Core 2 DUO SU7300 vs Pentium Dual Core T4200

The title is wrong the correct one is SU7300 not SU9300

Core 2 DUO SU7300 (1,3Ghz, 800FSB, 3MB)
Pentium Dual Core T4200 (2Ghz, 800FSB, 1MB)

I have planed to buy a notebook with the same spec the different only from the processor between core 2 duo SU7300 and Pentium Dual Core T4200. I prefer to have core 2 duo SU7300 cos the battery life is much2 better than T4200. but I want to know how slow SU7300 than T4200 coz 2 Ghz and 1,3 Ghz is quite a lot even though SU7300 has L2 Cache 3MB.

thanks

 

It really depends on what you're planning on doing with it, but yes, the T4200 has about three times the processing power of the SU7300.

 

Depends if you are doing anything demanding, the SU7300 is no slouch its a capable CPU. I would go with the SU over a T series in any small notebook, 35w TDP vs 10w for the SU that says it all.

 

I have no idea where you're getting 2ghz 1mb cache is 3x performance of 1.3ghz 3mb cache. It should be better - but benchmarks only suggest a 10-25% difference between the two which sounds around right for the ~50% difference in clock speed and 1mb vs 3mb cache.

It's a capable CPU, both are 45nm and reasonably efficient - but it really depends what you want to do - if it's light on CPU or if batterylife / portability are more important then su7300 prob best // if you want alround experience and more options with gaming / cpu intensive tasks the t4200 is probably better

 

so u said that only 10-25% to 50% different speed between both of this ? and I heard L2 cache doesnt effect the speed of the software but affect for the game, more L2 cache more faster for the game, but not for sofware.

I prefer SU7300 but if the speed different is so large I think I will get T4200.
50% is quite a big different

 

No, he's saying that the clocked difference (50% clocked difference for 1.3 GHz to 2 GHz) will result in about a 10%-25% performance difference for everyday tasks.

 

Oh, nevermind. I thought it was a core 2 solo. However, an only 10-25% difference in processing power doesn't sound right. Cache really doesn't do much of anything other than in some very specialized tasks and in games. However, at such low clock speeds the cache difference doesn't affect anything because the transfer of data to the processor isn't the bottleneck. Both cpus use the exact same silicon, so performance would scale almost perfectly with clock speed at these frequency ranges, all else being equal.

 

Is the SU9300 = U9300? If so the T4200 is almost twice as fast, probably 35-40%.

 

doubt it is but if you want more processing power T4200 wins... if u want more battery life , SU9300 wins..

 

SU9300 does have quite a high overhead for overclocking though. Asus boosts it up to 1.6 or 1.7 (forgot which) in their UL line of laptops.

 

Based purely on clockspeeds - from 1.3ghz dualcore with su7300 to 2ghz with t4200 that's only ~50% potential improvement in speeds. And the 10-25% speed differences I quoted were from CPU benchmarks rather than games - but Intel C2D architecture is said to be very cache sensitive (or weighted) so I think the 10-25% less performance is a reasonable gauge given lower clocks but higher Cache.

Gaming performance is based on GPU as well as CPU so with some games you might not notice any difference between either CPU while others the differences might be a little more pronounced.

From my point of view, if they have similar specs (gpu / hdd / screen / etc) other than CPU then I'd go with su7300 as far better battery life and temps - room for overclocking if you can find the PLL (or have Asus Turbo33) and things like flash and videos can be or soon will be GPU accelerated where even the x4500hd should give reasonable performance for basic videos or flash with Adobe Flash 10.1.

 

Cache sensitive? There were a series of tests run on this that showed very marginal increases in performance for a boosted cache size. Something along the lines of a single digit % increase from a 2mb to a 4mb if I remember correctly.

 

At the very least there should be a performance difference equal to the clock speed difference.

Furthermore the SU is a single core versus the T4200 being a dual core which should cause a further performance difference. Not sure the amount but typically performance DOES NOT double when going to dual core.

 

Core 2 Duo, not Core 2 Solo.

I'd say that it should have an appreciable performance difference. A 700 Mhz jump in clockspeed is nothing to sneer at.

 

Sniveler - what are you planning to do with this notebook? What specific programs?

This is correct. See here for a detailed analysis:
http://xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/celeron-e1200_6.html#sect0
Overall cache doesn't matter a whole lot for the Core 2 processors.

 

Thanks Chaz, I couldn't for the life of me find that link again. I'll have to remember where it is.