Intel T7000 Series Differences

My apologies in advance if this has been asked but I cannot find the answer in the search on this forum or on Yahoo or Intel's site. At least it wasn't explained clearly.

In looking at an Alienware and ASUS laptop I noticed one offered a CPU with 800Mhz FSB and the other with 667Mhz FSB. I read some information on a site that listed some tech specs but nothing to tell me the difference. (notice the odd and even number chip models)

***************************
The energy need of the processors is marked by pre-set letters in front of the type designation (number).
E ... 55-75 Watts
T ... 25-55 Watts (standard version in notebooks)
L ... 15-25 Watts (low boltage)
U ... <15 Watts (ultra low voltage)

The 4-digit sequence indicates the type series (first digit) and performance (other digits). The Core 2 mobile processors ought to get 5XXX and 7XXX (at present T2XXX for Core Duo and T1XXX for Core Solo).

Core 2 Duo was presented in 31. July 2006 with the following versions (versions with FSB 800 and Dat - dynamic acceleration technology in 05.09.07):

U7500, 1.06 GHz, 2 MB L2 Cache, 533 MHz FSB, VT - 10 Watts
U7600, 1.20 GHz, 2 MB L2 Cache, 533 MHz FSB, VT - 10 Watts
L7200, 1.33 GHz, 4 MB L2 Cache, 667 MHZ FSB, VT - 17 Watts
L7300, 1.40 GHz, 4 MB L2 Cache, 800 MHZ FSB, VT, DAT
L7400, 1.50 GHz, 4 MB L2 Cache, 667 MHZ FSB, VT - 17 Watts
L7500, 1.50 GHz, 4 MB L2 Cache, 800 MHZ FSB, VT, DAT
T5200, 1.66 GHz, 2 MB L2 Cache, 533 MHZ FSB
T5300, 1.73 GHz, 2 MB L2 Cache, 533 MHZ FSB
T5500, 1.66 GHz, 2 MB L2 Cache, 667 MHZ FSB - 34 Watts
T5600, 1.83 GHz, 2 MB L2 Cache, 667 MHZ FSB, VT - 34 Watts
T7100, 1.80 GHz, 2 MB L2 Cache, 800 MHZ FSB, VT, DAT
T7200, 2.00 GHz, 4 MB L2 Cache, 667 MHZ FSB, VT - 34 Watts
T7300, 2.00 GHz, 4 MB L2 Cache, 800 MHZ FSB, VT, DAT
T7400, 2.16 GHz, 4 MB L2 Cache, 667 MHZ FSB, VT - 34 Watts
T7500, 2.20 GHZ, 4 MB L2 Cache, 800 MHz FSB, VT, DAT
T7600, 2.33 GHz, 4 MB L2 Cache, 667 MHZ FSB, VT - 34 Watts
T7600G - as T7600 but with free selectable multiplier (for overclocking)
T7700, 2.40 GHz, 4 MB L2 Cache, 800 MHz FSB, VT, DAT

***************************

My question is, what is the difference in performance of a T7300 and a T7200? They are both 2.0Ghz but with different FSB's. Is there a reason Intel offered these two? Is the T7300 actually faster?

As a followup question, can you upgrade from an odd numbered T7000 series to an even numbered one?

 

No, they both are 2.0Ghz and right now they both can only run 667Mhz RAM so I say no diff in performance. The 7300 has a lower clock multiplier but so what. The one advantage of the 800Mhz technologey is newer and later that might make a diff. Maybe USB runs better but overall no diff. IMO!

 

ive read that optimal performance is achieved when the FSB and the RAM are clocked at the same speed, yet even with the 800MHZ FSB processors and 800mhz RAM, the RAM is downclocked to 667. WHy is this?

 

The Santa Rosa chipset does not support DDR2-800, that is why. Seriously though? 533 and 667 perform about the same even on the same notebook, and those are not much faster than 400 if you ask me.

 

I have the T7300 and I can tell you that it is very very fast. Not a hitch in loading applications. Takes less than a second to load anything from photoshop to starting windows (more like 15 seconds there) I do however have the 7200 rpm hd and 2 gig of ram.

I went with the T7300 for the 4mb cache mostly. The FSB as I understand it not only works with RAM but also your other hardware like videocard, hard drive etc. Sure the RAM is at 667 but everything else is much faster.

 

OK yes there is a diffrence. One has 667mhz FSB which equates to a theoretical max of 5336MB/s of bandwidth. The other with 800Mhz has a theoretical max of 6400MB/s. Now the thing with ram is that in dual channel 667mhz ram theoretically has a bandwidth of 10672MB/s so is actually more than what both can support. This number is never reached but with the 800mhz FSB you will see better performance although only in applications that would be maxing out the bandwidth anyways such as movie encoding or gaming. But the diffrence wont be huge.

The other diffrence is that the odd number CPUs (eg. T7100, T7300) have DAT but I'm not quite sure what the advantage of that is. But from the looks of things might help the CPU use less power.

 

and the upcoming t7800 and t7900 processors clocked at 2.6 and 2.8 ghz respectively

 

Ben we have talked on other threads. FSB and RAM speed don't have to be synced. As that RAM never reaches its potential. And the RAM speed that is delivered to CPU is what it is. What RAM is pushing 8.4GB the highest I have seen is 5.3GB so does not even top 667Mhz.

 

:s your numbers have lost me but anyways. 5.3GB is maxing out a 667Mhz FSB. And the ram in my PC gets nearly 8GB/s at 700mhz in dual channel so if I do the math & say that at 667mhz I would be getting 95% (667/700) of that I get a real speed of 7.6GB/s which is over what even the 800mhz FSB can offer (its max is 6.4GB/s). And those are real numbers from my PC but in a laptop you can't get that becasue the FSB limits you (my FSB on PC is 1400mhz).

So with that ram in a laptop I would expect close to 5GB/s on a 667mhz FSB and close to 6GB/s on an 800mhz FSB.

Can someone do a benchmark of dual channel ram on these sort of configs and post what you get? (I would but im waiting for lappy coz dell takes to long)

Although laptop ram won't be as quick as my PC's ram it shouldn't be to far behind)

 

Ben my FSB is 1600Mhz so all you say is blown wind?

 

No it isn't.

Ok so if your FSB is 1600mhz it will still only see 8GB/s from my ram at 700mhz. But once the FSB drops below 1000mhz you can't possibly see that perfomance anymore becasue the FSB can't support it.

All im saying is that with dual channel ram you can see a perfomance improvment but only if your ram speed isn't already nearly limited by your FSB. But in laptops at the moment its nearly always FSB limited. So the gains arn't that much. But that you do see an improvment from a 667,hz FSB to a 800mhz one. Becasue of teh same reason that teh 800mhz limits the ram less.

 

No it isn't.

I'm trying to give results from a real system & results mean nothing without the details of the system being known.

If your FSB is 1600mhz you will still only see 8GB/s from my ram at 700mhz as I do at 1400mhz. But if the FSB is below 1000Mhz it is impossible to get those numbers becasue teh FSB can't support it/

All im trying to say is that with most laptops with a dual channel ram configuration teh FSb is the limiting factor not the RAM speed and hence you see improvemnts from the 800mhz FSB CPU's compared to the 667MHz CPU's. Because from what I can tell dual channel ram @ 667mhz is faster than what either of them can support.

 

grah wtf :s I think my internet is broken

Sorry for double post

 

No problem! My doctor said elavate and use ice!

 

I asked the original question and if I understand it correctly the FSB really only affects ram and nothing else? If that is the case then what everyone is saying is that I will get no real noticable gain at this time by going with the 800mhz FSB. Either Processor that comes on the laptop I decide on will be fine.

Thanks for all the replies.