Core 2 Duo VS Core i5

Question

Hi,
regarding to the spec Core 2 Duo VS Core i5 from a MBP, do it really a Huge Differences while using the Logic Pro 9?

Answer 1

spheric wrote:
Scorpii wrote:
hi spheric. 32nm will run faster because the distance is less. 4 real cores [iMacs i7] should perform better than 2 real core [laptops chips]
Thanks for the clarification - I was obviously misunderstanding you.
Yes, the desktop chips are faster due to being quad-core - but getting a quad-core 32nm laptop chip should be faster still.
Unfortunately, there aren't any yet, AFAIK.
..and there are unlikely to ever be, not in this series of CPU in any case. The problem is heat dissipation and power consumption, neither of which are anywhere near a match for what Apple is aiming at with its notebooks. However, AFAIK, you can already buy notebooks from other vendors (can't remember where I read this, CNET?) which do use the physical quad version of the core series CPU that Apple only use in the iMacs. So, you can get a 'real' quad core notebook of some kind, however it won't have anywhere near the battery life of the MBPs (who cares?), and will be in a much less slim case with probably a lot more fan noise, to deal with the heat. Also, it will only, ahem, officially run Windows or Linux or whatever. Officially.
But don't rule out HT! I know I am a bleedin broken record on this topic, but when it's used on the mobile i5/i7, it really does just present itself to the software like it's a real quad core and it really does make a difference. Not on the same order as having totally discreet cores, but it does simply work as if it was and the difference is palpable. The ProTools tests I did in that other discussion really shows it in action. When PT sends work to 4 cores (on the desktop version of the i7), it can run a good whack more plug ins than when it just has 2 cores available to it. It's a pity that Logic seems to be currently ignoring it, but on the measure I demonstrated with PT, it looks like an 'almost' quad mobile CPU is actually a pretty decent tradeoff for a notebook system for the time being, at least for every other app except Logic..
I'm sure future generations of Intel hardware will probably eventually get more discreet physical cores into a mobile CPU that Apple will be happy to use. In fact I found some articles via a google search that suggested the generation of CPUs coming sometime in 2011/2012 will be able to get power consumption and heat down to do just that. But for now, HT is a very reasonable substitute. The other day I was able to easily get about 35 more reverb plug ins to run live on the mobile i7 than I could on my Core 2 Duo and I saw HT working right before my eyes, distributing the work across 4 cores in Activity Monitor. So it's clear that HT can make a significant difference if it's used, even if it will always be a bit less than having a real quad core.
I'd say the next generation of Apple notebooks will be when the number of physical cores gets upped. For now, they won't just shoe-horn a desktop CPU into their sleek notebooks and throw out all of the battery life and slim design principles. But other manufacturers have chosen right now to do this in notebooks, even given the extra heat and power consumption, so there are alternatives out there.. I think Dell and Alienware do notebooks using a desktop i7 (ie, with 4 full cores), but from what I saw I think they chose a lower clocked one so the things don't last 5 minutes on battery and melt down after one hour of use.