intel processors

what is the difference between Intel Core Duo and Intel Core2 Duo. Is it worth the extra money to get the core2 duo.
Also is the Intel Core2 Duo T5450 significantly better than the T5300 or the Intel Core Duo T2450

 

Core 2 Duos are at least 20% to 30% faster than Core Duo at the same clocks. It is worth more up to a point.

 

Depends on what you are doing. For CPU intensive tasks like coding video, the Core 2 Duo would be faster. For Office and internet, the difference is marginal if any.

 

ZaZ is correct, I should of used the word potential. For 90% of the people it does not matter real world.

 

Not sure if I agree. Some C2Ds (T7200 upwards) have 4MB cache which gives a useful boost under some situations, but in general I would put the performance difference at nearer 10 to 15%. C2D supports 64 bit, but that isn't on most people's agenda.

I would expect the T2450, at 2GHz, to be the equal or better of the T5300 (1.73GHz) or T5450 (1.67GHz) under most situations. At one stage Samsung were offering the T2250 (CD 1.73GHz) and T5300 (C2D, 1.67GHz) as two options on the R20. Comparison between user tests revealed that the T2250 was the faster performer, and cheaper.

Tom's Hardware has some rest results for mobile CPUs, but lacks anything for the T5xxx series.

John

 

John: I based this on two things and I did compensate. I used SiSoft as it seems to be a good source. I have seen the results of tests where I think MaxPC had the ability to under clock a CPU to any clock speed, it appeared it was about 10%. 4MB vs 2MB. If my methodology is fundamentally wrong I would like to hear. I stand by what I said but both acknowledge I might be wrong and ZaZ has a good point. I am talking potential not real world. To put it in perspective, when someone buys a Ferrari the top speed is 190MPH but who and how often will you reach that point? If you drive in the city a corvette is just fine! Cheers.

 

No, it's only a good source for "performance in SiSoft", just like all other benchmarking programs.

So yeah, assuming that any one application gives an accurate picture is a fundamentally flawed methodology, because the performance varies depending on what the CPU is doing. With a bit of care, I could probably write a program that ran faster on a P4 than on a C2D. It all depends on what you use it for. (And no single program can give you a valid "average" performance.

 

Jalf I can not disagree with a man who does not trust benchmarks but it is all that I have.

 

Here ya go -> http://www.intel.com/products/centrino/compare.htm

If you're purchasing this brand new from a store - the difference in comparative systems these days are negligable in terms of pricing (for systems in which the main difference is the cpu).

- Jordan

 

It's true in everyday computing C2D with 4meg L2 Cache is about 10-15% faster at the same clocks. It's rarely ever 30% faster. 30% comes from a program that has heavy very heavy (pretty much can run all in L2 cache) dependency and in that case a 30% increase is like 1-2seconds of a bench where it's within a margin of error. There's many times where I see my T2500 perform the same as a T7200 and in many cases beating the T5600.

The only other time I see 30% increase is where a 30% increase is like 1FPS.

I learned a long time ago Sisoft is a useless app to compare platforms and CPUs. It's good for gaging an increase from overclocking say what you get from going from 2.2Ghz to 2.4ghz. If Listened to Sisoft it would mean my Athlon XP @2.6ghz would kick the crap out of a 3.6P4, but that's not the case.