[xxxrated3dxxx]

Hoping to get a little insight and help since I'm pretty new to this....

I want to purchase a Macbook Pro(I really want the 17 inch but will settle for a 15) and I see some really good deals for the Core Duo's but is it really worth it shell out the extra cash for the Core 2 Duo's.... Is it a huge diffrence that's worth the $$$.... A little help and some insight would be greatly appreciated!

[Simon]

The C2Ds have a DL burner, FW800, 802.11n, run cooler and are a tad faster. How important are those things to you? How tight is your budget?

Personally, I'd rather take a 15" C2D than a 17" CD.

[Zeeb]

Personally, I feel you should always go with the latest technology you can afford. However, I have a Core Duo and its extremely fast. My roommate has the C2D and for the everyday tasks we both use them for there is no difference.

[drpepper]

Originally Posted by Simon 

The C2Ds have a DL burner, FW800, 802.11n, run cooler and are a tad faster. How important are those things to you? How tight is your budget?

Personally, I'd rather take a 15" C2D than a 17" CD.

Just to be accurate, the 17" CD has FW800 and doesn't run as hot as the 15" CD.

That'd be a tough decision if it's truly down to between being able to go 17" or not.

I think that a 2.16GHz CD performs about the same as a 1.83GHz C2D.

I do agree with this personal assessment though. I'd also personally lean toward - gut level - getting the newer generation at a cost of going from 17" to 15." I can also see sitting there wishing you had gone with the 17" screen...tough decision.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by drpepper 

Just to be accurate, the 17" CD has FW800 and doesn't run as hot as the 15" CD.

That is of course correct. I should have explicitly mentioned that I was comparing the two 15" models.

[rpster]

Originally Posted by Simon 

The C2Ds have a DL burner, FW800, 802.11n, run cooler and are a tad faster.

A quick research on these upgrades gives me a total price difference (in terms of cost) of about $15. Now, considering similarly spec'd refub mbps on the apple store (2.16ghz models), that's a $100. what do you get for $100? FW800, DVD+DL, C2D, extra HDD, and less video ram! Yep, thats right, pay more, less vram (256MB on CD vs. 128MB on C2D)!

In short, is it worth it? Yea, if you're accessing FW800 all the time, you burn dvds EVERYWHERE, you run 64-bit apps, have way to many pr0n files, and you don't play games.....justkidding. whatever you choose, its still a macbook pro.

[imitchellg5]

My friend's dad owns a Core Duo and Core 2 Duo. The Core 2 Duo is actually quite noticably faster when exporting 1080p HD video.

[simonm]

The 17" Core Duo has a DL burner! I know because I'm typing on one right now. Personally I'd much rather go a 17" Core Duo over a 15" Core 2 Duo. The extra screen real estate is really worth it and you should find some good deals on left-overs.

[freudling]

Think about this:

I was going to buy a CD but opted for the C2D. Why? Here is why. First, you get: a DL burner (15" compared), 802.11n, faster, cooler, better on battery life processor with I believe DOUBLE the L2 cache (correct me if I am wrong), 120 GB HD, Firewire 800 (trust me, external hard drives are becoming popular fast), SATA HD, not ATA.

But importantly, Leopard is supposed to be a true 64-bit operating system. The C2D, not the CD, will be able to process at that bit rate. Therefore, for the immediate near future, the C2D will not be outdated for a long time. It is an excellent purchase as a result. The first time in a long time that a computer came with so much of the coming technology. Just keep thinking leopard. You will have wished you went 64 bit processing when you see what it can do.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by freudling 

SATA HD, not ATA.

While I agree with your other points, this one is off. The original CD MBP already came with a SATA HDD. All MBs as well BTW.

[phazedowt]

As an academic scientist, the Mac/PC split amongst my peers is about 50/50, and many of them have macbook pros (both CD and C2D). Anecdotally, I can say that amongst my colleagues who have MBPs, those with CD models have had far more problems with their hardware than those with C2Ds. The sheer number of repairs people have had to make on their Rev A machines was enough reason to make me wait for the C2D MBPs to be released before buying a new machine.

[freudling]

phazedowt:

You make good comments. I failed to mention that the CD is a Rev A. They also have lots of problems. The facts are: overheating (all units prone to this); poor battery life; expect screen/optical drive problems. It is a Rev A, totally expected. Don't go for the Rev A.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by freudling 

I was going to buy a CD but opted for the C2D. Why? Here is why. First, you get: a DL burner (15" compared), 802.11n, faster, cooler, better on battery life processor with I believe DOUBLE the L2 cache (correct me if I am wrong)

You're right, but doubling the cache size only nets you a performance improvement of about 3.5% (varies from 0 to 10% depending on app).

Originally Posted by freudling 

But importantly, Leopard is supposed to be a true 64-bit operating system. The C2D, not the CD, will be able to process at that bit rate. Therefore, for the immediate near future, the C2D will not be outdated for a long time. It is an excellent purchase as a result. The first time in a long time that a computer came with so much of the coming technology. Just keep thinking leopard. You will have wished you went 64 bit processing when you see what it can do.

64-bit does nothing for you in a machine that only supports 3GB RAM. Heck, much of the time it actually hurts performance (by effectively halving bus speeds) rather than helping much. 64-bit doesn't and won't unlock any special features.

64-bit is great for supporting >4GB RAM without hacks like PAE, but it's not the revolution you've made it out to be.

[bloodline]

Originally Posted by mduell 

You're right, but doubling the cache size only nets you a performance improvement of about 3.5% (varies from 0 to 10% depending on app).



64-bit does nothing for you in a machine that only supports 3GB RAM. Heck, much of the time it actually hurts performance (by effectively halving bus speeds) rather than helping much. 64-bit doesn't and won't unlock any special features.

64-bit is great for supporting >4GB RAM without hacks like PAE, but it's not the revolution you've made it out to be.

You do get some architectural improvments, the 8 aditional SSE registers and 8 additional General Purpose registers do allow for greater performance optimisations (also new fastcall instructions)... though register renaming hides the x86's lack of registers very well... I would expect at least 10% improvment when software is compiled for the CPU's long mode over the standard 32bit mode.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by bloodline 

You do get some architectural improvments, the 8 aditional SSE registers and 8 additional General Purpose registers do allow for greater performance optimisations (also new fastcall instructions)... though register renaming hides the x86's lack of registers very well... I would expect at least 10% improvment when software is compiled for the CPU's long mode over the standard 32bit mode.

I'm not saying that C2D isn't faster than CD at the same clockrate. I think the SIMD changes (all exec in 1 cycle) are probably more important for performance-critical code than the extra registers. I'm was just pointing out how big of a difference the extra cache makes, and how little of a difference the number of bits makes.

[bloodline]

Originally Posted by mduell 

I'm not saying that C2D isn't faster than CD at the same clockrate. I think the SIMD changes (all exec in 1 cycle) are probably more important for performance-critical code than the extra registers. I'm was just pointing out how big of a difference the extra cache makes, and how little of a difference the number of bits makes.

Oh, yeah... the actual number of bits is pretty inconsequential, but the architectral changes between the CD and the C2D are very significant... including, as you say, the enormous cache... especially on that slow 663Mhz FSB

[Javizun]

I am selling my macbook pro 17" c2d for 2350.00 with shipping included.
if your interested shoot me a pm.

i have sold here on the macnn marketplace and i have 100% feedback on ebay

[markponcelet]

Originally Posted by freudling 

phazedowt:

You make good comments. I failed to mention that the CD is a Rev A. They also have lots of problems. The facts are: overheating (all units prone to this); poor battery life; expect screen/optical drive problems. It is a Rev A, totally expected. Don't go for the Rev A.

As a Rev. A Core Duo 17" Macbook owner, I want to second this opinion. Currently, my MBP is at Apple being repaired for a malfunctioning Z key, and I have already had to send back the power adaptor (broken wire) and a battery (which expanded and broke out of the metal). To be fair, however, I have not experienced any overheating problems on the 17" MBP. Running Civ 4 will max out both cores of the processor, and only gets my processor to 90° C after many hours. (Max temp of a processor core is 100° C.) Optical drive problems and screen problems have been absent, as well.

Contrast that to my backup machine, a 17" Powerbook G4 (Revision D) 1.6 GHz. I've never repaired anything in it, and I've used it for twice as long. It's what I'm using right now. It's solid as a rock.

My verdict: Even if you have to save money longer, go with later revisions of laptops. And yes, it is better to get the 17" screen. But that's just my personal opinion. []

[macflick]

15" Rev. A owner- No problems at all. Dont just assume things are bad because the people post the negitive rants about problems. I learned that when I bought it.