07-14-2007, 09:08 PM

What are the differences between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo? Can you run Windows on both? If you're not a heavy graphics user and just do basic internet/word processing/iTunes on the comp, would you notice a difference? And is it worth buying a Core Duo to save money?

Thank you!

07-14-2007, 10:20 PM

There are a few differences, mainly performance. Core Duo was the original dual core chip, and is only 32 bit. The Core 2 Duo is a 64 bit chip. The 64 bit chip run faster. Windows and OSX can run on both machines. I have heard, but had no first hand experience that the Core Duo ran much hotter than the Core 2 Duo's. Hope that helps.

07-15-2007, 07:25 AM

Leopard is going to be completely 64 bit. Although it will run on Core Duo, it won't be as fast.

07-15-2007, 07:41 AM

If you can spring for Core 2 Duo, you will get the following benefits:

- 64-Bit Processor, will run Leopard/XP 64Bit (And 32Bit) perfectly.
- A more powerful chip, not only do they have higher clock speeds, but due to the architecture and whatnot, also a better performer in general.

However the only downside to Core 2 Duo would be that because it is 64-Bit, it will not run 16-Bit Applications. Not a problem if your using Mac OS X, but if you boot into Windows, you'll find that quite a few programs still use 16-Bit installers.

Overall though, Core 2 Duo would be better if you can afford it, if not Core Duo is fine. My Core Duo 1.83Ghz iMac can handle 1080p HD playback with considerable ease, and 720p beautifully (heck, I can even use expose with live 720p footage ). (Again, can I point out - I am selling this iMac - see sig )

07-15-2007, 12:23 PM

However the only downside to Core 2 Duo would be that because it is 64-Bit, it will not run 16-Bit Applications. Not a problem if your using Mac OS X, but if you boot into Windows, you'll find that quite a few programs still use 16-Bit installers.

Doesn't this depend on whether the Windows OS is 32-bit or 64-bit, and not the processor? I don't think there would be a problem as long as the OS isn't 64-bit, which almost none of them are still.

07-15-2007, 12:58 PM

flilow06 is right.

07-15-2007, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by kuklachica

If you're not a heavy graphics user and just do basic internet/word processing/iTunes on the comp, would you notice a difference?

I suspect not. None of those really challenge even the lowly Mac mini or low end iMac.

Unless you are thinking of buying used, the only current Apple machine with Core Duo is the Mac mini. The rest of the machines use Core 2 Duo or better. Perhaps your real concern is about the graphics system. That will affect a "heavy graphics user" much more.

07-15-2007, 06:04 PM

Bear in mind the Core Duo is still a fine processor and is in no way a slouch.

07-15-2007, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by Alexis

Bear in mind the Core Duo is still a fine processor and is in no way a slouch.

Absolutey. My CD MBP runs great!

07-16-2007, 02:40 AM

i heard with os 10.5, it will run slow with core duo macs

07-16-2007, 05:20 AM

Which would mean it would run badly with G5s and G4s too.

I can't see Apple's next OS only working well if you bought a Mac in the last 9 months.

07-16-2007, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by macbookdabest

i heard with os 10.5, it will run slow with core duo macs

Give me a break.

07-16-2007, 03:08 PM

ya i heard that cuz the core duos are 32 bit and os 10.5 is a 64 bit operating system
so its not true then?

07-16-2007, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by macbookdabest

ya i heard that cuz the core duos are 32 bit and os 10.5 is a 64 bit operating system
so its not true then?

I would expect Apple has figured out the technical details. Probably when you install or start up OS X it will know what type of system it is on and adjust accordingly. With 22+ million OS X users that are mostly 32bit systems Apple has to make sure performance is a good as it can be on both. Expect the best.

07-16-2007, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by xstep

I would expect Apple has figured out the technical details. Probably when you install or start up OS X it will know what type of system it is on and adjust accordingly. With 22+ million OS X users that are mostly 32bit systems Apple has to make sure performance is a good as it can be on both. Expect the best.

I dont think that Leopard is going to run great, if at all, on the G3's, but it will run just fine on the G4's and G5's...

*edit - although wikipedia is not always the best information: here it is:

Like Mac OS X 10.4, Leopard will support both PowerPC and Intel Macs. However, Leopard will not be released in separate versions, but instead will comprise one universal release that will run on either processor.[34] While it is known that Leopard will support PowerPC G4 and PowerPC G5 processors, support for the PowerPC G3 is reportedly not present in the pre-release versions which have been made available to developers.[35] When Apple’s Leopard website first appeared online, the 64-bit section stated, "From G3 to Xeon, from MacBook to Xserve, there is just one Leopard." The sentence was removed from the page the following day, leaving open the question of whether Leopard will support Macs with G3 processors.[36] In the past, each new major release of Mac OS X has dropped support for at least some older Macs; 10.3 dropped support for Macs without built-in USB ports, and 10.4 dropped support for computers without FireWire ports.