it seems the Core 2 duo's are apparently faster than the rev 2 Core Duo machines. Thing is this Core Duo machine still has 2 years left on the apple care , but will it be possible for the current owner to transfer it to me ? THe machine is outfitted nicely with 2 gb of ram , the 256 mb x1600 video card and as mentioned the apple care having two years remaining . The MPB is in mint condition with all the original accessories in tact . It does not have the glossy LCD as they were not available when this was purchased. How much of a difference is there really between the two ?
It also has the 100 gig hard drive, which if I am not mistaken it is probably the 7200 rpm version.
I will be dual booting XP on the machine and possibly booting some flavor of nix as well. I need XP for work.
So i guess the question is do I get this MPB or do i get a newer one with the core 2 duo with less meaning ram, hard drive , and vid card and the apple care . If you add the extra's to match the older duo machine on a newer core 2 it is well over a grand . Worth it ? I don’t really have that kind of cash to spend and would probably not go ahead with it. But I want to return to a Mac and check it out as it has been picking at my brain since they released boot camp .
I have to act fast on this deal so I do greatly appreciate any comments on your experiences with the core duo vs core 2 duo .

thanks
Wrath

SierraDragon · 01:46 PM

Not enough folks to create a meaninful sample size have experience with both, so commentary from that standpoint can only qualify as anecdotal.

Planning ahead for any kind of professional graphics or multiple OS usage for the next 3 years (which is when anyone will be using any new box) it is generally cost effective to buy the higher end unless . Also the C2D have the benefits of second generation.

Glossy screens are not "better" per se. Some folks just happen to prefer them. Personally I chose matte for my C2D MBP.

-Allen Wicks

Wrathlon · Jan 28, 2007, 12:31 PM

Thank you kindly for your response, greatly appreciated indeed.

I am not a graphics professional by any means and have no immediate plans on pursuing such an occupation, or require such use from this machine. I generally want to experience OS X and have the capability to work in XP as I am forced to with the current applications that apply to my line of work. I may tinker with some audio and video, but just on a recreational level at best.

I do find your comment on running multiple Operating systems intriguing and somewhat concerning. Only because I do like to have the option to run multiple Operating systems for different applications with Linux being the secondary OS for some of my server needs. Would it be correct to assume that this machine will run some flavor of Linux?

With that said thank you once again for your response and I welcome any others as I have to make a decision before tonight 6 pm est.

Thanks
Wrath

iREZ · Jan 28, 2007, 01:00 PM

core duo can do anything that a core 2 duo can, just slightly slower...sometimes this might be noticeable, most of the time (90%) it wont. however, the core 2 duo is 64bit and with leopard being a 'true' 64 bit OS along with other software slightly moving into that trend...you might future proof your purchase only a tad bit longer by getting a core 2 duo vs a core duo.

Wrathlon · Jan 28, 2007, 06:17 PM

Thanks !

Toyin · Jan 28, 2007, 06:26 PM

I've got the C2D MBP and my wife has a Core Duo Macbook. My MBP runs Parallels a bit smoother, but that could be the extra 1gb of RAM on my machine. IMHO the difference isn't worth $1000.

As for future proofing, the C2D is a little faster than the CD now, and that difference may increase in the future, but only for 64 bit aware applications (which are rare) and possibly 10.5

You've got a great deal and relatively new to the Mac. I'd get the original MBP. You'll lose less on resale if you decide you want to upgrade.

Wrathlon · Jan 29, 2007, 10:09 PM

Thanks again fella's but the girl sold it out from under me BAH ! Now I have ot find a new one .

thanks
wrath

bloodline · Feb 2, 2007, 10:03 AM

Since I have both a CD and C2D MBP I can answer your questions

The C2D 2.33Ghz is quite a bit faster than the CD 2Ghz when running Logic Pro 7.2 (though both machines are faster than the old 2Ghz Dual G5 PowerMac). In real world usage I can really load up on effects and plugins on the C2D machine to the point of stupidity.

The C2D is MUCH cooler when running. The CD is a hot CPU and you have to run an app like "SpeedFan" to keep the temps down.

The C2D is better on the battery, giving me approx half an hour more time... depending on what I'm doing.

The C2D has a draft-n wi-fi card, useful as I have a draft-n router.

The C2D hard drive is a bit faster... but much more sensitive to vibration... if you ever use it resting on a Bass Amp

I think the DVD wirter in the C2D is lower quality as well, even though it's a dual layer jobbie.

-Edit- Oblivion runs better (in WinXP SP2) on the C2D machine... even though both machine have the same amount of GFX RAM and same GFX chip... it has been reported that the CD's GFX chip has been underclocked.

Eug · Feb 2, 2007, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by bloodline

Since I have both a CD and C2D MBP I can answer your questions

The C2D 2.33Ghz is quite a bit faster than the CD 2Ghz when running Logic Pro 7.2 (though both machines are faster than the old 2Ghz Dual G5 PowerMac). In real world usage I can really load up on effects and plugins on the C2D machine to the point of stupidity.

The C2D is MUCH cooler when running. The CD is a hot CPU and you have to run an app like "SpeedFan" to keep the temps down.

The C2D is better on the battery, giving me approx half an hour more time... depending on what I'm doing.

The C2D has a draft-n wi-fi card, useful as I have a draft-n router.

The C2D hard drive is a bit faster... but much more sensitive to vibration... if you ever use it resting on a Bass Amp

I think the DVD wirter in the C2D is lower quality as well, even though it's a dual layer jobbie.

-Edit- Oblivion runs better (in WinXP SP2) on the C2D machine... even though both machine have the same amount of GFX RAM and same GFX chip... it has been reported that the CD's GFX chip has been underclocked.

The bit about 802.11n support is key. That's a huge difference, even if don't care about other stuff like the CPU speed differences.

bloodline · Feb 2, 2007, 11:21 AM

Oh yeah, ...and my CD has the "Hiss", my C2D is deathly quiet.

typerlover · Feb 2, 2007, 02:12 PM

Had a core duo mbp 1.83, switched to a 2.16 c2d mbp. The speed difference to me is amazingly different.

Boot up times for the OS, running multiple apps at a time, resizing quicktime videos, etc. are all significantly faster. C2D is a cool machine also, and quiet.

pjosborne · Feb 2, 2007, 02:53 PM

I have had both a CD 2.0 and a C2D 2.16. The main difference I found (YMMV) was noise. My CD had a really noticeable processor whine at idle (and it's surpising how much of the time the processor is idle. I could hear it above the background noise in our server room and ultimately, just couldn't live with it. And yep, the C2D is also a lot cooler. I've owned a lot of Macs (starting with a Mac Plus) and this is one of the best (and far and away the best laptop model).

Just my $0.02
Peter

Toyin · Feb 2, 2007, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by typerlover

Had a core duo mbp 1.83, switched to a 2.16 c2d mbp. The speed difference to me is amazingly different.

Boot up times for the OS, running multiple apps at a time, resizing quicktime videos, etc. are all significantly faster. C2D is a cool machine also, and quiet.

That's funny, I'm still amazed at how fast my wife's 2ghz Macbook is when I use it. To be honest, I don't use it for more then a few quick fixes here or there, but Launching apps, resizing windows, and general GUI feel as quick as my C2D Macbook. It also boots faster, and sleeps faster then my machine.

SierraDragon · Feb 3, 2007, 01:25 AM

Overall IMO the C2D is worth the added expense; I am glad I waited. And as regards the OP IMO the double number of processor cores on board will show significant performance differences as time goes on, esp. running newer and/or multiple OSs.

-Allen Wicks

Warren Pease · 02:18 PM

The Duo in Core Duo and Core 2 Duo refer to the fact that they both have two cores. Core 2 is simply faster/newer than the earlier Core chip. It doesn't have anything to do with the number of cores.

Roehlstation · Feb 4, 2007, 02:13 AM

Draft N APE is a huge difference, you can't upgrade the previous models to Draft N. and if you want to stream video with TV you'll need that.

Simon · Feb 4, 2007, 05:02 AM

I own both a CD 2.0 GHz MBP and a 2.33 GHz C2D MBP. I'll second bloodline's comparison apart from the fact that I haven't noticed the C2D SD to be inferior to the CD's.

One of the most striking differences IMHO is the heat reduction. My CD is really warm to touch and as soon as I do something a little more demanding it runs two fairly loud fans. My C2D OTOH is cooler than my 1.67 GHz G4 PB and I only get to really hear the fans when I'm playing CoD2; and even then the fans seem comparably quiet.

The C2D MBP is definitely a large improvement over the initial CD MBP.

rach · 09:03 AM

I have a October edition 2ghz CD MBP that has installed a 100 gig HD 5,400RPM drive and a 2.33ghz C2D and to be honest i cannot tell a difference really between them. At the moment the CD only has 512MB of ram inside but the C2D has the standard 2GB. I will be buying another 512MB to add to thr CD MBP though.
I owned a CD MBP with a 100 7,200RPM HD inside before and that run very hot. The CD that i am using with the 5,400RPM does not seem to run as hot as my other CD MBP did.

If you are just an average user who does not do the most intensive of tasks and you could do with saving a bit of money then the CD MBP would not be such a bad buy at all in my opinion.

It is a bit of hype all this claims about it being faster most people are not even going to notice or even appreciate the difference.

It is possible to get Applecare transfered. I know as i have done this for buyers before and had no problem in doing so.