Duo core and duo 2 core with Leopard

[frisa5]

I'm looking into changing my old iMac G3 for an iMac Intel. I know there is not much of a difference between both machines but i'd like to make a wise choice. Help me!

Both machines seem to perform well under some apps but get a hard time with other apps. I'm wondering if, once Leopard is shipped and we install it on both DC and D2C, one machine will perform better than the other one. I heard that in some aspects the L2 cache splitting the 4MB in two is not always as effective as the L2 cache with 2MB. In all, for someone who uses the iLife suite and Photoshop, which machine should I get. I want the performance but also want to save some pennies. Don't we all?

 

[Chundles]

Leopard will run perfectly well on Core Duo and Core 2 Duo processors. It will run better on Core 2 Duo processors because they are faster and newer but in reality you'd be very, very hard pressed to notice the difference.

The main reason I can think for some apps struggling is that they are not yet Universal and are running in the Rosetta emulation environment, installing more RAM will help speed up the emulation for the time being until the applications are updated to Universal versions.

iLife is Universal - it runs natively on both PowerPC and Intel Macs whilst Photoshop is running in Rosetta and will until next year (most likely May) when Adobe release the new CS3 version which you will need to buy.

I would suggest if you're not a super-pro that the very best iMac you can afford with an emphasis on RAM over processor speed when budgeting would be a good purchase.

 

[mkrishnan]

In Tiger using 32 bit apps, the consistent story seems to be that C2D is ~10-20% faster than CD at the same clock speed. What you should expect is that with 32-bit Leopard apps, this difference will be comparable, or perhaps slightly better due to some OS aspects using less overhead because of 64-bit coding in the OS being a better match for C2D.

Are you planning on buying an Intel version of PS when it comes out? If not, my guess is that your money would be better spent on more RAM than on the C2D in terms of Photoshop speeds....

The other thing to consider is that -- if I'm not mistaken -- the video card also changed in the iMac switch to C2D.

All in all, to me, a refurb CD iMac is probably a really good buy, if your timeframe for using it is no more than three or four years from today. I'd be shocked if you were kicking yourself for not getting the 64 bit processor any sooner than that.

 

[dmw007]

A refurbished Core Duo based iMac would be a good buy, but I would personally go with a iMac featuring a Core 2 Duo processor. But either way you go, the new iMac will be much faster than your G3.

 

[tomacintosh]

Bottom line is the C2D is a 64-bit CPU so Lepoard will take further advantage of it over the CD, so expect the 10-20% speed increase to be bumped up a bit in certain situations. The C2D is a lot more future proof

 

[bearbo]

while C2D is more future proof over CD, by, say a certain time, is the current iMac with C2D gonna be more future proof over iMac with CD by the same amount of time? I don't think so.

without santa rosa, imac isn't able to take full advantage C2D, which is to say, if there is a way to measure the exact time a machine is "outdated", i wouldn't doubt the CURRENT CD imac and C2D imac become outdated around the same time... that is not to say any future C2D imac that takes advantage of santa rosa won't be better

 

[tomacintosh]

I mean it's more future proof in the fact it's a 64-bit CPU. Do you see any 128-bit CPU's on the horizon? The fact Lepoard is going to have 64-bit code throughout means the C2D will better suited to it, then there'll be a knock on effect of more 64-bit apps getting released.

 

[bearbo]

by the time there is enough 64bit apps out for you to feel a difference, C2D would be a yr old at the very least

 

[tomacintosh]

Yeah and it'll still be a decent CPU in a years time, for what most people want anyway