Normal C2D processor's and the ULV processors

Hey,

I'm just wondering why normal C2D processor's usually are around 2 GHz whilst in most Thin and Light 13" laptops you get a processor called SUxxxx (instead of the Pxxxx or Txxx etc) but whilst "normal" C2D processor's have a speed of 2ish GHz as standard alot of these new ULV processor's are around 1-1,2 GHz?


I hardly know anything about computer's but I am trying to find a Ultraportable 13" laptop but most processor's seem "old" due to the 1,2 GHz thing.

Is it better to get a "normal" processor at 2ish GHz? Is there alot of performance difference between the two? And what's the difference between the two?

Seeing as I dont know that much about computer's I can basically only judge a processor based on the GHz number (which is probably really stupid, I know) but that's the only thing I figured out, the higher number the faster processor?

Thanks for the help!

 

The reason is power consumption. Those chips are designed to be reasonably fast whilst not sacrificing battery life. Typically a core2 based chip will still stack up about 2x as fast as a comparable desktop P4, so suddenly that 1.2Ghz mobile chip is as fast as a 2.4Ghz P4 and then some.

Most mobile core 2 chips have a tdp of 25-45W. An atom for example uses less than 10w IIRC.

 

Are the mobile core 2 processor's faster than a desktop processor?

I was reading the Windows 7 Requirement's and it said that you should atleast have 1 GHz processor so 1,2 GHz on the laptop seemed abit close for my liking, but am I misunderstanding it all?

 

The ULV processors would be fine for basic web browsing and common tasks but if you tried to do some video encoding or anything that may be CPU intensive, it will be noticeably slower.

Edit:

It all depends on what you're comparing to since the GHz and architecture as well as some other minor features all factor into performance.

 

Yes there is some performance difference between an P/T series processor and an SU series, but the benefits of the SU series are way less power usage. The SU9400 in my Acer uses at max 10W of power compared to the P8400 in my brothers Sony SR that uses at max 25W of power. My computer like his can still play hd video and I even watch HD tv in Media Center.

 

The difference in clock speed is simply because a higher clock speed requires a higher voltage. Given that the ULV CPUs are designed for lower power consumption, they are simply Core 2 Duo CPUs that do not make use of higher multipliers, and are undervolted. In other words, Intel's ULV CPUs sacrifice performance for lower power consumption (and thus greater mobility).

Ever since Intel abandoned the Netburst architecture, their Pentium 4 marketing scheme that alleges that "more clock speed is better" seems to have remained with some people. Forget about that mentality. Clock speed doesn't mean alot when it comes to comparing performance amongst different CPUs. What matters is the architecture and the design goals of the chip.

Some of the examples that fellow forum members have presented comparing the superiority of a 2GHz Core 2 Duo to a 3.4GHz Pentium 4 illustrate my point.

 

I think ULV stands for Ultra low volts.

There is no discernible difference between all the core 2's other than power consumptions.

Clock for clock they're all the same, the ULV's are just clocked lower because they are using less volts/power.

ULV's are necessary for very small 13" laptops such as the Macbook Air. A full fledged C2D would set you macbook air up in flames.

Mobile Core2 = Desktop Core 2. Except Desktop core 2's are clocked higher because they have spacious towers to cool down, whereas laptops are confined spaces.

I think you are being too hung up on clockspeed and need to see that Core 2's are really powerful and can handle 90% of the general population's basic computer tasks.

If the Windows7 requirements specifies only the clockspeed and not the processor, I believe its assuming that the user has an outdated Pentium or Athlon CPU.

To put things in perspective for ya...

Intel Pentium 4 "E" 570 @ 3.8ghz gets a score of 1141 in 3dmark
Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 @ 1.8ghz gets a score of 1579 in 3dmark

Even at a 2ghz deficit the Core2 is still faster. That is the power of the Core2Duo, which when Conroe was first released few years back, it catapulted Intel way beyond AMD. The performance gains was huge.

 

Thanks for all the info guys, really appriciate it and very informative for a complete beginner like me!

So even though the Samsung X360 only has a SU9300 C2D 1,2 GHz processor it will still run windows 7 fluently when you browse the web with multiple tabs open, working in Word/Excel and listening to music at the same time?

I'm really hung up on this Win7 thing as I dont want to get a computer that wont be able to run it efficiently.

Was going to get a Dell E4300 which had 2ish GHz C2D but then someone recomended the Samsung X360 which I really like, but again abit conservative with this clock speed thingy

 

The SU9300 is sufficient for your tasks. Your applications are not very demanding and your dual core can handle all those if you multitask. What you don't see or realize is although the C2D is 2.0GHz, most of the time it will operate below 1GHz because the user does not need it (via SpeedStep). I'm sure your SU9300 will not run 1.2GHz most of the time either (only when you require it, will it go back to that speed).

 

I'm happy with the Thinkpad X300 (SU9300) and Windows 7. It feels very snappy, though it can also be attributed somewhat to the SSD.

 

That's because the HDD is the slowest part of the system, therefore upgrading the bottleneck of the system will noticeably improve performance.