June '06 MacBook Pro, Not as powerful.

[tbeeghly]

I bought a MacBook Pro back in June of '06, the 2.16 Ghz CD with 256mb VidCard and 2 Gigs of RAM. It doesn't seem to be as powerful as it once was, specifically in World of Warcraft. The game is not that taxing, but I'm only getting an average of about 20 fps in usual combat, 30 in quiet spots. I have almost all settings down except for terrain distance. Other programs of mine seem to be ok, such as DVD compression and Photoshop, it just seems to be WoW that is acting up. My brother bought a MBP a few days ago, right before they dropped the new ones, 2.16 C2D, 128mb VidCard, 1 Gig o RAM and he's getting 60 FPS EVERYWHERE! There is no way that the C2D is that much better than the CD is there? I've read about the CD MBPs getting 60-75 fps. Is there some maintenance i need to do? Any help is greatly appreciated. First post, love the site.

Taylor

 

[Zadillo]

I bought a MacBook Pro back in June of '06, the 2.16 Ghz CD with 256mb VidCard and 2 Gigs of RAM. It doesn't seem to be as powerful as it once was, specifically in World of Warcraft. The game is not that taxing, but I'm only getting an average of about 20 fps in usual combat, 30 in quiet spots. I have almost all settings down except for terrain distance. Other programs of mine seem to be ok, such as DVD compression and Photoshop, it just seems to be WoW that is acting up. My brother bought a MBP a few days ago, right before they dropped the new ones, 2.16 C2D, 128mb VidCard, 1 Gig o RAM and he's getting 60 FPS EVERYWHERE! There is no way that the C2D is that much better than the CD is there? I've read about the CD MBPs getting 60-75 fps. Is there some maintenance i need to do? Any help is greatly appreciated. First post, love the site.

Taylor

It's not the Core Duo itself, but the X1600 in the C2D MBP's is clocked much higher. The X1600 in the original MBP was dramatically underclocked (just a little above 300/300 or something I think). The X1600 in the C2D MBP's is clocked at like 445/418 by default, which is much better (the "stock" clock speeds of the X1600 are 470/470).

Your own machine shouldn't be LESS powerful than it was before, but it is not surprising that your brother's C2D MBP would perform considerably better.

 

[aliquis-]

But back in the days many people overclocked it to stock speeds, didn't they? Is it possible to overclock in OS X? Atleast in Windows it might work.

I can't guarantee anything thought, but I would do it (but a little at the time and so on.)

 

[Zadillo]

But back in the days many people overclocked it to stock speeds, didn't they? Is it possible to overclock in OS X? Atleast in Windows it might work.

I can't guarantee anything thought, but I would do it (but a little at the time and so on.)

It's possible to overclock it, but the ramifications of doing so on the original CD MBP with its poorer heat ventilation, cooling, etc. are up in the air. I don't think the drastic underclocking was just for the hell of it, I think it was a necessity (and it still ran hot anyway).

-Zadillo