FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Question about Core Duo and Core 2 Duo





william
A friend of mine is planning on purchasing a laptop. He wants to know what a better option would be, Core Duo or Core 2 Duo. He's been looking at the Core Duo T2500 (2.0 GHz) and the Core 2 Duo T5500. (Though he wants to invest in a T7400). His main question was this; what's better/faster, a Core Duo T2500 or a Core 2 Duo T5500? I couldn't find any benchmarks. Do any of you have a comparison or know the answer?
Animal
As far as I'm aware, there's not much difference in terms of performance. It's my understanding that the Core 2 Duo uses less power and therefore has a higher "performance per watt" rating.
william
Yeah, that's what I thought. I know that when you take a Core Duo and a Core 2 Duo with the same clock speeds, the Core 2 will be slightly faster with, I think, up to a 7% increase in performance, though I'm not sure. I was wondering if anyone had the benchmarks.
diduknowthat
Core 2 duo uses a bit less power than core duo like the others said. Also, core duo is a 32bit processor while core 2 duo is a 64 bit processor. They both use similar architecture.
psycosquirrel
Core 2 Duo is better. Core duo is not bad, but the Core 2 Duo architechure is much better.
internetjobs
hi please tell me which one is best, intel 3Ghz processor or dual core 2.66?

i am using intel 3Ghz processor and dual core 2.66 processor i feel 3Ghz processor has better performance, please give further details..
william
diduknowthat wrote:
Core 2 duo uses a bit less power than core duo like the others said. Also, core duo is a 32bit processor while core 2 duo is a 64 bit processor. They both use similar architecture.


Yeah, I know that. I was just wondering if you or anyone else had actual benchmarks specifically comparing the Core Duo T2500 and the Core 2 Duo T5500. I know that Core 2 Duo has a better architecture, 64 Bit, and use less power. However, my friend doesn't know if a 1.66 GHz Core 2 Duo would be better than a Core Duo at 2 GHz.

His basic question was this, "What's faster?"
Helios
Hope this helps:
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2808
psycosquirrel
internetjobs wrote:
hi please tell me which one is best, intel 3Ghz processor or dual core 2.66?

i am using intel 3Ghz processor and dual core 2.66 processor i feel 3Ghz processor has better performance, please give further details..


The 3GHz is single core and would perform better in apps that can't take advantage of multiple cores. In desktop apps and when multitasking or using multithreaded apps, the C2D is MUCH better...
mikethm
If your friend was buying a desktop system, I would say the additional cost of the C2D ain't worth it as the performance increase ain't much in term of actual human usage pattern.

But since it is a laptop, the additional cost of the C2D is worth it especially if portability is important since power consumption would be a key issue then.

But if the laptop is gonna to be near a power point most of the time... then a CD would do if I were making the purchasing decision.

The advantages the C2D have over the CD is mostly 64bits processing which is practically useless to the average user and the more efficient power consumption which is important to laptop users. The marginal performance improvement in application running shouldn't matter really.

As to
Quote:
His basic question was this, "What's faster?"

The CD 2Ghz would be faster than the C2D 1.6Ghz. But I think his question is wrong. The correct question would be "Can I tell the difference?". So what if the computer is 0.1second faster when the slower machine take 1s. Can he tell the difference?
dz9c
Overclock the C2D and feel the power Shocked
william
Quote:
The CD 2Ghz would be faster than the C2D 1.6Ghz. But I think his question is wrong. The correct question would be "Can I tell the difference?". So what if the computer is 0.1second faster when the slower machine take 1s. Can he tell the difference?


Yeah, I told him that the Core Duo would be faster, but I doubt he could tell the difference. I just talked to him and he's considering the 2 GHz Core 2 Duo. (Main reason is because it's 64 Bit).

Quote:
Overclock the C2D and feel the power


Heh, yeah I suggested that, too. Very Happy Though, he fears that he'll destroy his CPU.


Anyway, I thank all of you for your help.
psycosquirrel
mikethm wrote:

The CD 2Ghz would be faster than the C2D 1.6Ghz.


The C2D architechure is MUCH newer and has more L2 cache, and therefore, is FASTER and better. Core Duo is still going to cost roughly the same, so why not make the upgrade?

Sorry, your friend is horribly wrong.


Back on topic, there is really no reason for him to be concerned about 32 vs 64 bit at this point, everyone will be 64 bit in several years (the transition is a rough one).
william
Well, the Core Duo T2500 at 2 GHz will cost him more than the Core 2 Duo T5500 at 1.6 GHz; so what would be an overall better option?

I told him that the Core 2 Duo would be better because of the better architecture, price, and the performance difference is so small.

He also wanted to run the 64 Bit Windows Vista, that's one reason he wanted the Core 2 Duo, but I don't think he'll need a 64 Bit for years; and what psycosquirrel said.
mikethm
psycosquirrel wrote:
mikethm wrote:

The CD 2Ghz would be faster than the C2D 1.6Ghz.


The C2D architechure is MUCH newer and has more L2 cache, and therefore, is FASTER and better. Core Duo is still going to cost roughly the same, so why not make the upgrade?

Sorry, your friend is horribly wrong.


Back on topic, there is really no reason for him to be concerned about 32 vs 64 bit at this point, everyone will be 64 bit in several years (the transition is a rough one).


One shouldn't be blinded by marketing hype. The C2D is at most 10% faster at the same clockspeed. Meaning a C2D 2Ghz would be 10% faster than a CD 2Ghz. However, right now we are comparing a CD 2Ghz to a C2D 1.6Ghz. Thus the C2D would be equal only at most a CD 1.8Ghz and the CD 2Ghz would whip it hands down...

Should you not believe me, read this http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808

Sorry, you are the one who is horribly wrong here.
mikethm
william wrote:
Well, the Core Duo T2500 at 2 GHz will cost him more than the Core 2 Duo T5500 at 1.6 GHz; so what would be an overall better option?

I told him that the Core 2 Duo would be better because of the better architecture, price, and the performance difference is so small.

He also wanted to run the 64 Bit Windows Vista, that's one reason he wanted the Core 2 Duo, but I don't think he'll need a 64 Bit for years; and what psycosquirrel said.


Since he wanna use Vista ASAP, the C2D would be the better choice. Good luck to him because even the scaled down basic version of Vista would cost him USD199 and the complete version would be USD399. I would be sticking with my Windows XP for quite a while. I could build a new system on USD399. Smile

As for me, I am more concerned with practical usage. Recently, my ISP give me a Core Duo MacBook. It was slightly faster than my Sempron Compaq notebook in my regularly applications and unable to run my fave Civ4 due to its weak GMA950 graphics compared to the ATI200M on the Compaq. Thus I kept the 1/2 yr old USD599 Sempron Compaq and gave the brand new USD1199 MacBook away. What really matters is what you use the laptop for and how it is configured, not the marketing hype. When I gave the MacBook away to my cousin, I knew very well that it would be 100% faster if I were running multithread stuff like video encoding... but the point is I do not encode videos... so the so-called 100% improvement have no meaning for me.
TheGeek
The C2D has a 2MB L2 cache where as the CD also has a 2MB L2 cache (I'm assuming your friend is looking at the processor types for the E series laptops from Dell am I correct?) They are both dual core. However, The C2D I believe has a newer way of handling the shared L2 between the two cores and is thus more efficient. It also produces less heat and is a 64 bit processor so you can be sure that you don't necessarily have to upgrade processors to get newer programs and operating systems. For the price difference, I would go ahead and put the C2D in the system because IMO its a worthy upgrade.

However, here is a link i found in the forums of anandtech.com. It seems to favor the CD from what little of it i skimmed through.
william
Well, thanks for all your help guys, I calculated the performance of both and figured the Core Duo would be faster, but it would be a better option to go with the Core 2 Duo because it's 64 Bit, better architecture, less heat, and more.

@TheGeek. He's actually looking at the Toshiba Satellites, he hates Dell. And I agree, it would be a better to upgrade to the Core 2 Duo.

@mikethm. I tried to convince him to stick with XP, but, for some reason, he assumes Vista would be "undefeatable." Laughing Anyway, he's more of a "basic" user but he uses his laptop for everything. (He doesn't have a desktop).

I'm going to suggest going with the Core 2 Duo at 1.83 GHz, as I find that the best value.

Once again, thanks for the help.
Related topics
Intel to adopt new logos
AMD vs. INTEL
MacBook Pro
Intel Releases New Logo & Slogan
What do you think about Mac OS X?
[hardware] Apple y Intel
BEST PC THAT MONEY CAN BUY !!
Core Duo vs D
Whats the difference between Core Duo and Hyperthreading?
Windows XP vs Mac OS X
hello from sreenath pillai
"Intel apresenta microprocessador de quatro núcleos&quo
Athlon 64 X2 vs Intel Core-Duo
Laptop Processor Upgrade.. help me if its compatible..
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Hardware and Electronics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.