Intel CPU vs Intel CPU?

I have question I have two used CPU I like to purchase one is a T6500 and another is a T6570. Here are the comparisons I can see that is obvious about the two Intel.

Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor T6500
(2M Cache, 2.10 GHz, 800 MHz FSB)

Intel® Core?2 Duo Processor T6500 (2M Cache, 2.10 GHz, 800 MHz FSB)


Intel® Core™2 Duo Processor T6570
(2M Cache, 2.10 GHz, 800 MHz FSB)

Intel® Core?2 Duo Processor T6570 (2M Cache, 2.10 GHz, 800 MHz FSB)

Price T6500 ~11 US
T6570 ~18 US

Beyond this price difference can anyone with real world experience tell me what would can see beyond the specs on paper and the price?

 

T6570 has Intel® Virtualization Technology (VT-x),,T6500 does not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_virtualization#64-bit

+1


Cheers
3Fees

 

.... which I found drains the battery pretty hard when enabled, yet not doing anything worth having it on .... (so it's disabled in all of my laptops).

 

Anything to back that up? I can't say I've ever noticed a difference between enabled/disabled.

 

do you want me to try to shoot a picture of one laptop drawing 1.7A with IVT enabled, and another (the same model/spec) with IVT disabled drawing 0.9A ... ? (all visible through the power manager software that comes with those)

both are sitting on my table atm.

 

It must be some sort of flaw somewhere... It's a set of CPU extensions with VT-x, where VT-d is a bit more complicated involving various other chipset features. Is enabling yours disabling some part of SpeedStep or something?

I honestly can't say I've ever seen or heard what you're talking about, though I'm not saying I don't believe you. Just sounds very odd IMO.

What power management software are you using to see this?

 

Could you be more specific? And could you back that up with any reading from the wall?

 

I know it's not much more then few dollars more for a T6570 even if not all the features are used but alot less then going for a T8300 or T9300 of which both I wouldn't mind getting but I like to upgrade two Intel laptops that have a T7500 and T5750 currently to a newer CPU. But getting two T8300 or T9300 unless the prices for both are to high for one laptop I can handle that but like to give two laptop performance and go for the 45nw power saving feature as well. I would get two T8300 but two T6570 cost alot less and well they are 2.1 compare to 2.4 for the T8300. But other then what others are stating would it be more feasible to just go the route of two T6570 then or no?

 

As I have to test things for myself, I turned off 'Vanderpool Technology' on my Q9450 and saw an immediate 8-16W less power used (varies; as reported by my UPS).

Not to mention a subjectively more 'snappy' system.

I think you may be onto something here.

I will test later on a couple of notebooks too...

 

Get the T6500. No reason to waste money on the T6570 for something you aren't even going to use.

 

Correction/Retraction:

There is ~8W variation on my O/C'd Q9450 (to 3.41GHz) - this is the same with Vanderpool technology enabled/disabled.

The additional 8W variation was not a result of toggling this feature: it is a function of having HWMonitor (v1.18) running or not!

What is very clearly different though: the system is much more snappy with VT 'disabled'. As an easy example: the Win7x64 'welcome' screen is not visible with it disabled (it boots that much faster...) with no password set, of course. This is on an XT Hybrid 500GB HDD with firmware SD28.

With HWMonitor needing 8W more from the system (it's somehow keeping the cpu more 'awake', I assume - even though the CPU usage % doesn't change from 0%...) I thought I would also test ThrottleStop 4.0 to see if it makes the system use more power.

Good news: on my O/C'd Q9450 staying at a steady 3.41GHz (with an additional and obvious 'snappiness' upgrade by itself from the otherwise normal idle of ~2.8GHz) the idle power remains the same.

Something else I noticed: exiting ThrottleStop didn't return the floating power states: the cpu stays at 3.41GHz. With one less process running.


Sorry for the rushed post #9 - I hope this additional and more accurate information makes up for it.

I will still be trying this on my notebooks - but I won't be looking at any power savings.

 

I was thinking that as well as I have Windows 7x64ult sp1. The VxT was something I wouldn't use if much since I don't recall W7 doing VxT or that the way I was using for everyday computing wouldn't increase dramatically where I would see a payoff for the modest price increase. Do you know where I would even begin to see the VxT usage or what software would even use it.

 

@tilleroftheearth

Those are very interesting findings. This must be localized to the Penryn micro arch. I'm simply not seeing this on Core-i series machines. I've disabled this on my desktops and my Vostro and there is no difference. I'll have to test my Vaio with the P8800 when I get home...

 

running HWMonitor or not, my systems show the same power usage.

---

my observation of the power usage was done on 2 same laptops - 14" T61 - /T7300/2GB RAM/100GB HDD (same)/3965bg/X3100.

the difference between IVT on and off is about 0.8A - tested on each one separately.

the Power Manager is a proprietary program that comes with Lenovo laptops, thus has access to features that one may not see on other laptops, such as battery current used at any moment.

I think it's causing the CPU to do extra stuff (maybe features) with IVT enabled. I'll look further into that matter.

 

Unless you plan on running another operating system within your current operating system, it wouldn't do you any good. It is one of those things that you would know if it would be helpful.

It just allows operating systems running within your current operating system (virtual machines) to run at performance levels that are close to as if they were running on the hardware itself and not through another operating system. Without VTx, virtual machines run at reduced performance compared to if they were the main operating system running on your computer.

 

ok update:

when IVT is enabled, that causes service named "igfxsrvc" to utilize more CPU power as it toggles back and forth from 17% cpu to 0% cpu in the task manager, thus causing the CPU throttling to minimize, thus the power draw thing ..

interestingly however, it does not do it all the time ?!?!

with IVT disabled, the same process toggles between 6% and 0% cpu usage, so I'm assuming the BIOS/OS does not feel the need to keep the cpu in high gear thus keep lower power profile.

go figure. I got screenshots if anyone is interested.

----
EDIT: further look into this shows that the mentioned service is quite problematic, at least on systems using x3100 graphics. I cant really see much of a difference between IVT on/off on my laptop (the T61 in my sig, not using intel gpu).

sorry for the confusion, that was something new to me :|

 

No just one O/S and it is Windows 7x64ult sp1. So I guess will I go ahead and just buy two Tt6500 and save the money but as I liked to have gone for two T8300 but the cost is steep for buying two instead of one. But as long as I can live with the performance of the T6500 I can go with that. Thanks for any other replies that shed some light into what VxT is and what it does and pro and cons of it.

 

The T6500 will provide almost the same performance the T8300 will. The T8300 would only be marginally faster in CPU heavy tasks.

My Vaio came with a T6600 and aside from the VT-x of the P8800, I really don't notice that much difference at all. Gaming wise the P8800 is a bit better, but otherwise you'd be hard pressed to find a difference in day-to-day activities like web browsing and such.

 

That's the draw internally, right? A laptop processor won't be able to draw that much at mains voltage. If it's the CPU internally then that would only result in about 1W incease in power draw.

Giving the draw in amps isn't really very useful when everything in a computer runs at different voltages.

 

^ actually it is the amps that would matter since your battery would give somewhat steady voltage, thus you can observe the power usage as a whole, which is what matters.

other thoughts: seems like that process (igfxsrvc) with IVT activated uses CPU more often when on battery than when the laptop is on AC, and I ran same power/throttling profiles for both :| ....

 

That process has to do with Intel Graphics. Is there any way you could change the performance/battery setting in the Intel IGP control panel? See if that makes any difference... or do you have the latest driver?

 

besides the OpenGL 3D settings that stay the same, there is power settings that sit with the following options:

- Intel Rapid Memory Power Management (checked)
- Intel Smart 2D Display Technology (checked)
- Intel Display Power Savings Technology (has bar and sits at about 60% towards maximum battery, other end is maximum quality)

but those dont change with IVT on or off ..

In BIOS I got same profiles for the thermal management and for the throttling for AC and for Battery. Throttlestop keeps same CPU profile within the OS.

last driver from Lenovo for that laptop. So I have no idea what that process is doing when the laptop runs on battery .. :|

 

Yes, the battery gives a steady voltage, however if you're readin the power draw directly from the CPU then you won't be running at that voltage. It really depends at what point the draw is measured. If it's before the voltage is regulaed then it should be at the same voltage, if it's after then it's at whatever voltage the componant needs to run (most likely 0.8-1.5V).

I should probably ask. Are you measuring then CPU power draw alone, or the draw from the system as a whole?

 

what comes out from the battery

 

I kinda thought that as well but since I don't have much experience with laptop til recently and have others whom have gone through this process to tell me if going to a T8300 rather then spending less for a T6500 of which I could buy more of for backup and my other laptop would save me more in the long run. I might load games onto my M6860 gateway if I get the T6500 CPU into it but if I wanted I already got a P6860FX-T9300 that would do that already. It that I like to save on battery power if I can and the T6500 isn't too high of a price to purchase for 4 CPU. And I do always have a gaming desktop for high power games already but I would like to just go portable sometimes when I like to.

**update**
Well I got a T6500 but found out it didn't work so I will have to keep looking again....

 

I think Penryn chip FTW for some reason ...