Dilemma: 1.8 GHz vs 2.0 GHz?

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T7100 (2MB cache/1.8GHz/800Mhz FSB)

vs

Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T7300 (4MB cache/2.0GHz/800Mhz FSB)

Is there a significant amount of difference between these two processors?

The reason I'm asking is because the discount offers in Canada for the new Dell Inspiron 1520 has a max of 1.8GHz processor, whilst the non-discounted version has 2.0 and 2.2GHz.

The 2.0 costs $100 more than the 1.8 does, but after customizing both the discounted and non-discounted machines exactly the same (except processors), there is about a $300 difference between them, PLUS tax. Why are the Canadian deals so lame... T___T

So yeah, is it worth it to go for the 2.0? Is it vital for Vista Home Premium? Should I go with the 1.8? Or should I wait for future promotions?

Much appreciated.

 

I recommend the 2 GHz because it has the larger cache. I know the upgrade only costs $50 for the D630 and D830. I think it is fairly cheap for the E1520 too.

 

Like I said above, the 2.0 for the 1520 is $100 more, and is only available for the non-discounted machine ($300 difference with same specs other than the processor). So essentially it'll cost $400 to upgrade from 1.8 to 2.0, PLUS tax on the final price. :cry:

 

There is a speed difference between the two intel chips. However, the speed difference is not worth $400. As far as waiting, that depends on when you need your laptop.

 

I am sorry, I did not catch that part.

EDIT: I have to say the Canadian Dell website is terrible.

EDIT EDIT: I cannot find anything on this website. The US website is much easier to get what you want. Do you have any relatives or friends in the United States that can accept the laptop for you?

 

man stick with the 1.8 and spend the money on more ram...

 

It is horrible, and unfortunately I don't. T___T

 

basically, the difference in speed is going to be very minor. it would be hard to see it outside of benchmarks, and even then you would have to be selective with the benchmarks you exploit the slightly faster processor.

In the real world, the added benefit of the faster processor (regardless of cache, fsb, bla bla bla) is marginal at best.

 

The larger cache does make a difference. I heard about this on CNET in a comparison of Core Duo processors and Core 2 Duo processors. The big improvement of Core 2 Duo processors was the larger 4 MB cache. However, it only makes a difference with some applications.

 

Right now 1.8 doesn't sound so bad if the difference isn't too great ($100 upgrade difference tho), but the poll is pretti evenly divided with waiting as well.

Is it possible to cancel an order if next week's promotion is better? Will they let you cancel if they've begun building it?

EDIT: Bahh, can you plz explain what cache is?

 

also called Cache, a supplementary memory system that temporarily stores frequently used instructions and data for quicker processing by the central processor of a computer. The cache augments, and is an extension of, a computer's main memory. Both main memory and cache are internal, random-access memories (RAMs) that use semiconductor-based transistor circuits. Cache holds a copy of only the most frequently used information or program codes stored in the main memory; the smaller capacity of the cache reduces the time required to locate data within it and provide it to the computer for processing.

When a computer's central processor accesses its internal memory, it first checks to see if the information it needs is stored in the cache. If it is, the cache returns the data to the processor. If the information is not in the cache, the processor retrieves it from the main memory. Disk cache memory operates similarly, but the cache is used to hold data that has been recently written on, or retrieved from, a magnetic disk or other external storage device.

"cache memory."
Encyclopædia Britannica. 2007. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 26 June 2007

 

Thanks @.@

 

This article might help, its on desktop Core 2s but it'll give you a clue.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core2duo-e6420_3.html

I wish Anandtech was up... they had a pretty article on 2mb vs. 4mb cache.

 

Ah thanks, but I went with the 1.8 ^-^

 

lol

I configured mine with the 1.8 too, and it would have been less than $50 for me to upgrade to the 4mb 2.0, so it's obvious how I voted.

 

Why didn't you go 2.0 then?? @.@ And did you place ur order yet? ^o^

 

Yep will be here friday.

Why? 1. More than enough processor for what I do on a notebook. 2. I have no complaints with my current 1.8 pentium M, so this will still be an upgrade. 3. I despise notebook heat- in fact, if there had been a 1.66 option I probably would have gone with it.

 

Ooh I see! Looks like I made the right choice then ^o^

Realli?! Friday?! Are you in the US? Mine says it will be here July 20th T___T You guys have to option paying shipping right?

 

$400 for 1.8-->2.0Ghz?

Someone call the cops, there's a robbery in progress.

 

lol yeah but look at the poll. at this point more people are actually suggesting he spend $400 for that upgrade.

I really hope they just voted without actually reading the op.

 

Should I upgrade to the 2.0 ghz for $50?

 

You will probably get 99% around here endorsing that upgrade for $50.

 

For sure

lol yeah, here's hoping ^-^ I figure since my current AMD processor runs at 1.8GHz flat, the Intel santa rosa will be more than enough for me anyway

 

Bigger cache will make the computer more future-proof.

Anything processor-intensive will benefit from the larger cache.

 

Go with the 2GHz for the best bang of your buck.

I'm gonna mess up trying to write the description of a CPU cache here :lol:, so i'll post the wiki link here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_cache

 

I'd go with the 1.8. Unless you NEED 2.0 for processor intensive tasks, the 1.8 will be more than enough for most tasks. In fact, for most things, you probably won't even notice a difference between the two processors. Besides, the upgrade cost from 1.8 to 2.0 is way too high to justify the slight performance increase.

 

lol someone better....
i rather upgrade a ram for that much. it would be like 4gb...

 

1.8 is fine, 2.0 is way too overrated and you'll only get a minimal improvement in some apps. Sometimes I think people just upgrade to 2.0 to showoff when they could put their money into other parts of the notebook.

 

Heres the Anandtech article on it, just add 200 mhz and decide if the benefits are worth the extra $50 or whatever.

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=4

 

I think most people would agree the 2.0 is obviously better. I went with the 1.8 because the 2.0 wasn't even an option for me in Canada for the special deal. I figure I can always upgrade to the T7700 (or better) in a year or two when I actually need more power and pick up the processor for relatively cheap.

 

Yeah that's what I'm saying, I'm in Canada also. If we get the non-discounted model it would technically cost us $400 for an upgrade to 2.0GHz.

Anyways, I went with the 1.8

 

This raised an interesting question in my mind: How does the larger cache affect total power usage? My guess is that it would decrease it although I don't know to what extent. You can always decrease the cpu frequency if you want to decrease power. In fact, your cpu will do so automatically when the load is low. Given that, there is no negative aspect to having the bigger cache.

To me, the choice is obvious for $50 but more obvious for $400.

 

That and the fact that Core 2 Duos have Shared L2 cache.

-Akshay

 

I would of ordered the 1.8 not worth $400 for the 2.0 imo

Ninja

 

Get the 1.8ghz now.......... Then later get 2.4ghz or 2.6ghz when the prices come down!!

The core 2 duo's (at any speed) is plenty fast.

 

I vote 7300 because of the larger cache.

 

take the 1.8 a 2.0 with 4mb cache is not more futureproof than a 1.8 with 2mb cache.
just think about it, the performance difference between the 2 is probably 5-10% on average, if in 1 or 2 years you are unsatisfied with your CPU's performance a 5-10% improvement will still seem like crap to you

 

I hate that feeling of "the laptop could have been better". That's why I choose the T7300 and the 8600M GT.

 

well it can still be better than that, how about a T7700 and 7960GTX lol

 

this quote should be stickied. The future is quad core laptops

 

Get the 1.8 - If "today" you can seriously feel the difference between 1.8 and 2.0, you need a more powerful processor than a T7300 and thus, this discussion is useless.

If "tomorrow" 1.8 does not meet your requirements then 2.0 certainly would not - thus also rendering this discussion useless.

Solution: Get 1.8 today and next year when you need more power upgrade to 2.4 for the same price or less than you would have paid for the T7300 today.