Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Core Duo MBP compared to new Santa Rosa Models

K

kmarketing

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Mar 26, 2004
416
0
Hi,

I'm trying to look up info about this and have seen some tests and all, but was hoping the experts here can shed some more light for me.

It looks like there is definite improvement with the new chips, even with the middle core2duo chips, but not huge improvements.

Am i really missing out with keeping my cd mbp? My mbp has 256mb video memory, is that helpful? Are there programs that the new ones can run that mine wouldn't be able to?

Thanks so much for your insight!!
 
I'd be interested in hearing any direct comparisons, myself. I've got a Core Duo 2.0GHz iMac and a Core Duo 1.83GHz Macbook with 1.5GB and 1GB of RAM, respectively. I'm about to make the upgrade myself and want to know what kind of performance increase I can expect from these two systems.
 
apparently the SR's are 7%-10% faster than the core 2's, and the core 2's are 20%-25% faster than the regular coreduo's. you can take from that what you will :)
 
A Pittarelli said:
apparently the SR's are 7%-10% faster than the core 2's, and the core 2's are 20%-25% faster than the regular coreduo's. you can take from that what you will :)
Click to expand...

Without tapping the new graphics, I am seeing little between the C2D Napa and C2D Santa Rosa.
 
Hi,

thanks for the quick replies.

Crazybubba - I think for now, my mbp does do what I need. But of course any boost in speed would be nice also. Is there anything the new ones can do that mine can't (minus the speed)? I guess that's the main question. Where would I see the difference in performance?

A Pittarelli - As for the core2duo's being 20-25 percent faster, that could be quite an improvement. How accurate is that?

Netdog - do you have both so that you can readily compare?

Thanks so much!
 
kmarketing said:
Netdog - do you have both so that you can readily compare?
Click to expand...

I have a 2.33 Napa and am not a gamer, so logic only dictates that a 2.2 may very well be a tad slower for my needs (despite the FSB boost) as the RAM is still running at 667 like my machine.

The 2.4 might be a tad faster.

That said, if you are a gamer, the new machines should have much better framerates though, even then, the user experience is not exactly a faster one.
 
I have the revA mbp cd 2.0, it has a limit of 2GB for Ram, the new mbp has a limit of 4GB ram, so this is a big difference for people working with ram intensive applications like multiple virtual machines in Parallels, graphics/movie editing, etc.
I myself could use the extra ram and better graphics card for bootcamp gaming, but I will wait till sometime around mid next year for an upgrade
 
I don't play games on the macbook pro. I think if I was to play games though, I would probably get an imac or mac pro instead. But some of the new features of the mbp's are interesting.

But if the truth is I wouldn't get major performance increases, I'd be happy enough (i guess) to just keep my current mbp.

I do like the fact that they haven't redesigned the case, because that would probably put me over the edge in moving up.

How do you think these core duo mbp's compare with the new macbooks?

Thanks!
 
kmarketing said:
Hi,

I'm trying to look up info about this and have seen some tests and all, but was hoping the experts here can shed some more light for me.

It looks like there is definite improvement with the new chips, even with the middle core2duo chips, but not huge improvements.

Am i really missing out with keeping my cd mbp? My mbp has 256mb video memory, is that helpful? Are there programs that the new ones can run that mine wouldn't be able to?

Thanks so much for your insight!!
Click to expand...

1. Core 2 Duo chips are maybe 5 to 10 percent faster than Core Duo at same clockspeed.

2. Core 2 Duo can run 64 bit applications. But applications that _need_ 64 bit will more likely run on an eight core Mac Pro anyway, so this won't make a serious difference for the next few years.

3. The Santa Rosa chipset saves a bit of power. It allows 4 GB of memory. If you didn't want 4 GB of memory anyway, that doesn't make a difference.
 
Some comparison for SR MBP (3,1) and C2D MBP (2,2):

SR MBP (3,1) vs C2D MBP (2,2)
- supports 4GB memory vs 3.1GB memory (depend on your application)
- DDR2-667 vs DDR2-667 (same for now, SR refresh MBP (3,2) around Q3 07 officially support DDR2-800, then SR will then truly take the advantage of the faster bus)
- 800FSB BUS vs 667FSB BUS (1-3 % real world performance difference)
- SR (965) chipset 8W consumes more power and produce more heat that Napa (945) chipset 6W
- NVIDIA 8600 is about 20 - 40% more powerful than the ATI X1600, it is great for gamer, but bad for people on the go. It actually produce more heat and consume much more power until 65nm GPU.

Napa Generation (65nm Yonah/Merom)
MBP (2,1) vs MBP (2,2): People complained about the heat, noise, battery power, so Apple address it with MBP (2,2)

SR Generation (65nm Merom)
MBP (3,1) vs MBP (3,2): Lack of DDR2-800 support, lack of OS support with Turbo Memory and Core idling feature in current OSX 10.4.9. so Apple will address Core idling in next OS release around the time Core 2 Duo Extreme and Leopard release.

Montevina Generation (45nm Penryn/Nehalem)
MBP (4,1), (4,2) and so on...

There are always newer specs coming out in the pipeline. Your C2D MBP is not much different than the first revision SR MBP (3,1) and runs cooler while giving a bit longer battery life.
 
Hi,

I think if I had a core2duo, I wouldn't be considering an upgrade. But the question is from core duo to the new santa rosa line. I just don't know how much difference that would be. What is the next line supposed to consist of? Is it better to wait to upgrade then?

Thanks!
 
From CD MBP (2,1) which is similar to C2D MBP (2,2) with exception of 64-bit support, again not much difference in terms of clock performance. Unless you are required to run 64-bit application for your work, you probably won't see a difference at all. Coming from CD, you might want to wait for 45nm Penryn processor which will be released as Montevina platform in 2008. 45nm Penryn is the one with new microarchitecture, different stage of pipepine, larger L2 cache, and SSE4 support. This will be the platform Apple will commence with next major 08 event rather than the silent C2D MBP (2,2) and SR MBP (3,1) upgrade.
 
gnasher729 said:
1. Core 2 Duo chips are maybe 5 to 10 percent faster than Core Duo at same clockspeed.
Click to expand...

In the general case, yeah.. however, anything strongly leveraging SSE can be significantly faster, and quite a lot of the popular "pro" packages fall into this category.

Having said that, I don't think it's likely worth upgrading... well, unless the OP needs the ability to have more RAM.
 
HFU said:
From CD MBP (2,1) which is similar to C2D MBP (2,2) with exception of 64-bit support, again not much difference in terms of clock performance. Unless you are required to run 64-bit application for your work, you probably won't see a difference at all. Coming from CD, you might want to wait for 45nm Penryn processor which will be released as Montevina platform in 2008. 45nm Penryn is the one with new microarchitecture, different stage of pipepine, larger L2 cache, and SSE4 support. This will be the platform Apple will commence with next major 08 event rather than the silent C2D MBP (2,2) and SR MBP (3,1) upgrade.
Click to expand...

Penryn is due to debut in the Santa Rosa refresh, with Montevina due shortly afterwards -- much like Core 2 showed up in the Napa refresh initially.

Intel seems to prefer to not launch a new processor at the same time as they change the rest of the system these days.
 
There's not a huge noticeable difference between your CD and a C2D SR. You might gain 10% or so. Honestly, if you're happy with the RAM and the video card does its job well enough for you and the battery life is perfectly fine for you I would stick with what you have.
 
I think many of you just saved me some money! It seems that the boost would not be too noticeable for me, and since the mbp still looks the same, I think I'll have to be content with what I have. I actually got a good deal on this one quite a while back, and had to replace the screen on it (i bought it with a cracked lcd for $450 and glossy lcd for $150) so I feel like I have a personal connection with it :)

I really would like to get the latest and greatest, but I think I can save my money for the next upgrade like many of you have mentioned. The design will probably change then as well. Don't mind spending the money but would so much rather save it.

Thanks everyone!
 
kmarketing said:
I think many of you just saved me some money! It seems that the boost would not be too noticeable for me, and since the mbp still looks the same, I think I'll have to be content with what I have. I actually got a good deal on this one quite a while back, and had to replace the screen on it (i bought it with a cracked lcd for $450 and glossy lcd for $150) so I feel like I have a personal connection with it :)

I really would like to get the latest and greatest, but I think I can save my money for the next upgrade like many of you have mentioned. The design will probably change then as well. Don't mind spending the money but would so much rather save it.

Thanks everyone!
Click to expand...


With 2 iMacs comparing how they start up it is a huge differnce. In this case it is a CD and a G5. I know a little off topic, but if you are converting from PPC to SR then you will see QUANTAM leaps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back