Is the Intel ULV Core 2 Duo SU9400 1.4GHz CPU any good?

Hi,

I'm looking to purchase a laptop and I've narrowed it down to the Acer Aspire Timeline 5810TG and the Acer Aspire 5738Z.

The Timeline has a bigger hard drive, longer battery life, and better specs overall, however, one thing I am worried about is the processor speed.

The 5738Z has a Intel® Pentium® Dual Core (T4300, 2.1Ghz 800Mhz 1MB L2 cache ) whilst the Timeline has a Intel® ULV Core 2 Duo (ULV SU9400, 3 MB L2 cache, 1.4GHz, 800MHz FSB).

I know the Core2Duo are the more modern version and are supposed to run faster, but is the slow CPU speed of 1.4GHz going to make the computer much slower than the Dual Core 2.1GHZ?

Sites like cpubenchmark.net seem to think so, as they have ranked the 1.4GHZ really poorly, even though it is Core 2 Duo and has an impressive 3mb cache.

Does anybody know, in reality, which CPU will run the computer faster and if there will be much of a difference?

I want to use the computer mainly for internet work-related activities (multi-window firefox, word, outlook express/windows live mail, dreamweaver, all running at once etc) as well as listening to music/watching movies, and I want to know which of the two will be better suited.

Thanks very much for your help.

 

Newer Pentium dual cores are actually based on the Core 2 Duo.


The Core 2 Duo you listed is a very low power variant (normally translates to a long battery life), as a result, it will be slower than the Pentium Dual Core. Only in very rare instances, will 3MB of cache benefit over 1MB, and at that point, the sheer clockspeed advantage of the Pentium Dual Core will still carry it over the C2D CULV.


There is an ever newer line of Pentium Dual Cores (G series) that are actually based off of the Core i3 Pentium now just means "low end", but the CULV is not supposed to compete in the high end - it's suposed to be one tick above the Intel ATOM, while maintaining a very long battery life.

 

You're not going to see a difference between those CPUs for everyday use. The T4300 is a cut-down version of a Core 2 Duo, it shares the same microarchitecture as the SU9400. The T4300 is faster but you would need to be running both processors at 100% capacity to notice a difference (rendering/encoding/math programs, etc).

I reviewed a notebook with a Core 2 Duo SU7300 (same as SU9400, except 1.3GHz) this summer, here are my thoughts on its performance:
Lenovo IdeaPad U550 Performance, Benchmarks, and Battery Life
I had no problem playing HD video, surfing the web, and the things you listed. No lag -- the processor is more than powerful enough.

Assuming the notebooks have similar specifications, the SU9400-equipped notebook will definitely give you better battery life; it consumes less power since it runs at a lower voltage. My suggestion is to go with the SU9400.

 

As often the case Passmark (cpubenchmark.net) is way off for the SU9400. In reality it will get about 1200 Passmark points.

Even so, the T4300 is a more powerful CPU.

But a powerful CPU only makes your computer faster when you're are full utilizing the CPU.

It depends on how heavy your Dreamweaver work is.

 

This is what I'm seeing as your choices:

See (Timeline):
ACER Aspire Timeline 5810TG

See (Aspire):
ACER Aspire 5738Z


Between the two it is clear in my mind that the Timeline is inferior for your use mainly because it is running a 32bit O/S.

When the higher clock speed is taken into consideration the Timeline is out of the running.

Contrary to popular opinions that a faster processor is only noticeable when running flat out (100%) - you will see a considerable difference in day to day use between the two systems.

When the optimizations are biased for maximum battery power - performance (and snappiness) do take a hit.

When you want to multi-task seemlessly like you indicate you need to - the ULV processors are a real hindrance to that goal. Not to mention the real (10% or more) additional performance from being on a 64bit O/S will make.

Add a 50% faster clock speed and the ULV, 32bit O/S based Timeline is already obsolete - unless you really, really, really value battery based computing time (which can still be 'solved' by simply adding another battery (or two) into your Aspire order).

Good luck.

 

Good point about the OS. It's simple to upgrade to a 64 bit OS. The key supplied on the bottom of the laptop will work with both 32 bit and 64 bit. You'll need to do a clean install anyway for performance.

If the CPU is not stressed there will not be any difference between T4300 and SU9400. If the OP stresses the CPU often, the T4300 will be the better choice of course.

Also note that the Timeline has a 500GB hard drive, chances are it's a faster hard drive than the 320GB used in the other Acer laptop.

 

Good point about the O/S upgradeability.

Still not convinced that a 50% clock speed difference will not be noticeable though to anyone in day to day use (I notice much smaller increments myself).

As to the HD - yes, you're probably right there too, but since I consider all stock HD's as 'throw-away' placeholders anyway I didn't put too much weight on that part of the comparison.

One additional point I wanted to mention is which system (if either) are able to use (physically) more than 4GB of RAM - this would also be a factor if long term use and/or increased multi-tasking were in the future for this system purchase.

 

When you're running on the battery and the CPU is in low power mode, they all downclock anyway. I could discern no difference in regular usage between my R60 and X200, though the CPU in the X200 is faster and three generations newer.

 

And even in balanced mode on AC it will down clock.

 

The SU9400 will be more power efficient.
The T4500 will be faster.

If want both features, look for a system with a superLFM capable P8xxx or T9xxx CPU and use Throttlestop to create an undervolted+superLFM profile while running battery. The T4500 are the budget binned Penryns with less cache, are not superLFM and IDA capable and run a 800Mhz FSB.

Worth noting too, the Acer 5738Z unit you are looking at has a less efficient and slower GL40 chipset which is limited to 800Mhz FSB CPUs, so can't put the 1066Mhz FSB P8xxx or T9xxx ones in there as an upgrade.

So GM45 chipsets + 1066Mhz FSB CPUs are the better performance AND battery life option in the C2D series than the GL40 + 800Mhz FSB CPU ones.

 

Just a note that a few seconds after a clean Win7x64 install, I change the profile to Performance and set the 'On Battery' side to match the 'Plugged In' mode.

 

Can't agree with you. I have an overclocked Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ 3.6GHz in my desktop and I use a 2.26GHz Core 2 Duo in my laptop. I perceive no difference for daily use -- Word, Excel, music, Internet surfing, things like that. Only when it comes to encoding/rendering to I notice a significant difference.

And as noted, CPUs downclock under moderate usage anyway. The SU9400 is a more than powerful enough CPU for what this user is doing.

And lastly I wouldn't call it a "popular opinion".

 

Exactly, the popular opinion is that a faster CPU will make everything faster. Which is not the case of course.

 

Actually the faster cpu will make a difference in whatever you do. When extra power is needed even for 0.5 seconds it will be there. If higher clocked CPUs did not make a difference people wouldn't bother to upgrade or even purchase the higher end to begin with.

If the higher end cpu were not doing extra work with everything being equal, L2 etc., then on ballanced profile the two systems would get the same real world battery life. Of course this is not the case. So battery life may be a consideration then again purchasing a larger battery may make up for some of this.

The SU9400 will run just about everything you want to do CPU power wise but you have to decide if it is an acceptable performance level. Also how green do you want to be. It just isn't a matter of cpu performance only as tasks such as video may also be off loaded to the GPU section too.

Don't worry too much about the memory speed. The lower cas of the memory makes up for quite a bit. Also at these speeds we are talking about memory speed is not usually a bottleneck. Now if you were trying to place a 4 GHz cpu in an 800 MHz fsb then the memory may start to show its age.

Think about CPU upgradability too. If you think that you may want more power down the line the standard cpu may be upgradable where the CULV may just be a lock. SU9400 units are much more of just a limited upgradable device, not that the other chipset offers alot of other options but there are some.

You should think of your current/anticipated workflow and how often you peak out the CPU even at 50% load level. If you do this often then you may find the CULV a bit more of a challange. If your current workflow rarely peaks the CPU the SU9400 may just be the ticket for you.

In the end you are the best judge of what best fits your needs. The x64 OS is better IMHO if you can get it. Most present software will not be too hard pressed though to run under the x32 bit variant though..........

 

The faster CPU only makes a difference when the CPU is the bottleneck.

We've had exactly the same discussion one month ago. Maybe someone can link to it.

Yeah that or people buy based on specs. I say the latter.

If people buy faster CPUs for non CPU intensive usage they're wasting their money.

 

Phil, you're just plain wrong here.

If cpu 'A' can complete 20 commands in a single time slice and cpu 'B' can do 30, it doesn't matter if the bottleneck is the cpu or not, cpu 'B' will be faster (and to some, even noticeable in day to day use).

It seems like you think that unless the cpu's are running flat out (being the 'bottleneck') that there is no inherent speed differences between chips?

That, is where you're wrong.

 

I say there is no noticeable difference. Even when I work on my Atom N540 netbook most of the operations go as fast as on my Core i3. Unless something is stresssing the CPU. And that can be something as simple as loading a webpage in the case of the Atom.

But if the CPU spike is only 0.1 seconds there will not be any noticeable difference with an i3. Simple as that.

When I compared my SU4100 notebook to the desktop I had before it was identically fast for non CPU intensive work.

 

Okay Phil,

lol... I have played with netbooks a few times and am just worn down by the speed difference between them and a normal (normal=set up by me) notebook.

I had even purchased (and returned) a netbook and took the time to set it up as best as I could - it still couldn't be considered in the same league as my other systems - not even for navigating the O/S.

More like the ancient single core (even those that ran at 3+GHz) cpu's that couldn't give you 'snap' if their life depended on it.

I guess our sensitivity levels are much, much differently tuned to small glitches, hiccups and delays introduced by various components in a modern system.

Once again, I'll leave you to your beliefs - but please allow for mine and TANWare's ideas to be expressed too.

 

You probably didn't read my post very well. I said the Atom does do certain things slower than my i3, even things as simple as loading a webpage.

The comparison with the Atom isn't a very good one though. Slower memory, slower FSB and less memory. Other components are disturbing the comparison.

I suggest you reread the answers you got in the previous thread that had the same conversation. It is pretty well explained there. I suggest you answer there.

 

That's interesting . . .

. . . since you are not leaving a whole lot of room for others' ideas to be expressed by treating your opinion as fact.

You're one of the most stubborn members on this forum and you need to accept that everything you post isn't going to be accepted with fanfare and fireworks. This is NBR -- people come here to get objective, expert advice. So please, keep that in mind when you post.

 

The SU9400 is soldered to the board. No decent/easy upgrades for either path. Only RAM can be upgraded on the Timeline setup.

 

Charles, you are right about all your points above.

I will try to keep the above in mind as I continue posting here.
.

 

Phil, having just re-read the linked thread you provided, I respectfully decline to comment there as the topic is much different than this one.

 

Phil, if I'm allowed to respond here?

The other thread is discussing a 6% clock speed difference. This thread is about a 50% clock speed difference.

I can appreciate it if I'm one of a very few people to 'feel' that 6% comparison (I'm not saying that I can/will in that particular case - just that I'm more sensitive to smaller differences than most people are). But I think that a 50% clock speed difference is enough for anyone to 'feel' too.

Where I might have mislead people (including Jakeworld) in that thread is by using the phrase that 'the cpu is always the bottleneck'.

Re-reading my own posts, I could have been a little more clear and stated that the cpu is always the final bottleneck.

I hope this distinction is clear now?

Work does not get done by anything else: the cpu must push 1's and 0's around to produce a needed result. The faster those bits are moved, the snappier the system.

You point out that some of my comparisions are between different systems/platforms. I see no conflict there. A cpu does not exist on its own - it needs its supporting chipsets to function - and those chipsets' speed are still intricately dependant on the cpu itself.

Thanks for continuing this discussion a little further.

I'm sorry that no points you or others have made have changed my mind about this issue.

A faster cpu simply makes everything faster (or 'snappier' if you prefer) even at less than 100% usage - this is not simply in my mind as a purely theoretical exercise - this is from using many different systems daily for the last 3 decades.

At the very least TANWare seems to agree with me too - maybe he is better able to communicate what I'm trying to say?

TANWare! Where are you?

 

Tiller, you are so focused on tiny differences that you don't see the bigger picture.

I agree these CPUs create tiny differences in jobs like displaying a web page or opening Word. However, these differences are not significant during normal usage.

And as I said before the HDD will have a far greater impact than the CPU for normal, non CPU intensive computer usage.

 

Phil,

I think that these small differences are significant (this is why I keep trying/testing SSD's).

I also agree that for non CPU intensive usage the SU9400 should be more than adequate. However, the OP's intended multi-tasking use will more than lightly tax this cpu imo.

Yes, the HD does alter the 'feel' considerably - as does the amount of RAM the system has too. The 10% or so difference between Win7x86 and Win7x64 is also noticeable; taken all together, the systems should feel like night and day (when set up identically) in the OP's stated use.

 

Well I think they're not significant.

About the OP's usage: we don't know if he is a normal user or a heavier user.

Having several Windows open is something completely different than multi tasking, as you probably understand.

 

That is a fair distinction.

lunarsea would be the best to describe his multi-tasking usage - but his description hinting at 'work-related' led me to believe that he is more than just leaving windows open - casually.

 

My system is described below and similar to that of which you speak. I had 3 XPS' before this, all of which had higher processors and this Ultra is my absolute favorite. In regular every day use, you will not see a diff whatsoever between the two that you are considering as Charles has stated. If you run the heck out of your machine and try to game with CPU intensive games, then its a given.

From my own viewpoint, I have pushed the system pretty hard as it was my regular test system prior to my new Bench and I have never even considered whether the processor was too slow. It goes everywhere with me and many have commented that this combination of size, CPU, RAM and SSD is the ideal setup.

Hope this helps...

Oh and... try and get 8 plus hours of use at a time out of that other machine... I can stretch to over 10 with this and have. I could never do it before the timeline.

 

I have to agree with Tiller here. The claim that one will only experience noticeable gains in performance between two CPUs, one lower performing and the other higher performing, when one encounters a task that is particularly CPU intensive seems to me to be without justification, prima facie implausible and at odds with my own findings respecting CPUs.

For example, earlier this year I upgraded from a Dell Vostro desktop (using a Core 2 Duo E6750) to a Dell 1557 (using an i7 720QM). The desktop is now owned by my family, and I occasionally perform maintenance on it. Even in general, "light" use, I notice a difference (albeit not an enormous one) between the performance of the two systems; the 1557 just seems that much "smoother". Certainly, the two systems are not otherwise identical, but I cannot easily think of what else would be making the difference. From what I have seen, such an experience is not uncommon, either, and I wager that if I purchased an N550 powered netbook I'd be grinding my teeth within five minutes.

Also:

I hardly see what the problem is here. Would you rather he espouse an opinion which he believes to be false?

 

I can't tell a difference between my quad core desktop and my ThinkPad for most things like iTunes, Internet, Office, Solitaire, etc. Now, if I'm encoding a DVD, then it's night and day, but that's about it.

 

I can tell you if in ballanced mode I run the x9100 at 2.1GHz as compared to the normall running of it at 3.2 GHz I can tell a difference in the snap of the desktop and general usage. You are right though in general usage looking at a general web page after it loads while listening to music you will not notice the CPU.

As I stated the user knows their usage pattern and from that can determine if their proccessor loads dictate the need for more CPU power. Just rememeber more proccessor may mean not feeling as hampered down the line. Other than for battery life no one here complains of just having too much CPU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At some point there are diminishing returns. A good 2.1 GHz with a good storage system can be quite snappy for general purpose. The fact I now have a SSD is a good reason I can see a difference between 2.1 and 3.2 GHz in the same system as I am not file access limited for the CPU to proccess. In fact with the SSD I can see my cpu loads are quite a bit higher at login and loading programs as it gets worked more heavily for those short periods.

My U81 with a XT I had put in a P8400 and can tell you for general purpose their is no difference in feeling from a P9600. Now lock it at 1.2 or 1.4 GHZ compared to ballance at 2.1 GHz and their is a difference in its overall feel even with the original 7K500 I had in it at the time I tested this..............

 

My ThinkPad has the Intel G2 and my desktop has the Agility 2 as the boot drive. I still can't see a difference.

 

With the CPU locked at 1.2 maybe you will notice a difference compared to normal clocks...........

 

Good to know Les. There are two systems in your signature. Might be good to clarify it's a SU9400 you are speaking of.

 

The notion of significant gains is a tricky business, and a lot depends on exactly what 2 processors you're comparing. In the case of the original argument, given that both processors are based on the same architecture (Penrynn-3M), and that their speeds are not substantially different, there will probably not be as much difference in their general performance.

In the case of your desktop and your new notebook, there are much greater differences; you're jumping several generations (Conroe to Core i), and moving from a dual-core to a quad-core, even if your quad-core is lower clocked than said dual-core.

The issue also often comes up in terms of where you start from; once you pass a certain threshold of performance (for most people this is somewhere past the atom), you'll notice performance increases less and less. For example, it's much easier to tell the difference between traveling at 20 and 40 miles per hour, than 80 and 100.

I think the point was more that he should point out that his opinions are his opinions, and not that they should be treated as the end-all and be-all holy writ of all that is true.

We are all free to our opinions, and the intent is not to ask tilleroftheearth to espouse an opinion or position that he believes to be false, but to accept that what he feels is an opinion, and that other people may disagree with it. Calling someone's feelings "just wrong" is perhaps stepping a bit over the line; an opinion is, after all, a person's personal beliefs which may or may not be factually provable one way or another.

 

IMHO while between the Atom and CULV may be like the 20-40, the CULV to the 2.1 GHZ is like the difference between 40-80 and the 2.1 GHz to the x9100 is like the 80-100. Now the system itself has alot to do with this as well.

I can tell you stock the P7805 with P8400 CPU and U81a with T6400 the U81 was much snappier of a desktop machine. Both apr. 2 GHz and the P7085 with faster memory and dedicated GPU. I finnally attributed this to the speedstep implimentation.

The P7805 was increasing in steps up to 2.1 GHz while the U81 was either 1.2 or 2.0 GHz. The instant on speed of the 2.0 ruled the day. If nothing else I have learned comparing one system to another can be a tricky thing. This is why it is important to say all things being equal.

With this in mind the SU9400 1.4 GHz can feel every bit as snappy as A 2.1 GHz machine if the speedsteps never get it to the 2.1GHz, or are slow in getting it there, durring general tasks especially with the larger L2 of the SU9400. Personally I do not like being CPU limited by the fact it can not be upgraded, that would be my only factor in not purchasing one.

For an extreemly portable device, IE netbook, again personally I would not hesitate for a SU9400 and 8-10 hours of battery life. For genear purpose laptop C2D's 2.0 GHz is my sweet spot and lastly for DTR 3.0 GHz or above does the trick for me. Again IMHO as these are my preferences but everyone is different and why the market has such wide variations in system spec's.

It is also important to note with enough bloatware a X9100 can feel more lethargic than a streamlined SU9400 system. So it can also be important to decide if some of the bloatware will remain on the system or if you run alot in the background like IM clients etc...................

 

Back in the Pentium 4 days I could tell the difference in daily use between different models, most notably between the 533MHz FSB models and the 800MHz; the latter was literally 'snappier'.

However these days, modern processors like the Core i series and AMD Phenom process so many instructions per second that you need to be doing a lot of stuff with the CPU to make any difference between them apparent. I just ran a web page rendering test on my desktop and it processed 3.697 pages/second. Even if I used a CPU half as fast, I doubt I would notice the difference while surfing the Internet -- maybe you guys could.

When I build my desktop over three years ago and started overclocking it, I had it up at 3.6GHz like I do now but one time accidentally reset the BIOS without realizing it and was running the CPU at its default 2.4GHz clocks for a week. I used the computer as I normally did, and only when I ran CPU-Z did I realize it wasn't overclocked. And 3.6GHz is 50% higher than 2.4GHz.

This is a good example of where the differences between a less and a more powerful CPU will be very apparent:
http://forum.notebookreview.com/har...s/525227-i7-720qm-vs-i7-640m.html#post6797584

 

I agree with the 2.4 GHz, I've found as you stated it makes a minimal difference at that point and above. My statement is between 1.2 or 1.4 GHz and 2.1 GHz. at that point there is a difference you can feel. Not that an SU9400 would be unusable jus tthat there is a descernable difference........

 

Actually the CULV is 1.4GHz and the T4300 is 2.1GHz. That would make it 40-60 during CPU intensive tasks.

Also the SU9400 has 3MB cache, while the T4300 has 1MB cache. That would make it ~ 43-60 during CPU intensive tasks.

 

Ok I'll clarify some things. And forgive me if this sounds trivial, because it very well may.

I'll comment on two phrases I've seen repeated in this thread:

"The CPU is always the (final) bottle neck" and "Actually the faster cpu will make a difference in whatever you do".

Let's look at a couple of usage examples:

First I copied a 2GB folder on my hard drive. I set my Core i3 330um at 1200 MHz and timed it, two runs. 1:27 on average. Then I set the CPU to 800-931 MHz (more than 20% lower). Duplicated the same folder. 1:26 on average. No statistical valid difference. As shown duplicating a folder isn't bottle necked by the CPU. The storage is the bottle neck.

Another example: Passmark 3d rendering test. Medium settings. CPU at 1200MHz: 84 frames per second. CPU at 800-931 Mhz: 82 frames per second. The difference can not be perceived by human beings. In this example the CPU is hardly the bottle neck. The GPU is the main bottle neck.

What about typing a letter in Word? This time the CPU isn't the bottleneck, the user is.

What about downloading a torrent? The CPU isn't the bottleneck, the internet connection is.

Simple conclusion: the CPU is often not the bottle neck.

And of course for tasks that do create CPU utilization spike(s), like booting, launching applications and calculations, the CPU does make a difference. Whether the difference is discernible to a human being depends on a couple of factors: how large the difference is, the user and others.

But let's say the SU9400 launches Firefox in 3 seconds while the T4300 launches Firefox in 2.5 seconds (I don't have exact numbers). And let's also assume that the user is able to perceive such a difference. Then the user will have to decide what's more important: these small gains, or a 4 hour gain in battery life (based on the laptops in the OP).

And of course the more and the longer tasks the user executes that do create CPU utilization spikes, the more a powerful CPU will be beneficial to overall performance.

This is why I say, a faster CPU only makes a difference when the CPU is the bottleneck.

I think Charles's comment was not directed at the fact that he disagrees with me, it was a comment on the way of discussing. (Not that my way of discussing was perfect )

PS. please use the regular font when posting. This benefits readability on all sorts of devices.