C2D really that much better than CD?

is the Core 2 Duo really that much better than the Core Duo processors?

From all the benchmarks I have seen from the C2D and CD in the same price range, the Core Duo performs better.
Say the T2450 compared to the T5300, as Notebooks with these processors are roughly in the same price range, with the T5300 roughly more expensive say about $100.
It is worth it?

 

both chips are more or less equal but one supports 64-bit better than the other and is more power efficient i think.

 

not especially, the yonah (c2) line is pretty much the same as the conroe (c2d)..power consumption, processing, bootup etc.....santa rosa the newer version of the intel core line might have faster FSB and slightly faster clock speeds.....not a ton more though that you notice unless you have that kinda need

 

If you have a choice yes. If not and you want the best C2D, if on a budget consider AMD. Always check out GPU/IGP do not get GMA 950!

 

The Core 2 Duo has up to 20% higher performance (read: 10% boost) than the Core Duo, while it is slightly more power efficient. IMO, it is generally best to by second-generation hardware, so the Core 2 Duo is the best choice.

 

In your case, both CPU would perform extremely similarly. Although the T2450 is an older generation, it runs faster (2.0ghz versus 1.73Ghz) which compensates for its lower processing power compared to the T5300.

I don't think it's worth spending an extra 100$ for almost no gain in performance, unless you consider 64-bit feature of the Core 2 Duo an important feature.

 

Thanks for the insight, that is what I was thinking but it is nice to have someone else echo your thoughts.