The Notebook Review forums were hosted by TechTarget, who shut down them down on January 31, 2022. This static read-only archive was pulled by NBR forum users between January 20 and January 31, 2022, in an effort to make sure that the valuable technical information that had been posted on the forums is preserved. For current discussions, many NBR forum users moved over to NotebookTalk.net after the shutdown.
Problems? See this thread at archive.org.

    Core 2 Duo 3.06GHz vs Core i7 1.7GHz

    Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by hendra, Dec 12, 2009.

  1. hendra

    hendra Notebook Virtuoso

    Reputations:
    157
    Messages:
    2,020
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    56
    hendra, Dec 12, 2009
    #1
  2. ramgen

    ramgen -- Morgan Stanley --

    Reputations:
    513
    Messages:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Hmm. I should be a physics professor to answer this question... :rolleyes:



    --
     
    ramgen, Dec 12, 2009
    #2
  3. Bog

    Bog Losing it...

    Reputations:
    4,018
    Messages:
    6,046
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    206
    If both were using an equivalent cooling system, the Core 2 Duo would indeed run cooler.

    Edit: whoops, I thought I read TDP instead of TDW. Sorry.
     
    Bog, Dec 12, 2009
    #3
  4. sean473

    sean473 Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    613
    Messages:
    6,705
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    yes it will run a little cooler but if u need performance , u need to loose some battery life.... get the core i7... it is better and almost 2 times faster... and will give better performance for longer..
     
    sean473, Dec 12, 2009
    #4
  5. thinkpad knows best

    thinkpad knows best Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    108
    Messages:
    1,140
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    twice as fast as a 3GHz+ C2D? 1.7GHz i7 is equivalent to that? Are you sure? If so then wow that new architecture is finally not just an incremental difference like Core Duo to Core 2 Duo.
     
    thinkpad knows best, Dec 12, 2009
    #5
  6. Tinderbox (UK)

    Tinderbox (UK) BAKED BEAN KING

    Reputations:
    4,740
    Messages:
    8,513
    Likes Received:
    3,823
    Trophy Points:
    431
    According to a certain benchmark :D , a T9900 gets 2342 points and a i7 820 1.7ghz gets 3961 points.
     
    Tinderbox (UK), Dec 12, 2009
    #6
  7. Amnesiac

    Amnesiac 404

    Reputations:
    1,312
    Messages:
    3,433
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Like Mr Sean473 said, the Core i7 will be a lot faster. It also has Speedstep, which means that if an application only requires a single thread, the single core devoted to that application will be pushed up to 3Ghz, allowing for much faster processing.

    Also, just to give you an idea of what it's like, the Core i7-820QM (which is the model you mentioned) performs almost the same as the Core 2 Quad Extreme Edition QX9300, which comes in at 2.53Ghz. With more applications that use more than one thread these days, you will be more "futureproof", with a Core i7.

    Sorry if I sound like a salesman. :D
     
    Amnesiac, Dec 12, 2009
    #7
  8. ramgen

    ramgen -- Morgan Stanley --

    Reputations:
    513
    Messages:
    1,322
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    55
    ramgen, Dec 12, 2009
    #8
  9. jenesuispasbavard

    jenesuispasbavard Notebook Evangelist

    Reputations:
    51
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    31
    And another:
    Core 2 Duo T9600 @ 3.10 GHz = 8.96 / 4299 kN/s
     
    jenesuispasbavard, Dec 12, 2009
    #9
  10. sleey0

    sleey0 R.I.P. AW Side Topics

    Reputations:
    1,870
    Messages:
    7,976
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Yup.

    With Turbo in the i7, it will smoke the C2D, especially in multicore or threaded apps.
     
    sleey0, Dec 12, 2009
    #10
  11. moral hazard

    moral hazard Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    2,779
    Messages:
    7,957
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    216
    What about a 4ghz C2D?
    Is it going to be close to any i7?
     
    moral hazard, Dec 12, 2009
    #11
  12. BrandonSi

    BrandonSi Notebook Savant

    Reputations:
    571
    Messages:
    1,444
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    If you're all interested in Fritz benchmarks, you can see my thread here (results in the first post). It's got a number of C2D and Quads (Qxxx and i7).

    http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?p=5363054

    I don't have a 4GHz C2D listed, but the highest C2D score was by theriko..

    9.82 / 4713 - X9000 3.5GHz

    For any properly-threaded benchmark, a C2D won't come very close to even the slowest quad-core. For example, a Q9000 (which I believe is the weakest quad-core available) still beats the fastest C2D (X9000) at 11.1 / 5328. The slowest i7 I had was a 720QM, 12.12 / 5818.
     
    BrandonSi, Dec 12, 2009
    #12
  13. sean473

    sean473 Notebook Prophet

    Reputations:
    613
    Messages:
    6,705
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    anyways to really compare , we need a better benchmark then the fritz chess one... but the bottomline is that core i7 is better... especially in multi-threaded apps with the HT and 8 threads....
     
    sean473, Dec 13, 2009
    #13
  14. davepermen

    davepermen Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    2,972
    Messages:
    7,788
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    the more cores, the more "ready" the system will always be. and that gives much to the feeling of having a fast system, unimportant which one is faster.

    BUT if you have a quadcore that gets 100% utilised, it will perform @ around 2x the speed than an identical clocked, same chiptype dualcore.

    so the i7 quad would be identical at full load like an i5 (with 2 cores, 4 threads) at 3.4ghz.

    and as the i7 has a much newer architecture (and hyperthreads) compared to the c2d, it gains even more speed. in best cases, i guess it beats a 4ghz c2d :)
     
    davepermen, Dec 13, 2009
    #14