Core 2 Duo 1.66GHz vs 1.83GHz, how much difference?

I just want to know the difference between these 2 speeds when it comes to gaming... Please don't gimme the charts with SDmark because I don't understand those. How noticable is the processor speed between these 2 speeds if I decide to play BF2142 with the same set up?

 

If you play Battlefiled 2142, the difference will be pretty much nothing. A game is more dependant on the graphics card. Even a bsaic Core 2 Duo can game quite well, provided it is coupled to plenty of RAM and a good graphics card.

The difference will present itself, if you are doing heavy encoding or video rendering. Those types of applications and tasks are heavy on the processer, and so in that case, the Core 2 Duo 1.83 GHz would be a little faster. Bear in mind, if you were comparing a Core 2 Duo 1.66 GHz with a Core 2 Duo 2.00 GHz (T7200), then the 2.00 GHz would be a fair bit faster. The extra cache of the T7200 would help it a bit.

 

go with the 1.83 is much faster around 20% faster.

 

This isn't the case under a gaming cirumstance. The graphics card is more important there, and the processer won't matter. They will perform. This 20% performance increase was an initial number given by Intel, which didn't hold true, when comparing the T5X00 models or the T7X00. If you compare a T5X00 with a T7X00, only then will this hold any truism.

 

I agree with what Zero said. But realize that as time goes on, more games will be taking advantage of multiple cores. So having a faster processor is not a bad idea to plan for the future, so ensure that you'll run the games as they're supposed to run. Graphics card is definitely first though. A 1.66 wont be much different than a 1.83 if you've only got an X1400, but if you've got a 7900GTX, then you definitely should get the faster processor to complement it.

 

What is more important then speed on a core 2 duo is cache.

IMO, either get the lowest core 2 duo or the lowest 4 meg cache core 2 duo...

 

Actually, it isn't. The 2MB vs. 4MB does not make that much of a difference.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=4

What are the full specifications of the system you are looking at?

 

Dell Inspiron 6400
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo processor T5500 (2MB Cache/1.66GHz/667MHz FSB)
Genuine Windows® XP Media Center Edition 2005
15.4 inch Wide Screen XGA Display with TrueLife™
2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHZ, 2 DIMM
120GB 5400rpm SATA Hard Drive
8X CD/DVD Burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
256MB ATI MOBILITY™ RADEON® X1400 HyperMemory™
85 WHr 9-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery

This is the system. Also I was wondering, about the 5400 rpm hard drive vs. 7200rpm SATA Hard Drive. Is the upgrade here noticable for gaming performance?

Thanks for all the help so far, you guys are great.

 

If you have the extra cash, you might as well go for the T5600 1.83GHz CPU, but if not, then getting the T5500 isn't going to hurt you.

See here for your hard drive question, in the FAQ at the bottom:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=39568

 

Oh i want the t5600, but that would cost $200 on dell's canadian website... lol...

The inspiron 6400 which lets you customize the processer is at regular price and the other inspiron 6400 which processer isn't customizable (t5500) is on sale. It's a shame because the upgrade is only $50. Stupid Dell..

http://www1.ca.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/nb_6400?c=ca&cs=CADHS1&l=en&s=dhs

 

I've seen reviews where the differences are 10%. Either way, 5-10% is ALOT better then the extreme minimal differences you'll get with a 1.83 ghz chip.

BTW, I would at the least get a x1400. YOU DO NOT want a 950 integrated card.

 

Another question, how important is the ram speed?

533MHZ vs 667MHZ.

It seems like alot to upgrade to 667 ram, but is it worth it? Minimal or significant improvement in gaming proformance?

 

The difference between 533 MHz and 667 MHz is very minimal. Memory clocked at 667 Mhz has a slightly longer latency than 533 MHz, so the time taken to access it, counteracts that of the extra frequency in the first place. Also, in most places 667 MHz costs alot more than the standard 533 MHz RAM.

 

Keep in mind that a 10% difference, as illustrated in the review I linked, is only in specific instances - you won't see 10% everywhere. As a matter of fact, in some places you'll see 0% (that is extreme too though, to be fair). To better understand the performance difference, I created a histogram. See attached.

As you can see, the data is skewed to the right - that means the mean, or average performance difference was pulled up by the higher values. Most of the data values are on the left - aka, most applications see a small performance difference. A 5% and up difference only occurs a few times. Most applications lie below a 4% difference. Now, if this distribution was skewed to the left (basically take the opposite of what you see - more data values on the right), then yes, the 4MB version would be worth considering more.

Of course, @ the person deciding between a 2MB and 4MB Core 2 Duo - take a look at the benchmarks I linked to and see what soft of performance differences exist in applications you will be using. If the difference is upwards of 5-7%, then you might as well go for the 4MB version. Most people are not going to notice the difference between the two processors.