What type of true performance difference can I see between a 1.83 and a 2.2 MB?

[one1]

I know they got bumped a little each revision, but in reality what would be the true performance difference between a 1.83 with 4gb ram (showing 3) and a bone stock new 2.2 book with no upgrades?

(then for kicks, with 4gb ram on the 2.2)

 

[hari-bhari]

are they both core 2 duo?

 

[tersono]

It's going to depend on what apps you're running. For standard day-to-day use, you're not going to notice a whole lot of difference. If you're a Photoshop user, then frankly the extra RAM will make more difference than the CPU if you're dealing with big files.

Overall, if you have the 1.83, I really don't think it would be worth upgrading to the 2.2. Not enough performance hike for the dough.

 

[Consultant]

Barefeats.com has benchmarks. You just have to find the old benchmarks and compare to recent benchmarks.

It's application and sometimes harddrive dependent.

 

[heatmiser]

Difference?

Effectively none. Once it's a c2d, it's far overpowered for what 99% of consumers will use it for.

 

[Bearxor]

Unless you're doing something REALLY CPU intensive. I mean REALLY REALLY CPU intensive, then there would be no noticeable difference at all.

Break out a few benchmark utilities and a stopwatch and you might be able to measure the difference but are you going to notice if you have to wait 6.5s for something instead of 5.8s?

 

[one1]

I found this test between cd and c2d to be interesting

http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd6.html

 

[netdog]

I found this test between cd and c2d to be interesting

http://www.barefeats.com/mbcd6.html

The Core Duo won't take 4GB or RAM. The C2D referenced in those benchmarks will only read 3.3GB. Santa Rosa C2D MBPs (2.2, 2.4, 2.6) will read 4GB.