# macbook core 2 duo.. anynone?



## flacochala (Oct 25, 2006)

Hi guys... im all excited with the new mabook pro core 2 duo, but this is really out of my budget... does anyone knows when (if this is happening anytime soon) the macbooks will get core 2 duo???
i really want to wait because leopard will be 64 bit enabled, and i really dont want to spend a lot of money in a macbook that wont be able to fully blast leopard...
Agree??, desagree?.. leave your comments..


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Oct 25, 2006)

64-bit isn't faster.

well, it can be,. but that's not really the point of it.  32 bit computers can only address a maximum of 4gb of RAM.  even if more ram is installed, the computer will only ever be able to use 4gb of it.  4gb maximum.  16-bit systems could only use a maximum of _4mb_ of ram, and 64-bit systems can address anything up to 4tb (that's terabytes, 1,000gb) of ram, among other task related issues.  the computer is still only as fast as the processor. 

so, being as the macbooks can only have 2gb physically installed (which may work out to be 4gb in the future as ram gets cheaper, but not more, i wouldn't have thought), it's not a computer that will ever really benefit all that much from 64-bit.

i wouldn't have thought that the macbooks would get core 2 duo for a while.  i would buy now.


----------



## fryke (Oct 25, 2006)

I think they'll go Core 2 Duo in the coming two weeks. There's this lower-end Core 2 Duo that fits the MacBook perfectly. Also, it's traditionally time to update both the pro and the consumer notebooks now. Season begins, so to speak. So maybe it wouldn't hurt to wait one or two weeks...


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 25, 2006)

Lt Major Burns said:


> well, it can be,. but that's not really the point of it.  32 bit computers can only address a maximum of 4gb of RAM.  even if more ram is installed, the computer will only ever be able to use 4gb of it.  4gb maximum.  16-bit systems could only use a maximum of _4mb_ of ram, and 64-bit systems can address anything up to 4tb (that's terabytes, 1,000gb) of ram, among other task related issues.


One for three, there.  32-bit does equal 4GB of addressable memory space.

16-bit systems have a memory address space of [(2^16) - 1] bits (64KB -- not 4MB).

32-bit systems have a memory address space of [(2^32) - 1] bits (4GB).

64-bit systems have a memory address space of [(2^64) - 1] bits (a lot more that 4TB -- do the math -- it's in the order of _exa_bytes).

That's not factoring in hardware and software limitations, though -- most 16-bit systems couldn't address a total of 64KB of RAM.  Most 32-bit systems couldn't address 4GB of RAM.  And most 64-bit systems will never use all 18.45 *exabytes* of addressable memory space.



> so, being as the macbooks can only have 2gb physically installed (which may work out to be 4gb in the future as ram gets cheaper, but not more, i wouldn't have thought), it's not a computer that will ever really benefit all that much from 64-bit.


The total amount of addressable memory space isn't the only benefit going to 64 bits from 32.  You want your integers to range from -2 billion to +2 billion, or from -9 quintillion to +9 quintillion?    In addition to being able to physically have more RAM in the computer, the benefits extend to the size of numbers the computer can understand as well -- which is a huge boon for mathematical software packages like Matlab and Mathematica.


----------



## fryke (Oct 25, 2006)

In other words, they don't _truly_ matter for most of the MacBook (non pro) target group? ... Either way: It's not only the processor alone and not only the 64bit either. I'm pretty sure that there are always some smaller improvements with newer generation hardware as well. Things that are not even announced. Like: Better or different plastics. 30 seconds more battery life. Better fan behaviour... I dunno... I just mainly think that *if* you buy a MacBook Core Duo now and they _would_ release a Core 2 Duo MacBook in a week or two, you might lose both features and money. They might give more RAM with the new MacBooks as well, you know, like they did with the MBPs...


----------



## flacochala (Nov 1, 2006)

well for me i think it will be worth waiting for the new model... the macbook pro did got a speed bump with core 2 duo, and im hoping that the macbook will get one too. And, as fryke said, maybe will be getting some corrected plastic... (or if you are a dreamer, maybe a new graphic card). The only thing i really hope is that the new macbook hits the market before leopard... cause im thinking of buying a new mac when 10.5 unleashes.


----------



## Viro (Nov 1, 2006)

Lt Major Burns said:


> 64-bit isn't faster.



It *IS* faster, especially when we're talking about the transition from 32 bit x86 to 64 bit x86-64. This is not news, since the Athlon 64 was released 3 years ago.

The performance doesn't come from being 64 bits, but because the original company that came up with the 64 bit instruction set, decided to update the number of registers directly accessible to programs, from 8 to 16. An excellent article that will do more justice to the x86-64 instruction set than I ever could is at arstechnica. A less technical article with some nice performance graphs can be found at Techreport. 

From my own experience, applications compiled with in 64 bit with *no* additional optimizations tend to yield a 20 - 30% increase in performance. This only applies to the transition from 32 bit to 64 bit on the x86 (i.e. Intel) platform. Anything else (i.e. PowerPC, SPARC, ARM, etc) do not see such a performance benefit from the move to 64 bits mainly because they are much better instruction sets than x86 to begin with.


----------



## Ifrit (Nov 2, 2006)

> In other words, they don't _truly_ matter for most of the MacBook (non pro) target group? ... Either way: It's not only the processor alone and not only the 64bit either. I'm pretty sure that there are always some smaller improvements with newer generation hardware as well. Things that are not even announced. Like: Better or different plastics. 30 seconds more battery life. Better fan behaviour... I dunno... I just mainly think that *if* you buy a MacBook Core Duo now and they _would_ release a Core 2 Duo MacBook in a week or two, you might lose both features and money. They might give more RAM with the new MacBooks as well, you know, like they did with the MBPs...



How about a GPU which isn't Intel Graphics with dedicated RAM? (doesn't need to be the latest and greatest) This is the feature I am looking for and which is keeping me from buying a Macbook right now (and its most likley that this feature will never make it into the next macbook revisions, thats for sure) Ok, I guess I am saving for the macbook pro then.


----------



## lurk (Nov 2, 2006)

Ifrit said:


> How about a GPU which isn't Intel Graphics with dedicated RAM? (doesn't need to be the latest and greatest) This is the feature I am looking for and which is keeping me from buying a Macbook right now



This is an interesting position,  I have a new MacBook (well my wife does) and it has a better graphics that the seperate chip on my Powerbook.  So you would rather have the subpar seperate chip (not the latest and greatest) than the integrated graphics?

Why?  That does not sound rational as I am parsing it...


----------



## Captain Code (Nov 2, 2006)

Well how about one that's at least as good as the integrated one but doesn't use your system RAM.  That'd still be better.  Faster access to it's own RAM and it doesn't take away from system RAM.


----------



## Ifrit (Nov 3, 2006)

> This is an interesting position, I have a new MacBook (well my wife does) and it has a better graphics that the seperate chip on my Powerbook. So you would rather have the subpar seperate chip (not the latest and greatest) than the integrated graphics?



Intel integrated graphics is the bottom of the GPUs right now. Even the low end nvidia and ATI (ok ATI has been eaten by AMD - it still is a own brand) offerings outperform the Intel IG. (and I hate GPUs which use system RAM with a passion) 

Concerning your Powerbook. The G4 architecture is how old? Yes, its outdated. I am sorry to say this (but this doesn't mean it isn't up to the tasks you throw at it). Of course after a certain time even the low end current GPUs outperform the middle class GPus from the last generation. But this doesn't mean that the low end GPU solution in current macbooks is the best one IMO.


----------



## fryke (Nov 3, 2006)

We've had that GPU question again and again. Basically, it doesn't matter much whether Apple chooses a very low-end dedicated chip or the integrated solution. You won't get top gaming performance out of it. I guess it's better this way (integrated), because gamers wouldn't _expect_ any performance from it. If you _do_ have a dedicated chip, you might be surprised to find it inadequate. Keep in mind that the MacBook's the _cheap_ notebook as well. The integrated GPU certainly behaves well for all *I* throw at it.
For Apple it has several advantages. They can adopt a whole platform and spend more time developing the rest of the MacBook. It saves time and money, because it's cheaper as well.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Nov 3, 2006)

and the option is always there to get a decent gpu, along with a 15" screen, expansion slots, FW800, backlit keys....

the macbook is the low end notebook.


----------



## fryke (Nov 3, 2006)

I guess _customers_ would like Apple to open things up a little and offer true build-to-order here, so you could mix and match any features available to the whole MacBook line. It's not like intel only offers 2.16 and 2.33 GHz Core 2 Duo notebook processors, for example. There are variants that maybe would better fit a customer. Some care about decent gaming graphics - others don't. Most creative pros don't really _need_ a 256 MB VRAM highend graphics chip: They would do _well_ with the integrated stuff (and could save some money). Others might want all the pro features in a notebook that's actually _portable_. But then Apple would have a lot more to do for, I guess, not soooooo many more sales.

I personally still want the Apple subnotebook with 10" widescreen display, no optical drive and 8-10 hours of battery life, for example. If anyone could do it, it'd be Apple. But they won't, because they probably just wouldn't sell enough of those to make sense for them. So: Tough luck.

What I want to say is: It's not _totally_ un-understandable that they're using the integrated graphics with the MacBook. It makes sense from almost every perspective. The one perspective from which it doesn't make sense is the customer who wants all the highend features in the least expensive package.


----------



## Ifrit (Nov 3, 2006)

I understand your point fryke - and i won't discuss it any further.

You are right, I want to play some games. But I am not into the "high end graphic titles". So I guess the macbook pro is the better choise then for this purpose.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Nov 8, 2006)

MacBook Core 2 Duo on sale now.

£749 1.83ghz
£879 2.0ghz
£999 2.0ghz Black

still the £120 'black tax', then.  no other changes to the harware seem to be apparent in this speed bump,  but the UK apple site hasn't been updated yet, only the store.


----------



## Captain Code (Nov 8, 2006)

MacBooks are now Core2Duo!


----------



## Viro (Nov 8, 2006)

Damn it!


----------



## Veljo (Nov 8, 2006)

They could've at least included an option for a matte screen, those glossy screens are horrible.


----------



## eric2006 (Nov 8, 2006)

The cheapest MacBook (refurbished, non-core 2 duo) is now $899.


----------



## flacochala (Nov 9, 2006)

any other changes besides core 2 duo and dl dvd?


----------



## Viro (Nov 9, 2006)

Nope. They didn't change the video card, which is not unexpected.


----------



## Veljo (Nov 19, 2006)

My sister got one a few days ago, I must say that I've changed my opinion of the glossy screens, they're quite nice. I'm also thoroughly impressed with the new MacBooks, Apple have done a top job.


----------

