intel su3500 vs intel su9400 ?

i looked online i couldn't find an comparison between :
Intel Core 2 Duo Processor SU9400 vs Intel Core 2 Solo SU3500.
i am trying to buy my first acer computer and i am deliberate between the timeline 14" with one of this cpu .
i was wondering what would bee the different between the 2.
they have the some system bus 800mhz and the some clock speed 1.4Ghz, the only different is between 1 core or 2 .
price different would be from 579$ (staples spacial) with su3500 to 919$ (only from Canada) with su9400.

 

2 Cores makes multitasking easier. My 3810T with the SU9400 is the first dual core machine I've owned (though I've used many before), and things are faster than my previous EEE with Atom N270 or Dell with a Pentium 4. HD video plays back with little problem, programs are more responsive. I think the dual core is worth it, though it depends really on what you want to do with the machine.

 

It really depends on your need, some people need more speed which will go with a dual core, cost more. The single core SU3500 is enough for most people now, unless they are really into multi tasking and stuff.

 

of course everybody want a faster computer
i just feel that they wont have much different from one of each other because they are an ultra low voltage cpu.
that is why i am looking for a performance test between the 2 .

 

But there will be a difference. Despite the same clock speed, the extra core helps a lot. I have a SU9400 3810 and would be willing to do some benchmarks for you. If someone with a SU3500 wants to do some benchmarks too, then we could both do the same ones and compare the results.

 

Do you think the extra money is worth the little performance gain though? SU3500 Acer Timeline price from $550-$700 while the SU9400 price is $800-$900.

 

I watch a fair amount of flash-driven HD video, so it would be no decision at all for me.

 

Do you guys think the SU3500 would be pin-moddable to bump up the FSB from 800Mhz to 1066Mhz? That should give a pretty damn good boost to performance.. and it's a low-powered chip so I doubt the heat would go up too much.

If it's doable I'd more than likely get the 11.6" Timeline when that comes out...

 

If you watch HD flash (like on YouTube) then definitely go dual core. If all you do is basic web browser (non-HD flash viewing), document creation (spreadsheets, word processing, LaTeX, etc.), music listening, email (Outlook), simple media (movie, sound, picture) editing, then you should be fine with the single core, Core 2 Solo. I'm running a Core Solo ULV 1.04Ghz and I use my system for basic tasks and it works great (in Ubuntu 9.04 Jaunty and XP, using integrated Intel 945GM graphics). Feels just as fast as systems I've used with multiple cores over 2Ghz, since that power isn't utilized for such tasks.

However, if I were to buy a computer now I wouldn't get less than dual core since most apps and OSes can take advantage of multiple cores. (Plus it would be nice to watch HD flash content smoothly.) Now, if you don't care much for that, then I doubt it is worth the extra 200-300 dollars. That's a lot of extra dough at the 600-700 price range!

 

It's soldered on, so it won't work. I also doubt that the bus is the bottleneck.

 

but i wonder why more price for su9400????????.............

price of processors are same...........
see here... http://ark.intel.com/chipset.aspx?familyID=33421:confused:

 

I'll be happy to do benchmark comparison with my SU3500 in my Acer Aspire 1410 11.6". Which benches do you recommend? CrystalMark and PCMark05 and 3DMark03, 05, 06?

 

For the record here's my 3DMark results for my Acer Aspire 1410 SU3500 1.4GHz 2x2GB 800 5-5-5-18:

3DMark03 (1529 3DMarks):


3DMark05 (1024 3DMarks, 3844 CPUMarks):


3DMark06 (572 3DMarks, 180 SM2, 230 SM3, 665 CPU):

 

SU3500

CrystalMark results (34867 CrystalMark, ALU 7072, FPU 6092, Mem 8398, HDD 5867, GDI 5391, D2D 856, OGL 1191):



PCMark05 wouldn't run, so ran PCMark Vantage. Here's the results (1911 PCMarks):