Core 2 Duo: T5500 vs Core Duo: T2250 (FSB vs Clock speed)

So besides the 64 bit, the only difference I can find between is the two mentioned processors is the FSB (T5500: 667MHz, T2250: 533MHz) and clock speed (T5500: 1.66GHz, T2250: 1.73GHz).

Which one would perform better (What's more important... FSB, or Clock speed)? Battery life?


Thanks everyone!

 

There are architectural changes on the Core 2 Duo which make it faster than the Core Duo. Its not just the FSB, 64 bit or the clock speed that matters. Search the web for articles if you want to learn more about the changes. So, the T5500 would be better in tersm of performance than the T2250. Battery life would also be the same and any differences will be negligible.

 

Agree.

The T5500 will be a much better performing processor, and definitely more future proof. Power consumption is said to be about 10% less.

 

I'm not convinced about the lower power consumption of the T5500. The datasheets on the Intel website suggest that the C2Ds use more power than the CDs, but the info is very general. In theory, the faster FSB will also result in higher power drain.

John

 

t5500 is much faster, 64-bit, and has a 667FSB.

 

It largely depnds on what tasks will be done on the computer, which will determine which performs faster. In normaly tasks, such as surfing the Internet and word processing, both perform the same, because the processors speed is not used in those cicumstances. In other tasks like encoding and video editing, it will depend. The clockspeed of the T2250 will give it an advantage, but if the FSB gets saturated, then it will fall behind the T5500 which is also a little faster, because of the architecture.

64-bit will make quite a difference, when programs are released in large numbers and are readily available to the consumer, but at the moment, it has no benefit. Considering that, I would suggest to go for the T5500, because it is newer and more future-proofed.

 

I assume you're referring to the TDP's listed by Intel? Keep in mind that those are not representative for the power consumption at all.
They are no more than an upper bound on how much heat is generated (and sometimes, not even an upper bound since Intel likes to report artificially low TDP's. And I get the impression that the Core 2's TDP is a lot more realistic than the one reported for the original Core)
So while the Core 2 has a (slightly) higher TDP, it may not run hotter or require more power. True about the FSB though. That is an extra power drain.

 

My reference is the processor DC Specifications (Section 3.10 of the datasheets) which give the Amps required under different processor states including sleep, etc. The C2Ds have higher currents. I agree the TDP represents an upper limit. It can usually be significantly reduced by undervolting (see my Q35 review) but there is nothing we can do about the current drain when the CPU is idle. That said, I suspect that the T7xxx series with the bigger cache draw more current than the T5XXX series, but this is not reflected in the datasheet.

John

 

Cool, thanks a lot guys, I went ahead and got the T5500.

 

No, that is not correct. Read the link below:

From http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/mobile/display/core2duo.html
"In addition, I would also like to say that higher performance of the Core 2 Duo processors is not free and results in higher power consumption. As a result, mobile platforms equipped with Core 2 Duo processors run slightly less on battery than the systems featuring Core Duo inside. However, I have to be fair here: the performance improvement is still higher than the power consumption loss.

In conclusion, I would like to point out again that the arrival of mobile Core 2 Duo processors will not cause any revolutionary changes in the notebook market. Especially, since Intel is not updating the entire platform just yet, but offers to use new CPUs in the old Napa platform. So, if you already have a Napa based notebook with the dual-core Core Duo CPU, there is hardly any real need to upgrade.

A for the real revolution in the mobile market, we should wait for the next spring, when the expanded Core 2 Duo processor family with higher frequency models in it will acquire a new chipset with better integrated graphics and Robson technology, as well as a new wireless network component with higher data transfer rate."

 

If you had bothered highlighting the whole the sentence rather that just selectively quoting me. From the xbitlabs article the average battery life differences between the C2D & the CD they tested is around 7 minutes & the max difference being 8%. I dont know about you but that definately falls into the negligible category in my book.

 

Skagen,

It's a matter of perspective here. Note the processors we're comparing in this thread (different clock speeds - Core 2 Duo lower) as opposed to that article (same clock speed). Generally, Core 2 Duo provides more performance per watt. You can pick a lower power-consuming, lower clocked Core 2 Duo and still win against a Core Duo.

In fact, if you look at Anand's article that essentially does the same thing, you'll note that Core 2 Duo actually lasts longer or is equivalent to Core Duo at the same clock speed - so essentially, the battery life difference is negligible, but the performance difference is not. With respect to FSB speed, I doubt you'll see any real difference either...

Zero - please note that due to the architectural advantages of Core 2 Duo, even with a slightly lower clock speed, it is likely to win over Core Duo in any situation. If the clock speed difference exceeds 10% or so, then there might be an argument there.

 

Good find Mystic Image, I was looking at that article earlier, and didn't notice they were the same clock speed.

 

Depends on your usage. For most people laptops are really moveable desktops and are always tethered.

However 8% of additional run time could be quite a lot for people who utraportables. I am not talking about 4.5lb units with C2Due and 2 hour battery life that many manufacturers claim are "ultraportable", but rather ttrue ultraportables below 3.5lbs some below even 3lbs.

For such units the idea is long run-time without a charge and there 8% is quite meaningful.

Note also that just about all makers of true ultraportables have declined to put the Core2Duo in their machines, preferring to wait for the ULV version of it that will be combined with Intel's new graphics and wireless chip.

So that if the laptop designers for whom battery life is a prime issue are avoiding this chip, and waiting for a update, that tells me what I need to know.

 

You seem to like comparing apples and oranges... the ultraportables out there are using Core Duo because there's a ULV version of that chip, while it isn't available for Core 2 Duo yet; it's not that they're 'avoiding' the use of this chip because its design inherently uses a lot more power - because it doesn't.

If you saw Anand's benchmarks, you'd have gotten the idea that Core 2 Duo actually uses less power than Core Duo. If you average the results from Xbitlabs and Anand, you essentially get a battery life difference of 0 and a performance increase from Core 2 Duo... the 8% difference doesn't exist. If you don't trust Anand and believe Xbitlabs only, then that's a different matter.

On another note, the LV (not ULV) Core 2 Duo chips are shipping now, so you should see them in some smaller laptop designs in the near future. Their power specs definitely match up well with the current Core Duo LV chips...