Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Mac Core 2 Duo are mobile processors?

Dec 8, 2006 3:17AM PST

I did a litte Core 2 Duo research on wikipedia. it says that the desktop processors are clocked at 1.83, 2.13 Ghz etc etc. Whereas the mobile processors are clocked at 2.0 , 2.16 Ghz etc etc.

Now Apple's iMacs have Core 2 Duo processors and they run at either 2.0 or 2.16 or 2.33 Ghz. Is it true that iMac, a desktop computer, actually has mobile processors in it? I am kind of dismayed.

How much of performance difference is there between the mobile and desktop versions?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
The clockspeed wars ended.
Dec 9, 2006 1:58PM PST

From what I can tell, there is not much *most* people would experience that would even allow them to notice the difference between the clockspeeds you noted in current processors - unless you stare at a utility that measures clockspeed... and that is neither fun nor productive. You have nothing about which to "be dismayed", unless your thing is staring at clockspeed utilities.

- Collapse -
So theres no difference...
Dec 9, 2006 3:14PM PST

between mobile and desktop processors? I mean desktop processors tend to have bigger heat sinks so better overall performance. I should not be able to notice any overall performance difference right?

I ask this question because my dad's laptop graphic card is a good one (Geforce 7400) but when playing games or other 'heavy' activity, it messes up and my geforce 5200 on my desktop seems to be a better overall product.

- Collapse -
the main CPU and the processor
Dec 10, 2006 7:44AM PST

on the graphics cards are different chips.

- Collapse -
Yup but between dektop and mobile...
Dec 10, 2006 3:19PM PST

What I am trying to find out is that is there a big difference between mobile and desktop performance? 2.13(desktop) and 2.16(mobile) GHz is very close so is there going to be a big difference between them. Is there going to be a big difference when we are for example video editing.

As far as I know, desktop parts are generally better in performance and reliability. This could be because of cooling, space etc. What are your thoughts?

- Collapse -
Not an answer.
Dec 10, 2006 9:51PM PST

But a lead for you.

Look at Tom's Mother of all CPU Charts on google.com

Go to Intel.com and pull down the PDF files on your selected CPUs.

The answer is out there.

Bob

- Collapse -
Thats it...
Dec 11, 2006 12:10AM PST

Oh my god...

The Mac desktop has mobile processors (lol desktop with mobile processors) and mobile processors are not as good as desktop ones. Thats because the mobile front side bus is slower.

Thats it! I don't know what to say.

Case closed

- Collapse -
Need speed? Look at the big iron.
Dec 11, 2006 12:23AM PST
http://www.apple.com/macpro/

This is what you get if you want near (b)leading edge speeds. You can select how many CPUs and what speeds.

The reason for mobile CPUs in desktops is very simple. Great performance without the high wattage.

Bob
- Collapse -
when you compare the size of the
Dec 11, 2006 4:30AM PST

iMac to any laptop, you can easily understand why certain components are used. It was never meant to be a Tower-replacement capable of having water-cooled, HUGE fan-driven, monster-mother CPUs. The heat-sync that sits on the CPUs of Tower machines probably would not fit in the iMac (or MacMini) case. It/they do/does not have expansion slots, but towers do. If you want real horsepower, get a tower. That has ALWAYS been the case.

Frankly, an iMac (or MacMini) *could* be called "portable" - not a laptop, by any means, and an iMac does not have internal power... but the 17 inch flat-panel iMac or MacMini is small enough and easy enough to move around much more easily than any tower... and the iMac or MacMini have enough horsepower to do lots of useful productive work.

This is up there with comparing a $70 camcorder with a $700 or $7,000 camcorder. They were purposed for different things - that they all take moving images does not make the comparable - or useful for everyone or everything. Better yet, this is like saying tower computer are bad because they aren't portable like laptops...

This is a NON-ISSUE discussion.