1.83 vs 2.00 ghz

hi guys!
i wanna noe whether there is any significant differnce in perfomance between the two c2d processors

 

It depends on what you want to do with the processor. If the notebooks for simple tasks like surfking the Internet and word processing, then go for the 1.83 Ghz model (T5600). It should cost less than the 2.00 Ghz. But if you are using the processor for encoding and other processor intensive applications, then go with the 2.00 Ghz (T7200). It performs better than the T5600 and also has more cache, which helps in certain tasks. Hople this helps.

 

ill be using it for games and simple tasks like surfing the Internet and word processing

 

In that case, the T5600 should be fine. It can game quite well, as cache doesn't really get used in gaming. Nothing really to powerful is needed for word processing/Internet either.

 

There is not a significant difference, no. I doubt most people would ever notice. Even benchmarks will not be that different.

 

Not true. But you're right, there won't be a big performance difference between the two in any case.

 

Unless you will be doing tasks that require full usage of one or both of the cores all the time for a period of time (such as MP3 encoding), or you will be running a 64 bit OS, you won't see much of a performance increase.

 

My suggestion is go for the 2.0Ghz model.

 

why?any reason

 

how would these C2D processors compare to their Desktop counterparts, does the 1.8GHZ model compare to a Core 2 Duo (Desktop) running at 1.8GHZ, or are the notebooks ones more/less efficient?

 

The notebook Core 2 Duos (Merom) are the same chip as the desktop ones (Conroe), but the Meroms are optimized for saving power and also have a slower 667MHz FSB. The desktop ones are faster, yes, but not by much and both are bloody fast. I would say that the Merom and Conroe are basically comparable based on clockspeed alone (aka 1.83GHz T5600 = 1.83GHz E6300), although like I said, the Conroe is going to be a bit faster. Not noticeably so though, at least from what I can tell.

 

I decided to get the 2.0 because I'll be doing a bit of everything with the laptop. Gaming, Word, Web, Photoshop and the odd short video.

Also 2.0 is a sexier number than 1.83 . Heehee.

 

The 2.0Ghz model has a higher clock speed and a larger cache = better performance.

 

guys, what about getting a non Core Duo processor?

i m thinking of getting a laptop, and I will be using it mainly for surfing the net, Vs.NET coding, light photoshop, and playing WoW

do i really need a C2Duo ? or will a normal single CPU be enough for those tasks? please keep in mind that i would like it to be running Vista eventually!

sorry for hijaking the thread but I think they are very similar concerns with those of the OP

 

single core processors can do all those tasks you listed

there will be a vista version which can be handled by 32 bit processors, but you won't get all the good stuff vista has to offer

 

My guess is that, for a vast majority of the applications one runs in Windows, there isn't really going to be a significant, visual difference in load times or application speed between 1.83 and 2.00 ghz. If you are doing benchmarks, the numbers may be different, of course.

 

Don't be scared off by Turions or Turion X2s, they are fine processors as well, and if you can get a well-configured system with one you wouldn't notice much of a difference for the things you listed.