Intel Solo CPU in E1705 Any Good?

Im new to the board and just ordered myself a new laptop. I havent hear much about the new chipset intel released. I got the Intel Solo cpu in my new laptop. I got a t1300 1.66 intel solo, is it the same as a 2.0ghz? Can someone help me with a good comparison to the cpu speed. Also i got the comp for a pretty good price. I got it for $1040. Im thinking of canceling the order because of the speed of the cpu. Im thinking to use the comp for media use like watching dvds and playing medium range games.
Here are the specs, please let me know if this is a good price for these specs also. thanks

Inspiron E1705 Single Core;Intel® CoreTM Solo Processor T1300 (1.66GHz/667MHz FSB)
Operating System : Genuine Windows® XP Media Center Edition 2005
LCD Panel: 17 inch Wide Screen XGA+ Display
Memory: 1GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz
Hard Drive: 60GB 5400RPM SATA Hard Drive
Combo/DVD+RW Drives: 8x CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
Video Card: 256MB NVIDA® GeForceTM Go 7800
Network Card: Integrated 10/100 Network Card and Modem
Primary Battery: 80 WHr 9-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery
Wireless Networking Cards: Dell Wireless 1390 802.11g Mini Card (54Mbps), for Inspiron 9400/E1705

 

I don't think the solo chip will be anywhere near the P-M 2.0.

In fact, the solo is kind of a waste in my opinion. Everything is changing to dual core, so if you are going to order an E1705, you might as well go with dual CPU.

 

I already ordered it. So is the cpu speed good comparison to a 1.7ghz? I just want to know if these specs could handle a midrange gaming. My budget is 1050. For dual core it cost alot more for these kinds of specs. Is the price that i got it for a good one?

 

I'm not really sure how it would measure up against a P-M. From what I read, dual core gives you about 40% to 60% increase than you would see in a P-M.

Problem is that you will have a single core, so it will be a lower percentage.

If you absolutely have to have a laptop right now, I would fill out a FAQs questions in the "What to buy" and post it there. There might be a cheaper dual core, but i'm not sure.

If worse comes to worse, you can get the solo core, and later upgrade to dual core.

 

I agree....you can upgrade later. The single-core is just a dual-core with 1 core turned off.

 

You can upgrade? How can you do that? Do i do this through dell? I wouldnt mind to pay $200 more later on.

 

You would have to buy a new CPU, and put it in yourself. Not sure about the cost, but it probably wouldn't be cheap.

 

thanks with the help but i have one last question. A intel core solo 1.66ghz is it better then 2.8ghz p4? im not talking about pm but p4.

 

I think that would be about even. The P-M is 1.5x as fast as a P4...so if you have a 2.0Ghz P-M then it is just as fast as a 3.0 Ghz P4.

I think you estimate is about right.

 

When did you order the system? Sometimes you can cancel the order if it was only a day or two ago, sometimes even more I think. I cancelled mine a whole day after. But you mentioned you wanted to keep your budget to about 1050.

What do you mean by medium range games; strategy and anythinng other than FPS shooters? The 7800 will satisfy that need. Actually you can probably play most of the new FPS'es with the res turned to med.

As far as comparison to a desktop, yeah the comparison was about right. Also you'll see the biggest boost in gaming, games take bigger advantage of the 2MB L2 cache the centrinos have.

 

usaf dude,

how is your 9300 running with the 6800 overclock? I have the 9400 with the 7800 and my 3dmark05 is 3900.

 

My I9300 is running good. I have a laptop cooler so the temp never hits above 65C. When it is idling it gets to about 42-43C. All which are very safe temps.

I also leave it OC'ed all the time.

 

USAF....you said you use a laptop cooler? Do you mean like a chill pad? I have a dual fan Targus chill pad, but I still see temps (via my nVidia desktop tool) go to like 80-82C. What are you using to check your temp?

 

I have an E1705 with a 7800. I got about 3830 on 3dmark05 stock. After overclocking it to 380/850 I get 5380.

Interested in what laptop cooler you use as well USAFdude. My temps fluctuate between 61 to 84. Anyone heard of the Notepal by coolermaster? http://www.coolermaster-usa.com/CoolerMaster/Products.aspx?pid=1184
It's a notebook cooler meant for 17" widescreen notebooks. Wondering if any users tried this or heard any good/bad things about it.

 

I have this one. The notebook hangs over the edge, but I don't really notice. Also it leaves the slots open on the bottem causing better airflow.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16834999336

 

Does anyone know where to find comparisons (performance, battery life, etc) of P-M, Core Solo, and Core Duo? I already looked at Tom's Hardware Guide and their fora.

I'm very stingy and interested in a i9400 minimum build with a GeForce Go 7800 for about $1000. For notebook gaming (and video?), the GPU tends to be the bottleneck, so I've been looking for the cheapest notebook computers that contain a 7800. Is it a viable purchase option? Obviously, it's much worse than a core duo, 7600 rpm HD, and trubrite WUXGA+. However, I'm poor and uninterested in marginal perfomance and usability benefits.

 

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2627

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2648&p=1

The E1705 can't be beat in price vs. performance. But if you don't want to go too much over $1000, then stick with a P-M processor; if you mostly game with some graphics on the side. It'd be nice if Dell offered the E1705 with that option.

Another option you may consider is the HP dv4000. That was my other choice had I not gotten an E1705. You can equip one for around ~1000 (more with edu discount), with a P-M 2.0Ghz, ATI X700, and their equivalent of a Trubrite screen(Brightview). Granted the X700 is one step below the 7800; the notebook is a pretty decent all round multimedia machine.

 

Thanks. I also found some information at THG using google rather than THG's search function at http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01...battery_life_for_quicker_response/page10.html

It doesn't really compare performance, but it does break down the stats of PM, duo, and solo.


Including S&H and coupons, the solo model is $1043 and the duo model is $1158. Is going from a T1300 (27 w) to a T2300 (31 w) worth $115? Or more than 10% of the final price?

 

I thought T1300 is 15W as claimed by Intel in its specifications!

 

No, that's Lxxxx, the low voltage core solo/duo.

 

If you can afford to spend that extra 115, I'd recommend it; I think it's well worth it. You're basically getting two CPU's, and it definitely speeds things up a little, esp if you have multiple things running at the same time.

A simple example; you're playing a game and the pesky AV decides to check for updates; your 2nd core can take care of that while you play your game uninterrupted. Also some newer games may start taking advantage of the dual cores. Patch 1.5 in Quake IV has duo core optimizations.

 

I CAN afford it, but I still don't see why I should purchase it. Is it really worth $115 (lunch for three months) to get a little less performance lag? What justifies the expense?

 

I think it is. It really doesn't make since to me, to buy any sort of new Intel new notebook without Core Duo. Unless your budget has serious restraints. This is coming from a moderate user. (By moderate I mean, I don't put much stress on the machine performance wise.) I Just think it doesn't make since to stick with old technology if you can afford the upgrade.

 

Well I can't really tell from real world experiences, as I haven't had exactly of those systems. But my gf does have an i6000, with a P-M Centrino 1.7Ghz. I have the duo core 2.0Ghz. I used to have a P4 2.4C and both of them are fast compared to what I was used to; honestly I couldn't tell the difference between the two centrinos in everyday applications.

I guess the justification comes in the fact that you're 'future-proofing' your investment, and that's the rationale that most people give for going for the duo. But actually if you were really future proofing, you'd want to get a 64-bit processor; but that's another story.

Truth be told, my budget was about the same, and I actually first ordered a solo 1.66 with the 7800. Like you mentioned the GPU is indeed the bottleneck. But dell had a 650 off coupon and 250 rebate running together for like two days; I configured a 2.0duo/7800/trulife for around 1250, so I ordered that cancelling the first.

What are you primarily going to do on the latop, gaming and a little graphics? The performance gain margin is slim if it's mostly gaming and light everyday apps. You can sell the 1GB that comes with the notebook and combine that with the $115 and get 2GB of RAM, which would give a bigger boost in certain applications/games.

 

hi.. i have the same problem that seaslorg has...so i would like to know if the core solo would be a good choice if im not into multi-tasking.
i am a gamer and i would like to know if the core solo with the nvidia 7800 is good enough to play all the new games in a good quality.

 

Well, I didn't get a chance to actually use a 1.66 solo with the 7800. If it came down to another laptop and this one due to budget constraints, I'd go with the 1.66 w/ the 7800. I don't think other laptops can come close to it's price/performance range.

If you want hypothetical performance numbers (for gaming) the 1.66 solo is equivalent to a desktop P4 2.8Ghz machine, roughly.

 

There is one thing that is getting blured here and that is Windows will spread processes as described across the number of processors in the computer but it will also do the same thing with threads (basicaly if the guy who wrote the thing broke it up into chunks of functionality which can run in parallel).

I have writen multi threaded applications and I can tell you that for something which is basically computing all the time if it is broken up like this and you have enough memory you will see a dramatic speed improvement. For singe threaded things like editing and the like a better choice is to get a faster single processor.

I assume that any game must be broken up this way like one thread rendering the next screen one thread figuring out how to kill you next one thread moving stuff etc. I would be surprised if it didn't make at least some difference.

 

It seems the core solo is essentially equivalent to a PM, which itself is a fine processor.

Standard applications like internet browsers and word processors don't benefit from more processing power unless you happen to be simultaneously running a lot of them. Gaming is GPU bottlenecked, and although CPU upgrades will benefit performance, they tend to do so marginally. I spend nearly all of my time doing one of these two, so for me, a core solo seems best.

The issue basically boils down to the value of money. I'm stingy (for reference, I never buy drinks at restaurants, only water). To me, the performance benefits of upgrading from a core solo to a core duo aren't worth 3 months of lunch, or other upgrades such as 2 GB RAM.

 

Well, ultimately its you're laptop. You get the final word and you get to live with the outcome. If you really don't see any value to Core Duo, and you can't bring you're self to stretch for it. Don't get it. Keep in mind the processors are the hardest part, if not impossible to upgrade. I know in a decision thats this big, knowing could afford it. I would go for each option I could get. MacDonalds is worse for you anyways.

 

Yeah games coded that way do take advantage of two processors. From what I understand most games will see only one processor and as such use it for instructions/processing. A few games, like Quake IV have optimizations for dual core CPU's yielding, according to them, about a 40-60% performance increase.

Also from one of the anandtech articles I understand that P-M have lower latency L2 cache compared to the duo/solo, so theortetically games would ran better on them. But because of SSE optimizations in duo/solo, games are 'supposed' to run better than their equivalent P-M counterparts.

 

i guess i will only use my laptop for playing the new games at good quality(not great just good enough), surfing in the web,and to watch movies...so i dont think it would be necessary to upgrade to the T2300...but i would like to know what do you think about this? do you think that this specifications will fulfill my needs?

intel core solo processor 1.66ghz
1 gb RAM
nvidia go 7800
60 gb of hard drive

 

You should be fine. The 7800 will help a lot.

 

Those specs look fine to me. But anything would fit my own needs. Maybe you should start over and fill out the FAQ at the top of the 'What Should I Buy" Forum. Maybe we can't find you some more options than a core solo E1705.