When a new processors are released, multiple models usually come out. While in production, the new chips are all produced at once. The lower quality chips are usually given lower clock speed to compensate, while the highest quality of the chip is given the higher of set of clock speeds. So between the two chips, there is no difference in cache, instruction sets, and normal variance in heat.

Thanks for making a zombie out of the topic guys.

Just so you all know, I got the MBP with 2.4.

Hey, anyone know how to get SC on the new OS? It says the classic environment is no longer supported when I try to install it.

Just a note to you all attempting to compare processor speeds: it is dependent on both the processor core clock speed AND the speed of the frontside bus. With the Pentium 4 series, the FSB was clocked at 800MHz, which meant for the same core speed you get significantly less performance than an Athlon 64, which was clocked with a FSB of 2000MHz.

The new Core 2 Duo processors have a FSB of 1333MHz, which gives a single 1.8 GHz Pentium Core 2 Duo core the same processing power as a 3.0GHz Pentium 4 with the slower bus (general rule - processing speed = bus speed * core speed). Having extra cores is just more (but not double) power.

Bigger caches and better heat distribution are obviously factors as well, but the FSB is the important thing that made a good old 2.4-gig Athlon 64 outstrip Intel's fancier-sounding 3.8GHz Penitum 4s.

So as people said, yes a 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo is much, much faster than a single-core 3.0GHz Pentium 4.

I'm sorry DTBK, but I would have to totally disagree with you. Newer core architecture is 99.9% the reason for the increase in performance between the Netburst Pentiums against the new Core 2 architecture. There are Core 2's (Allendales, e21**) that use an 800mhz FSB, just as many Pentium D's did, and they totally blow the Pentium D's out of the water. Also, the original Core 2's used a 1066mhz FSB, Intel released a 1333mhz FSB lineup of processors which performed nearly identically.

Also, AMD does not use FSB, they use HTT, which isn't comparable with FSB number for number.

*ahem* Hey, anyone know how to get SC on the new OS? It says the classic environment is no longer supported when I try to install it.

Well.. don't mind me then..

*runs off to read up on such things*

I thought you were going to bootcamp windows on your macbook maybe you should give a screenshot?

You didn't state which OS.

OS X (the new one)

MJ: If you're trying to contest my accusation that you quoted, it's a little late. If you're somehow trying to contest the goodness of Macs in general then, as I said, go somewhere else.
I did install XP with Bootcamp (Vista next). I'd rather have Starcraft on my native OS, if possible, and I plan on using it when compatibility allows.

Do you have the Windows version of SC or the Mac version?

It's a hybrid, no?
I'll get that screenshot sooner or later, I'm messing around with XP at the moment.

Edit:
The picture

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Mar 29 2008, 10:11 pm by frazz.