Dell Core 2 Duo fever - but why ?

(hopefully this message doesn't get tucked away in a quiet corner by the sysop...)

I'd like to solve this whole <echo>Core 2 Duo</echo> thing for once and for all.
Ok, so Dell has been starting to use the C2D chip in some of their configurations.
Right now, they way they're pricing it, you can't really get any "deal" on a C2D system, and you end up spending quite a bit more money to get it.
People seem to go all mushy and the <echo>Core TWO duo</echo> fever is catching on, and people are treating the <boo>Core ONE duo</boo> chip like it has the coodies...

Look at the review right here on this website, about the e1505. It says it gets an about 10% (that TEN) percent speed increase. That's *NOT* a whole lot folks! That would means that a 2 GHz C1D would run FASTER than a 1.66 GHz C2D!

Don't believe Intel's yack for split second either. In real life, please leave it up to the normal ordinary laptop reviewers to find the *real* numbers. It's *very* simple. Run identical systems with different chips side by side, and see what happens.
Look at those super pi numbers. I'm comparing numbers from the 2 reviews of the e1505 (c2d & c1d ones).
1:02 vs 1:16 is a 23% increase. But look how the c2d is using 667 memory, and the c1d is using 533 memory.
Let's take the numbers from the e1705 review. Again, it's got 533 memory.
1:12. So the e1705 is about 6% faster than an equivalent e1505.
I'm probably missing something. But I'm trying to prove this C2D vs C2D thing.

So I can't seem to find any reviews that test a 2GHz C1D with 667 memory.

Here's something: Alienware Area-51 2.33GHz C2D 0:56.
So scale that down to a 2GHz (unscientific) = about 1:05.

Anyway. All these numbers are all awfully close together.

I do *NOT* think it's worth getting all hyper about. The C2D is a bit faster, not by that much. It's not worth shelling out 100's and 100's of extra $'s in my opinion.

If anyone is interested, we can get a little further with all this, round up some other numbers and evaluate this thing a little more accurate... Anyone?

 

Full Windows Vista support. People are futureproofing themselves. Plain and simple, if you want the full Windows Vista experience you need to have 64bit processing. Not only that but if you examine pricing, you aren't paying much of a premium at all on equally clocked cpu's. the 2.0ghz Core Duo's were about the same price premium as the Core 2 Duo's.

This is the VERY FIRST mobile intel product that has 64bit support. Ever. So with it being brand new technology and a baby step forward, it's one of those "I CAN FINALLY SPEND SOME MONEY" moments. If I can wager a guess, a lot of people are like me and they like to get on board of technology right around and after the time it's updated, not when it's about to be updated.

For weeks it's been speculated when these brand new fancy chips would come out. It kept a lot of people from buying a laptop just to see exactly what was going on with these cpu's. Now they see they're slightly better performance, have better compatability, and are not super overpriced, a lot of people who were holding out are finally saying "OK YA GOT ME!".

 

So you really want Vista? (Really?). XP Pro and Home are in there prime right now, and Vista is nothing but a bunch of graphical extras. I for sure will not switch as XP Home is great right now, and Linux will probably come on to my machine in some time.

To your 64-bit question, there are not really any programs at the moment now that fully utilize that capability, and even if you futureproof, the next and greatest will come out.(Santa Rosa anyone). Either Core Duo is just as good, so you wont be outdated for sometime.

I made the switch from a 1st gen P4 and went with Yonah, since I knew at anytime I could upgrade to Merom. That capability was one of the best things I ever did as it allows to prolong the life of my notebook easily.

 

I concur completely with digitaltrav. It's not about the crazy better performance, it's about 64-bit, Vista, and the price. On the M90, the Core 2 Duo upgrades are the same price as the Yonah upgrades. Why wouldn't you get a Merom? Even if I had to pay more, I'd get it. 64-bit may not be great or even useful now, but it will be in the future. It's not like going to faster, dual-core processors, it's moving to an entirely different platform. 64 bit apps won't run on 32-bit chips. All apps will run on a single core processor, or a slower processor (provided it's not like 8 years old). But 64-bit apps will only run on 64-bit chips and 64-bit OS'. Vista is at heart a 64-bit OS. Yeah, Santa Rosa will be coming out and will be better, but that won't make the Merom obsolete. Merom will still be dual-core and 64-bit and will run apps for years to come, including the next-gen 64-bit apps. Yonah will not. So why not pay a VERY small premium?

@Bhatman. I just want to ask if you've used Vista. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume you haven't, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Vista is not merely a UI upgrade of XP. That's what it may appear to be at first glance, and that may be it's downfall. But it's about more than that. It's got integrated search, better usability and different organization (sometimes good, sometimes bad), a multi-user OS, more security... it's not a glass window border around XP's kernel. If it were, it wouldn't have taken them 6 years to get it out.

 

Most people like keeping technology around for a few years.

I'd say a year from now, there is a good chance that there will be a feature or two somewhere in Vista that will make most users want to upgrade. Sure it's a lot of graphical candy coating, but there are some useful additions under the hood as well. SuperFetch, ReadyBoost, Windows Backup, Improved Search, Sidebar/Gadgets, Improved Security, and plenty of others. All that with a candy coat slathered ontop of it.

Now, you are right about 64bit computing. Most applications aren't using it, and that is because there isn't a mainstream OS to run those applications on. 64bit XP was a failure from the start. The driver support wasn't there at all, and getting most computers working with XP64 would require more than your "average" computer user. Vista64 is going to be coming STANDARD on many many many many many systems you buy from the store. If you go to the best buy sales floor a year from now, you'd likely be hard pressed to find many 32bit versions of vista being demo'd. This is the kind of exposure 64bit computing needs to get the applications written to take advantage of them however possible.

Not only will Vista64 be mainstream, but it will include features that the 32bit counterpart doesn't, for example High Deffinition video playback.

64bit computing might not be a huge leap forward, but if you don't have it, you are left in the dark. It's either there or it isn't. Compatible or incompatible. Santa Rosa will indeed be awesome, but you won't find Windows Vista Santa Rosa edition tho.

 

Like Microsoft is really going to say no to all those 32 bit customers out there.

Vista will just run fine on 32 bit.

Not worth the extra $500. $500 is the difference I'd have to pay now to get a 9400 (e1705) with the same options as the "deal" I'm dealing with.

 

And what features exactly will not work on a 32 bit cpu?

 

Right now, before the OS has even launched it's been announced that High Deffinition video playback will not be supported on 32bit systems. That means all the media technology behind HD-DVD and BluRay, and even HDTV recordings .. which admitidly means little for the laptop user. However, if its a few months out and we're ALREADY hearing about a feature that will be 64-bit only, you can bet Microsoft will start letting it slip that there are more of these gems.

See, Microsoft benifits from making Vista 64-bit only feature sets. They keep the majority of their back-customers satisfied by being able to run the new OS, but provide an insentive to go buy new hardware. New hardware which will make Vista run better, and hence, make it seem like it's Microsoft's Vista causing the performance increases. To the average computer user, they view "Windows" as their computer. They don't see the two as seperate entities. When there is hardware that makes their computer run great, they see that as "ooo this new windows is fast!".

So right now the simple answer to your question is HiDef video playback, but expect more.

 

You give an interesting point of view. I have the same cinicism.

At any rate, I'm a Linux guy. I really don't like Microsoft, the company, or Windows. I program in java on that on Linux. I'm not sure if I'm even going to boot XP once when my system arrives.
I really enjoy Linux, it gives me so much power. You should see the kind of network stuff you can do through it - there is just simply no way in hell you could possibly do that sort of stuff in Windows. I'm an advanced user, I like control, so Linux works incredibly well for me.

To play video, I normally use mplayer - which has all the mpeg stuff. To play the wmv format, what they do, is they rip the windows dll, wrap an api emulation layer around it, and run it that way. The European court is about to *force* Microsoft to finally relinquish their stupid video algorithms, so the Linux gurus will soon be able embed that code, rather than having to 'borrow' those dll's.

Anyway. I think that a year from now, I'll simply buy a Merom, and change the chip in my 9400/e1705, upgrade the bios, and get 64 bit that way.
To get 64 bit now will cost me $500 CDN, which is just too much.
The performance improvement is only 10 to 15 ish percent.
I'm a coder, so most of the time, the cpu is waiting for me to press the next key. I'm doing a combination of Java and Machine Language, which will have to remain 32 bit for the time being.

 

Keep in mind that the performance improvement with a Merom comes from running the processor --at 100%--. There will be no difference doing anything else. Most people will never use the full power of one of their CPU cores anyway, let alone both.

The Core 2 Duo improves over the Core Duo in rendering/encoding, and floating point calculations by the above stated 10-20%. Gaming performance is virtually the same (most laptops are GPU-limited anyway, so it doesn't matter even if the C2D was faster there), and general productivity is very similar. You should not expect to see a performance difference by getting a Core 2 Duo over a regular Core Duo, it is simply not worth a signifigant amount of extra money if you have to shell it out - not to deter anyone from getting a Core 2 - if you want one, go for it.

If you have any benchmarks you'd like, let me know. I am going to move this thread to the hardware section because it will be more useful there.

 

I saw this story too, over at Engadget (I think). I also saw the retraction that was posted about six hours later. I certainly wouldn't let rumours dictate my business decisions.

I found this article over at BetaNews which should clarify matters.

 

Why would someone go to Vista when the capability is already there. I know people who still run on Win98, and are perfectly happy with it(dunno why). Unless Vista comes to what it says to be, "one of the safest Microsoft operating systems", then it might be looked at. Also, if I want to watch HDTV, ill get a TV designed to do that.

 

Finally something other than the Core 2 Duo "fever" hysteria. All those people jumping for joy, when really all they get, for now, is boasting power for an unreasonable price. I'm comparing a pre-config deal that you can easily find coupons for (on the internet), with a start-from-scratch config on their website, btw. You'll see, it'll be an upgrade of many 100's of $'s to get the C2D ! (I bet people are still not getting this, even though I explain this over and over and over).

However, all this *could*, and probably *will* change, once, Dell revamps their silly selling strategies.
I bet Dell's investors demand *some* sort of change, because Dell's in trouble, or so I'm reading here and there. That "tinkering" with pre-configs, and the inconsistent upgrade pricing depending on what you start with is just ludicrous.

It should be very simple. If it costs Dell 25% more for something, it should cost the customer 25% more, no more, no less. Not that horsing and tinkering, like starting with a base C2D with all the other components low-end, while asking top dollar to upgrade the options for that particular configuration. Why should a cpu frequency upgrade cost only $20 in one configuration, and $200 in another? Well, that's their strategy, and it needs to stop.
Simplify, and become the no-nonsense guy on the block - something they are definitely NOT right now.

 

a1mint, I don't really know where you are getting the whole hundred's of $$$ premium to get C2D from. I ordered a E1705 yesterday morning, and it came out to be $1440 with a T7200 and a 7900GS and the 1920x1200 screen. Dell has since changed the price of the T7200 to be +225$ from the base T2250, but when I ordered it yesterday morning, it was only +135. And the upgrade from T2250 to the T2400 was also +135. In this situation, there is NO premium to upgrade to the C2D from a similarly clocked Core duo.

I do agree with you, however, that dell's pricing is completely screwed up. Ever since the launch of C2D, the cost has ranged from something like +100 to +300 for the T7200. But I stand by my assertion that if you have the patience and keep checking back for a good price, the upgrade to C2D will not carry an expensive premium.

 

Again, the "fever hysteria" you are talking about is simply people buying into a technology that is much more future proof than the previous. The price is not unreasonable at all! Infact most clock for clock C2D match up exactly with what their C1D counterparts were selling for last week.

Nobody is hating on Core Duo cpu's or people who own them. Nobody is saying Core 2 Duo is the most amazing thing ever. But you should atleast acknowledge that it's significant being the first 64bit Intel mobile chip to hit the market.

TedJ: It was not a rumor, BluRay and HD-DVD movie content along with flagged HDTV recordings will NOT be playable on 32bit OS. I said it earlier, this means very little to laptop users. But it is one feature missing. Not sure why you thought it was a rumor. It's been confirmed from Microsoft multiple times in the past week.

With a 64-bit cpu, you are ensuring that you do NOT get locked out of 64bit programs or 32bit programs, because its backwards compatible with all the 32bit stuff. This is the first example. I would be willing to bet there's atleast a few 64bit only features/programs/stuffs in the coming years that will come out and make a few people slap their heads. Then again maybe not.

But for the "ZOMG INSANE" $100 premium I am spending, I get a faster frontside bus and more efficient cpu. More importantly I am getting piece of mind with 64bit compatibility for the life of owning it. I am glad I waited. I know it won't go like hell compared to the Core Duo stuff. I don't own a Core Duo laptop. If I did, I wouldn't be buying a new notebook either. I'd wait until 64bit computing became a reality and a feature showed up that I needed. But if I am going to buy a laptop -NOW- .. why not make sure it's a little future proof?

 

Uhhh the Core 2 Duo's right now run at the same speed as Core Duo in memory.(Its just a Napa refresh, thats all). And Im glad I got something that can be upgraded. Your happy, im happy so there.

 

hold on hold on.....


i got the "Windows Vista Capable" sticker on my C1D laptop i just got not more than a few weeks ago, so youre telling me wont get a "full Vista experience" without a 64-bit chip??? unfair!

 

in the UK notebook market, there doesn't seem to be a premium at all on Merom chips... apparently often it's a simple drop-in socket+bios replacement. also intel's pricing structure should theoretically be exactly the same for Merom and Yonah.

i just changed an existing pre-built order from a T2500 (Core Duo) to a T7200 (Core 2 Duo) without opening my wallet

http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/nbrange.html?ORD

(the one on the right)

as a musician working with lots of audio i will absolutely push the CPU as hard as it can go, which made Merom more palatable. would i pay extra? yeah, but i didn't have to

 

If you are planning to buy a new laptop right now and the company youre buying it from offers it, I would suggest you go with the c2ds since the price is about the same and you'll be "futureproof". If not, I suggest going ahead and getting a yonah and then upgrading to a merom early-mid 2007 when vista comes out and prices should be much lower by then.

 

If you're referring to the HD video debacle, that's really out of Microsoft's hands. Any 3rd party vendor is free to choose to only offer 32 or 64 bit versions of their software. That includes Blu-Ray or HD-DVD decoders.

However, 32-bit Vista *will* be able to play high-definition video in general.

 

I agree that it would be nice if the OEM's would offer the Core 2 Duo processors a little cheaper then they are but the prices aren't horrible really considering buying through them means you don't void the warranty of the laptop installing it yourself and with the major OEM's there are usually coupons and percent discounts to knock down the price of the upgrade a little. A retail T7200 can be bought from an online vendor for around $315 USD right now and if you go to the HP site and configure a notebook it costs $375 to upgrade from the base Celeron M 420. I went ahead and ordered a T7200 laptop from HP though because i wanted one now but prices may start to drop a little in a few weeks.

 

Well that was proven false as its down to the writers of the codecs and even if it was true it wouldn't affect you anyway. This is about playing back HDCP content, a procedure that requires a monitor connected with a HDCP connection, something which no consumer Dell actually has as far as I know.

 

As of right now, on the Canadian website:

I have 6 9400's (e1705) to choose from. 5 are listed, 1 is from a coupon that you find when you google. Even before I start with that special coupon version, the 5 listed provide:

$1,649 - C2D 2.16, 1GB, 120GB, ATI 256, WSXGA+
$1,449 - C1D 1.83, 1GB, 120GB, ATI 256, WSXGA+
$999 - core solo (huh?) 1.86, 512MB, 80GB, GMA950, WSXGA+
$1,428 - C2D 1.66, 1GB, 80GB, GMA950, WSXGA+
$1,304 - C1D 1.76, 512MB, 80GB, GMA950, WSXGA+

With a coupon, I got (this options are not upgradable with this coupon deal - website simply shows one button for each of the options):

$1473 - C1D 2.00, 1GB, 120GB, ATI 256, WUXGA, care bear, 9 cell battery

So, to upgrade the $1649 one:
WUXGA + $150 -> that's a total of $330 more money (CDN $'s).

To upgrade the $1,428 one:
WUXGA + $150, 2GHz + $100, 9c battery + $40, 120GB + $50, ATI + $100
$440 + 1428 = 1870 - 1470 = roughly $400 more money.

Oh, wait, just came across another offer from Dell - "As Advertised" section:
$1499 - C2D 2.16, 1GB, 120GB, ATI 256, WSXGA+, 6 cell battery.
WUXGA + $150, 9 cell + $40, 1690 - 1470 = roughly $220 more.

Hmm, $220 more. **** ! now it's getting close.
Check this out:
http://laptoplogic.com/news/detail.php?id=1333&PHPSESSID=61531b576b151210b04f1ac41449bd92

"May delay shipping date" ?

I'm sticking to my original story. I'm saving now, enjoy the laptop for a year or so, then upgrade to a 2.16 (or 2.33 even !) C2D then, probably can buy one that that difference...

 

Meh. I'll have a C2D that's the same price as the CD in the same speed grade, and all I've gotta do is wait a month. I figure it's worth it, especially since I like the 64bit Linuxing and such.

 

I thought I liked 64 bit linuxing as well. I have a dual cpu AMD 64 at work.
The lib64 directories are a pain in the @$$. All kinds of compatibility problems.
I'm not seeing any magic performance jumps either.
64 bit Java is definitely NOT stable on AMD64 - most decidedly definitely NOT, so I run 32 bit Java.
Open Office on 64 bit has been a joke for months now - unimaginably unstable and crashes so badly it aint funny.

Although I do write assembler code, I think that I need to concentrate on keeping my apps 32 bit compatible anyway.

I'm upgrading later.

And with the shipping extra wait time (1+ months extra wait time I hear ???), that can't work for me. My now late Inspiron 8200 broke irreperably, so I need a new laptop asap.

 

Yeah. I've still got my work laptop, and my desktop, so I'm really not too put out by not having a personal laptop for a few months (I sold my old one a while ago in anticipation of the new one). Depends on your needs

 

Has anyone verified that 64-bit Vista will run on notebooks with Dell Core 2 processors? And it's not an issue that the chip has been called a 64-bit extension on a 32-bit processor?

I actually do need 64-bit memory- my 4GB ram notebook (the 32-bit limit) routinely runs out of memory while analyzing very large data sets..

 

Vista just looks kinda funny. It doesn't look to great, as it doesn't add enough over XP to pay the extra money! I love XP, both Home and Pro... and sure, Vista looks a little more "sleek" and "smooth"... but nothing much more. Sorry, but not too impressing. I don't even like "Multi-threading" right now, as it is completly useless. I understand if you are buying a new computer, but it is "almost" sensless to upgrade in a hurry to Core Duo.

 

First off, I swear Intel has already announced that Core 2 Duo will be the same price, watt for watt as the Core 1 Duo. So it doesn't cost "hundreds of dollars to upgrade" as a1mint is saying. That's completely wrong. I JUST ordered a notebook from powernotebooks TODAY with a Core 2 Duo. Guess what? My T5600 costs the same as a T2400. I just have to wait two weeks which I'm fine with since I don't start school for another two weeks. I strongly believe the reason why companies like Dell or HP charge extra to upgrade to C2D is because of supply and demand.

2nd, if Blu-Ray doesn't work on 32bit processors, what's the point of the Sony AR? Or the Toshiba Quimos or however you spell it (lol) with the HD-DVD?

3rd, there WILL be a Vista for 32bit processors. But it will leave out a lot of features that will be only available with the 64bit Vista.

 

Anyone have any links to realworld benchmarks pitting the C1D vs. C2D ?

 

I'm so tired of all this, but, I'll continue to defend my completely correct statements till the end...

Again, "to buy a Dell 9400 (e1705) laptop with the 17" screen in Canada, you have to spend 100's of dollars more to get one with the C2D". Why is this so hard to grasp? You think I'm making this up or something?

I'm comparing the best possible deals. For a C1D, last week, it happened to be a pre-packaged deal with a loaded C1D for $1473 CDN. To get the same thing with a C2D, the only way to get it, was, and is, to start on the website with one of the base configs, upgrade to make it loaded, and end with around $1700 - $1800+.
With loaded I mean, 1GB, 120GB, ATI 1400, 1yr bear care, 17" wuxga, 2GHz.

So with the longer wait times, the higher price, and the fact that I can slap in a T7200 next year or so, and the fact that I must a laptop as soon as possible, it is *NOT* as unreasonable as some people say it is, to settle for the old C1D for now.

Besides, doing Java on it will be just a o k.

 

I payed $0.00 extra for a Core 2 Duo upgrade at Dell, seems a bit dumb not to go for it then (We don't have those crazy coupons and 200% off stuff you get everywhere else) ;(
From T2400 to T2500 was 1310 sek (swedish crowns)
From T2400 to T7200 was 1310 sek

I'm not saying it will benefit me alot, it's bragging rights But I wouldn't go around thinking it will take forever for 64bit to mature any more. The reason it has been so slow is because it was only AMD who was offering it to customers until just recently when Intel catched up. Now 64bit is available to everyone and there's no reason not to force users to upgrade (and they will be forced). I remember when PCI-Express was knocking on the door, people went "well... AGP still has a long way to go, there will be AGP cards for a loooong time ahead". The next day AGP was dead and PCI-Express was king. I'm going to use my M90 for at least two years, can't afford to spend more on hardware, and I'll bet you some money I'll get some good use of the EM64T extensions before then

 

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808&p=6
Jumps straight to benches

 

The extra doesn't come from the price of the chip. Blame that on the company you're buying from. As I stated before and as others have...many companies don't charge extra for upgrading to Merom. Apparently neither does Dell anymore.

 

Dell in Canada still charges more for the C2D. People, again - look for *all* the deals - don't just go to the site, and observe a single button you can click on with a $100 upgrade to the C2D - then hauler about how the C2D doesn't cost more or much more. There are all kinds of combinations available, and look for the best possible combo's you can round up - including adventertising sections, online coupons (they're there!) - THEN compare - and NOT before - THIS is the thing that every single person objecting has FAILED to do.

That deal I got last week is now gone. No more sub $1500 for a semi loaded 9400 with wuxga. Not with the C2D, not without. Looks like prices went up across the board.
All the signs of a very short stock supply.

Now, ofcourse, things are going to change over the next little while, things are going to look different week to week.

They way I'm seeing it, in Canada at least - for the 17" lovers out there, just hang in there. Wait, Dell's prices are bound to come down.

In the US, I'm seeing great C2D deals on the 6400. Also look for the alegged 20% coupon (doesn't exist in Canada ;-( )

 

Whether or not you get the "deal/package" you're looking for without it costing more, the point is: the Core 2 Duo itself doesn't cost "hundreds more" as you originally stated. So my point still stands as the company is the culprit, not the chip.

And back to the original topic. Why wouldn't you want the Core 2 Duo, a better technology, if you pay the same price? The only thing I can think of is the wait.

 

You are right about the price of the chip. Itself the C2D doesn't cost 100's more.

You are also right about wanting a C2D chip if you pay the same price.

My point is that with Dell, you do not pay the same price. You pay a lot more if you want it in a 9400 in Canada at least, right now.

However, we can blow this whole 9400/e1705 6400/e1505 thing out the water. Check out the Latitude review. I found an amazing deal on Dell Canada - but I think they made a mistake and it'll quickly disappear...

 

And it did...

 

core duo is ok, but i think its over hyped.

im not gonna ARGUE!!!

 

Core 2 Duo is meant to be priced along the same pricing structure as Core Duo. So if you're being forced to pay a premium on Core 2 Duos, then it's not worth it (unless it's a small premium--which it doesn't sound like it is right now). I would pay a small premium for Core 2 Duo, otherwise just wait for the prices to match the Core Duo like they're supposed to. Give it a little time to become more widely available and the prices should stabilize where they are supposed to be.

Now I can understand that a number of you want to use Vista ASAP. That's understandable as some people love to be on the cutting edge of technology. I used to be like that until I learned the hard way that I can save a lot of money by waiting until the new technology matures a bit first. Waiting also saves me the hassle of dealing with growing pains and unforeseen problems like compatibility issues or lack of features in an early product. Keep this in mind: when you call any support center, the first thing they ask you is "what OP are you running?"--which tells you that many people are still not even caught up to XP yet.

I think it will be a long time before 64-bit processors and applications become mainstream. It may be a full five years before 64-bit becomes the majority.

Yes that is true that not all laptop sellers are adding a premium to the price of Core 2 Duos. Dell's prices are also like the stock market, so if you buy at the right time you'll get a great deal. I remember seeing people on NBR getting the same e1705 (that I used to have recently) for a lot less than what I'd paid for mine within a week or two.

 

64-bit support is overrated at this point in time. Anyone that has ever tried running the 64-bit version of Windows Vista will know that in a lot of things, the 32-bit version of Vista performs better than the 64-bit version. Most software isn't coded for 64-bits yet and 32-bit software runs better on a native 32-bit OS. As for the news that you are going to need 64-bit for HD playback for Vista, who cares if Microsoft doesn't provide it, the 3rd party HD-DVD software will be better than WMP and the Media Center portion of Vista anyways. And 3rd Party HD movie playback software will almost certainly support 32-bit.

However, the Core 2 Duo is undoubtedly a better chip than the Core Duo, 64-bit or 32-bit regardless. I don't believe there should be a price premium on the Core 2 Duo notebooks though, IMO the Core 2 Duo notebooks should just replace the Core Duo notebooks and the Core Duo discontinued, or push the Core Duo notebooks down in price.

 

Glad we're on the same wavelength now. To tell you the truth I was getting frustrated and wanted to slap you (and probably vice versa xD) :-D But it's all good now hahha.

I really don't know how much faster or better C2D is over C1D. The fact is, for me, the C2D IS better, and it cost the same. So bam, made my choice. For the people that are paying so much more...they're just stupid and can't wait even one month. Me? I first waited like two months for the C1D price drop on May 28th...and I kept waiting for C2D...glad I did haha :-D

 

Writing 64 bit multimedia code is hard. The instructions are already hard to combine in such a way to create graphics effects.
One of the problems is that the larger bit instructions need special treatment on the edges of the operations. Imagine blitting an object, a sprite, onto the screen. First you need some manual pixel transfers until you get 64 bit (or 128 or 256 bit?) aligned. Then you can start blitting larger chunks at the time, using the larger bit instructions. Then the remainder along the right edge have to again be manually handled.
For smaller 32 bit transfers, there would be less edging. So it is entirely possible that the developer THINKS he created a hot sprite blitting algorithm, but the edge-baby-sitting causes a lot of overhead.
The 32 bit transfers causes less edge-overhead, and for medium size sprite blitting (typical video game details, both 2D and 3D), the overhead might be greater than the benefit of being to handle 64 bit aligned transfers.

Something like that anyway. I used to make video games, and had to deal with stuff like that. It's been a number of years, but I can image the challenges.
I'm not saying that 64 bit is less efficient than 32 bit, but that 64 bit programming will bring along some added challenges that require the attention of the better (more scarce) programmers to get it done right.

Anyway, all in all, it IS better to get the C2D 64 bit chip, of course.
In Canada, on the 9400, it will cost you 300+ more because of the way Dell is currently pricing things. It will also take longer to get the C2D. I ordered an 9400 plain CD, and Dell took 2 1/2 days before it went to shipping.
I'll use that $300 in savings next year, and upgrade the chip, at which time it's likely possible to buy a C2D T7200 online for around $300 CDN including tax and shipping.

Should other people buy a CD instead of a C2D? Nah, get the C2D right away, spend more if you have to. I'm just crazy, and impatient, and need my laptop asap, because my old laptop died ;-(

 

I admit I've been hammering on this topic like a madman. I'm just a little anxious right now, because I want to replace my dead Inspiron 8200 asap - I hate being without my lappywappy. I like to roam around the house with it, and site in front of the house, listening to the crickets while hacking away on my code. When video/screen started to scramble up all over the place, and couldn't fix it, I just freaked. I ordered a new one, apparently on the actual day the C2D became available, and got frustrated over the price difference, even though Intel is selling the C2D at the same price as the CD.

In Canada, I got pretty frustrated with Dell for making the pricing very convoluted. Although it might be simple just simply start with the website, click a few buttons, come up with a price, and be done with it, however, NO though. There are various different deals and pre-configs. They kind of strange. They won't let you alter a whole lot, like the cpu. It didn't let me change the CPU on one of those deals. I found this deal (again, CDN Dell, not US), that was pretty loaded, with the plain CD, and with an additional $100 off. It came out about $300 less than any other similar deal with the C2D. Combined with having to wait longer because of C2D Intel supply problems, I chose not to cancel.
I'm pretty happy that I can upgrade - kind of relieved actually.

I appologize for hammering on this, but, I did feel like people weren't getting the point. I was continuously told that C2D doesn't cost more - well, with Dell in Canada, that wasn't true *at all*, not on the 9400 model anyway.
Upset with Dell? Ultimately, not really, it's all supply and demand - there's enough competition to keep everyone in line, including Dell. I AM frustrated with Dell for making things so convoluted.

I'm sure everyone else is pretty happy with what's being offered by Dell. Dell's pretty cool overal. They do have some work to do streamlining their offerings and improving pricing consistency.
I *was* suprised with some of the reactions though, leaving me to think that Dell would definitely try to figure out how to continue to exploit those consumer "weaknesses" - no offense intended!

 

well, I ordered a inspiron 9400 a week before the C2D were released because it was a pricedeal at that time... I got a 9400 with 2GB ram, 2,0Ghz CD, 7900GS for €1330...

A week later the C2D came out, and I was a tiny bit disappointed that i did not wait another week.... But then I saw the bench marks, and the things C2D is better at than the equivalent CD, I am not really going to use...
so it doesn't matter to me anymore... my CD is just fine
The one thing that maybe will become a problem in like 3-4 years, is the 64 bit lack on the CD... (I want to keep this laptop at least till the end of my studies...). But then again, who knows in what way 64 bit will be used?
I mean, 64 bit has already been around for a couple of years in the desktop market, and there are no advantages from the 32 bit version...

But if you have to buy a laptop now: Buy the C2D...

 

I've seen 2 reports where people replaced the chip with a C2D. It's pin compatible, and with the A02 bios, it works.

Apparently, the T7200 was the better choice over the one above it.

I'll see what happens to the price, and will upgrade probably February'ish, or later even. Intel is going to come out with their next generation chip, with 800MHz FSB. When that happens, the C2D prices are bound to come down then.

In the meantime, doing Java coding, it won't make one ayota difference. I'm on Linux, so M$ won't affect me. As for HDTV video playback, no problemo on the straight CD.

 

Have Intel confirmed keeping old Merom CPU's once Santa Rosa is coming out? I'd figure they'll phase them out quickly in favor of the new (non pin compatible) CPU's. Nothing I know for sure though

 

The Santa Rosa platform will use the 800MHz Meroms - they will not be compatible with the current Centrino platform, which uses socket M - the Santa Rosa CPUs will use Socket P.
Intel's challenge with SR will be power consumption - bumping the FSB to 800MHz can be great for performance, but what affect it will have on battery life, etc, is unknown.

 

Not sure exactly what we're talking about here, but generally speaking, there's hardly any difference in the code. For games, DirectX takes care of all the blitting and other low-level stuff for you, so that's not really a problem. For movies and other multimedia I can think of, it's pretty much the same.
And if you have to deal with unaligned data, you have to deal with it whether you work on 32- or 64-bit chunks. If there's data left over at the edge, it has to be handled whether it's 2, 4 or 300 byte.

Regular code (as in C++ or your programming language of choice) requires literally no changes, *assuming* you've coded sensibly to begin with. Certain hacks that happened to work in 32 bit mode no longer work in 64, but that's usually relatively easy to a) avoid to begin with, and b) solve once you have to port to 64 bit.

If you're talking about low-level stuff like the SSE instruction set, that's not affected by 64-bit either, but is a pain to do regardless of 32/64 bit modes.

Sounds like it was pre-DirectX. Must have been fun...
But things are a lot simpler now in many ways.

And the CPU's 64 bit mode is engineered to allow pretty much seamless porting from 32 bit code.

 

isn't 64-bit old technology?

I thought my old nintendo 64 was 64-bit