C2D T8100 vs T7500 ?

Can someone tell me which is better. I checked out wikipedia and all the stats for the 7500 were better. Am I missing something here?

 

T8100 will be cooler while the cache may be smaller than the T7500. For laptops, the cooler solution will yield better results.

 

Plus the T8100 has extra SSE instructions (SSE 4.1?), and along with cooler solution, less power requirements.

 

http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php It's handy, dandy, and passed along from Andy. (bored)

 

What is SSE 4.1 ??

 

The correct answer is go with whichever is cheaper. The T8100 will benefit slightly from having more miniaturization (it is newer and has smaller parts), but the T7500 also benefits slightly from having better specs. Performance-wise they'll be neck and neck, if I had to choose one I'd choose T7500, and power-wise they'll also be neck and neck, and if I had to I'd choose T8100. But we're talking less than 5% difference here.

SSE 4.1 will only help in very media-intensive applications as SSE is a set of media-related instructions on the CPU. The T8100 may be a bit cooler as it has lower stated voltages, but Intel's stated voltages aren't the say all, end all - I'm running my processor below Intel's stated voltage range with no ill effects (translation: it depends on the individual CPU you get). As for power requirements, although both are stated at 35W, because of the lower voltages the T8100 may win out slightly.

I ought to do a case study on this, but heat shouldn't affect performance by a noticeable amount so long as you don't have overheating. I've yet to notice negative effects from higher temperatures on my CPU performance with temperatures well into the mid-80's Celsius at their highest points relative to when I run with upper 60's maximum temperatures.

If I had to choose one, I'd choose T7500 for the specs (granted, I'm a bit partial since I have one). But I suspect most would choose the T8100 since it is newer in terms of release date and should do marginally better power/heat wise.

Put it this way - would I trade my T7500 for a T8100 if it came at no cost, no time, and no risk of other damage? Nope, I wouldn't. And would I do the same trade for a T7500 if I had a T8100? Again, I wouldn't. They're just too close together in performance. Now a T7700 or a T8300, those are better enough than these to be worth choosing, although there's just as much of a quagmire as to which of those two is preferable.

 

I'd choose the T8100. Upgrade to the cheap option possible, although in my case I need my laptop to last me at least 4 years before getting a new one, so I'd say getting a 45nm is the right step to choose. 65nm processors in my opinion are just a thing of the past.

 

Honestly, for regular users, future proofing is just a marketing gimmick. My buddy uses his computer for all sorts of stuff with the exception of heavy graphic use and he is still rocking a 7 year old dell notebook. I bought my computer a year and a half ago and my processor is still top of the line.

That being said, I really don't know the future applications or advantages of 45nm compared to the disadvantages or limitations of the 65nm...

 

Honestly, you won't notice a huge difference in overall performance, unless you're running CPU intensive tasks all the time. T8100 and the T7500 perform almost the same.

And, unlike all previous SSEs, SSE4 contains instructions that execute operations which are not specific to multimedia applications.

And 45nm vs 65nm, in short, the CPU can have more L2 Cache, which is more like a boon for the CPU manufacturer rather than the end-user. You would have to pay more for a CPU with a larger L2 Cache.
Anyway, check out this small article on 45nm Technology.

Well future proofing/marketing gimmick, upgrading etc depends upon the tasks you run. I hardly run any intensive tasks, and I am happy with my 2 year old T5200 Notebook.

 

The T7500 is slightly more powerful than the T8100. You are comparing a 2.1Ghz processor to a 2.2Ghz processor. The T7500 will run a tad hotter but in the end it will perform better than the T8100 with its higher clock speed.
As otehrs mentioned you will only see a difference in performance if you are running software which requires 100% cpu power. Both are good processors, just get which ever is cheaper.

K-TRON