Rise of ultra slow processors?

I have seen a lot of thin and light computers that I absolutely love, such as the acer timeline, the asus u, ux, and ul series, and msi x series. These seem like what I would want in an idea college laptop: light weight and a great battery life. But it seems like EVERYONE of these computers is running on a ultra low 1.3 or 1.4 ghz processor?

I know these are for the amazing battery life, but it seems crazy to me. I have an old acer extensa with a C2D 1.46ghz and I have noticed many a time when my computer would freeze up to load multiple things. Sure it is an old T2310.

So would the newer 1.3/4 be indeed faster than my current laptop, or are people buying old technology?

 

Its a Core 2 Duo, the architecture change alone from a Core Duo will make it faster. And yes, the SU4100/7300/7800/9300/9400/9600 are faster thanks to improvements including more l2 cache and faster FSB's.

Also, if you are looking for a college laptop, skip the current Core 2 Duo's and wait for Arrandale, arriving in the first week of January.

 

I thought so, I knew all you smart people would notice any difference. So how would a current 1.4 compare to mine? Not stats, but what kind of performance would i see?

 

Take a look here for a benchmark comparison on CPUs:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_list.php

Gives a nice indication of how powerful the CULV actually are.

 

Actually, if you're using a laptop on battery chances are you are already running an ultra slow processor. Most of the Intel's (not sure on AMD) downclock to around 800MHz, and depending on the power profile you set within Windows it may not ever run faster than that when on battery.

 

For the most part, these "slow" processor handle just about everything you can throw at them. Internet, compiling, Powerpoint, Excel, Word, Blogging, Music, Videos, Remote Access, Photo Editing, etc. The XT2 and the X200T I have both are more than capable of fulfilling the role of a primary productivity machine.

Until software development and battery life is increased to take full advantage of today's processors, these "slow" processors will continue to fulfill today's needs.

That's right! I'm blaming you software engineers out there for these low standards!!

 

Exactly. 99% of the time, most users do not need more than 1GHz on a C2D. For example, on my system, I have Firefox open with 20 tabs and Skype, MSN, and Winamp on as I am typing this but RMClock still keeps my CPU at 1GHz and everything is running smoothly.

 

The reason why CULV are low frequency is because the higher frequency mean more execution per second which translate to higher power consumption.
Frankly speaking those processors are great.
Your normal (non gaming) applications doesn't need such high frequency nowadays anyway.

 

-_-" are you one of those guys complaining how slow Vista was on legacy hardware?....

 

The 1.46GHz T2310 is actually a Pentium Dual-Core processor. It has a 533MHz FSB, 1mb L2 cache and is based on the older 65nm Merom architecture.

The current 1.3GHz Pentium SU4100 and Core 2 Duo ULV processors have an 800MHz FSB, 2/3mb L2 cache and are built on the more-efficient 45nm Penryn architecture.

Here's a comparison of their performance on PassMark (a CPU benchmark)-
T2310- 747
SU4100- 927 (24% increase)
SU7300- 995 (33% increase)

LINK to PassMark

 

Heh, you obviously misread my comments.

 

Intel C2D CULVs are good for normal everyday use, but they are not meant for heavy gaming and similar cpu demanding tasks.
They also usually include either a Intel GMA 4500mhd or Nvidia & ATIs power friendly gpus.

 

Both the XT2 and the X200T I have have SU9400s. Quite sufficient for every day computing.

 

i used a core2duo ulv 1.2ghz for quite a while as my only main machine. the only thing that made it really feel slow was the hdd. once that was fixed with an ssd, the system felt faster and was nearly always fast enough for anything you could throw at it.

the gigahertz war is over. now people have to finally learn that..

 

This is because of your hard drive, not the CPU.

If you upgrade the hard drive on your Acer to a fast SSD it will fly. (assuming you keep a clean OS installation)

If my next computer has a SU2300 (Dual Core Celeron 1.2GHz) it will be more than fast enough for everything I do.

 

I own two laptops, one with a SU9600 1.6ghz ULV and one with a T9300 C2D 2.5ghz.
The ULV can handle most of my tasks very well. Btw, my nephews SU3500 can handle everyday tasks fine also.

I use my T9300 laptop more as a desktop now. If i want to do more intensive stuff i use my more powerful laptop.

The less powerful one could probably handle those tasks as well but it would be running at near max or at max doing so. The more powerful one handles them with ease and with power to spare.

 

I actually had a guy argue with me that the new Core i7 720QM (1.6GHz QUAD CORE) was slower than most Core 2 Duos...

 

I read the thread tittle and the first that came to my head was "long live the short people!! (I am one of them) hahahaha"

Anyways. A CULV is a more-than-capable-for-the-target-market-CPU.

For daily tasks, some gaming, and even more "intense" stuff (not number crunching or calculations or databases nor renders) but for the target market, the CULV ended up being a good processor.

 

so for me, someone who is on firefox/chrome, aim, ms office, and itunes it would be acceptable?

and how about photoshop/lightroom (photo organizer)? And if i were on photoshop as well as aim and firefox?

as in, for a college student, how much multi tasking would I be able to do?

 

multi tasking wont be a problem. photoshop might be, since rendering is fairly CPU intensive, but it wont be crippling slow, just not as fast. A 1+ghz dual core is still a very capable processor.

 

ChaosSpear,

As a heavy user of LR x64 running on Q9450 8GB RAM +4 Raptors (desktop) and on a P8400 8GB RAM VAIO, I cannot see an CULV keeping up for me. If you use LR very, very, very, lightly - and with fewer than about 2000 images, it may be quick enough for you - keep in mind I'm more business/production oriented too. But just an additional data point so you don't (blindly) assume that LR will run well on anything.

 

I run WMP, FF, Chrome, Adobe Professional, Word, and Outlook on the XT2 and it runs like a champ. That's my default stable of everyday apps.

 

Adobe Professional... what? Acrobat?

 

I'm quite sure that there is a rise of the ultra slow processors like the CULV ones but certainly intel atom is falling and dying... netbooks sales have dropped like 30% this year when i read an article on notebookcheck.net... but yes CULV would be great especially since i'm a student and use the laptop around school.. but my hp's 1hour battery life isn't great...

 

sean473, dont you prefer the 59 minutes on power saving of the Sager 8790??

Supposedly with Arrandale most notebooks should be able to have decent battery life, therefore CULV could not be needed. Albeit there is a ULV ix

 

Yeah, I meant Acrobat.

 

ULV is always needed for those who want the most battery life (aka me). Also, who wants a 35W Arrandale in something like an Acer 1810?

 

35W that account the CPU the NB, QPI, IMC, IGC, IGP...its not half bad. But there should be the 25W versions too down the road.

 

I know, but its still 35W for all that compared to 18W for the culv's. My SU9400 is undervolted at .8750V, a non ulv can't do that.

 

Plus the 7-10W of the NB+IGP

I know it is still less, but the point is that the Arrandale should be better, and considering how it could shut down one core, who knows, maybe it consumes less than 10 when idling?

 

Exciting, isn't it?

 

well if you did a few smart tricks like only allowing the processor to clock to maybe 1600MHz on battery and lowering your 2D GPU clocks , power usage should drop with a D900F and the battery should last more than an hour... and since i usually sit near a power outlet, shouldn't be a problem... real problem is humping the laptop to school everyday on a 30 min walk with 10kg of books lol...