Comparing to ULV processors

I currently have an old Core 2 Duo T7100 @ 1.8 GHz with 2 gb of DDR2 ram. I have been looking at getting a new computer soon and Ultrabooks have looked promising. I do not play anything other than flash games or older games so I do not need a powerful computer.

How does my current Core 2 Duo T7100 compare against sandy bridge I5 and I7 ULV processors (I know IVB ULV have not been released)?

 

Almost all SB/IB LV and ULV processors should be faster than a T7100.

 

The new i5/i7 ULV's are faster than your old C2D.

However, ultrabooks also tend to sacrifice portability, durability, battery life, connectivity, and ergonomics compared to traditional ultraportables like the Thinkpad X220, Dell E6220, and HP 2560p, while not really being noticeably more portable. Unless you specifically want a thin laptop, my suggestion would be a Thinkpad X220 or similar laptops.

 

For most uses it's the hard drive, not the CPU, that's the performance bottleneck. Most tasks don't push the CPU enough to notice a difference. A faster hard drive or SSD, might be a better performance.

 

I assumed they would be faster since it is 5 years old now. When using a ULV processor with a SSD and 4+ GB of ram what normal tasks will I notice a slowdown doing?

I ask because my brother got a netbook 2 years ago with an Atom processor and it seemed to take forever to get the simplest things done on that computer.

 

To give you an example, my R60e often "feels" faster than my X220i, though the CPU is five years older. It's because it runs Linux, which is lighter weight than Windows, and has a good SSD. My guess would be that your brothers netbook had a slower 5400RPM drive, which is why it seemed slow. It's really only CPU intensive tasks like coding video for example where the better CPU will shine. For every day stuff like Office, listening to music or Internet, there will be little perceptible difference.

I don't know what notebook you have now, but I'd toss in a SSD and see how it goes. If you can't live the space limitations of a SSD, the Seagate Momentus XT is worth a look. It's a hard drive with a flash drive slapped on. Once it figures your usage patterns, it offers near SSD performance. Plus, you've got a lot more space left over.

 

+1 Zaz's SSD comment.

Can consider a side step by upgrading to say a 12" Lenovo X200/X201, HP 2530P- or Dell E4200^/E4300 ultraportable. In many ways they are superior to ultrabooks, eg: 16:10 LCDs, expresscard slots, matte LCDs, WWAN slots, more durable build, some have optical drives and 9-cell battery options; all while costing a lot less in the s/h market. The best units still with remaining onsite warranty. Just note the following:

- uses a 1.8" microSATA primary drive and pricier DDR2 RAM
^ uses a 1.8" uSATA specific E4200 SSD card

As for battery life:

2nd gen i-core (SB) > undervolted Core2Duo 45nm > 1st gen i-core (Arrandale)

 

I had Linux running on the NetBook. Not sure what speed the hdd was but it was probably 5400.

As for upgrading my laptop that is a lost cause. The screen feel off (both hinges broke), the battery lasts 5 min, and the fan is always on and super loud.

 

Well then, I think a new notebook is in order. I would echo what others have said, for most uses you won't be able to tell a difference between an ULV CPU and standard voltage CPU performance wise.

 

I like the Acer Aspire Timeline Ultra M3 though I'd like a 14" version with a 1600x900 screen (or 1080p). Lets me do what I want and get good battery life but also has a descrete graphics card to handle a little gaming.

 

An Atom CPU will absolutely be the bottleneck in your brother's netbook, and an ULV i5/i7 would absolutely feel faster and more responsive than a T7100. Sure you can put an SSD into an older laptop to make it faster, but it defeats the purpose if that means bottlenecking everything else.

The ULV i5 in my M11x feels just as fast as the quad-core i7 in my G73, but overall it's faster because it's using a Crucial M4 SSD opposed to a 7200RPM 320GB WD black.

New tech > old tech, every time. Don't rely on clock rates or number of cores, because they simple don't correlate between new & old tech.

 

I wasn't worried about clock rates and I was fairly certain that it would be better. Just didn't know how well the ULV processors compared against older processors that weren't as energy efficient.