C2D T7250 vs Turion X2 TL-56 (heat wise)

Which one you guys think will produce more heat? T7250 (2.0GHz) or TL-56 (1.8Ghz). Also, I'm almost sure that the C2D even at a higher clock will save more battery, but can anyone confirm me this?
Thanks!

 

The Core 2 Duo processor will get slightly better battery life, providing the rest of the specifications for the notebooks are the same. Heat will depend on the cooling, as some notebooks are cooler than others. However, temperatures are normally the same on either side. Some have cooler Core 2 Duo's, and some have cooler AMD processors.

 

Get the 7200rpm drive, 200mhz is almost nothing but a faster hard drive will show.

 

I believe the TL-56 is still on 90nm. If it's on 65nm I'd say power consumption would be about the same. That being said, the Core 2 architecture is more efficient per clock than the K8 - so that 200Mhz is more than just 200Mhz. THAT being said, any modern dual-core processor will handle just about any task you throw at it short of high-end gaming and massive multimedia work without breaking a sweat.

7200 RPM hard dries are nice.

 

They are. Much better, in my opinion, than a better CPU. Why would you upgrade the fastest component in your system when others spend 99% of their time waiting for the hard drive to turn out data. I would recommend spending the money on a faster drive.

 

I heard that the 250gb wd's keep up with the 7200rpm drives, is that true?

 

A 250GB 5400RPM drive would keep up with an 80-100GB drive in many sorts of reads, especially peak transfer rate. There is a 200GB 7200RPM notebook drive, though, and nothing on the notebook side can touch that.

 

TL-56 have been made on both 90nm (until about 6/07) and 65nm (as of about 6/07) the older ones are still working their way through the supply chain. So if you can check which, 90nm is 33W 65nm is 31W. And yes I believe C2D is better on battery.

 

Yeh, do you think i should spend more money on a 160gb 7200rpm than a 250gb 5400rpm? for a lappy wit 1.6ghz!

 

It is 1.8Ghz. If I needed 250GB I would get lf not 160 @7200

 

Is there any real speed difference?

 

BigBoy92 as said before, on some throughput the 250GB @5400 might hang with 160GB @7200 but the @7200 is going to have a faster Random Access which for much HDD usage is more important, everything is not large file transfers. So when you go to your HDD for several relatively small amounts of info the @7200 has the speed advantage. Here is a link to compare many aspects of certain HDD's if the 2 you are looking at are there check out Link.

 

Im just wandering does the price justify the difference in performance?

 

Remember that the processor is going to spend the vast majority of its time at 800MHz - 1000MHz on battery, not its full clockspeed. The Intel is better at managing power and that is why it gets better battery life. The maximum clockspeed has basically nothing to do with the battery life.

Definitely go for the Core 2 Duo.

I would say there is a speed difference between the 250GB 5400RPM and the 160GB 7200RPM. The latter will have much better access times as noted. If you don't need the extra space then go for more speed, it pays off in performance.

 

Alright thanks Chaz.

 

Guys, thats not what this threads about. He wants to save (battery) power, not gain speed. Recommending a faster hdd drive isn't very good advice in that case.

 

Thank's Chaz. Jumping on the thread with your laser blasters! I thought we gave good advice.