T2400 OR T5500 processor?

what is better, a Core Duo T2400 (1.83GHz) or a Core 2 Duo T5500 (1.66GHz)?

should i go for the core duo with 1.83GHz or go for the Core 2 Duo with 1.66GHz?

what are the differences in things like battery life, processing power, doing something the other cant do, etc.

 

Not sure on battery life but the T5500 will smoke that T2400 in processing power. Dont be fooled by the clock speed. My g/f has the T5500 in her Dell and its impressive.

 

Battery life will not be noticeably different.

I'd get the T5500, simply because it's 64-bit. The Core 2 chips are about 10% faster clock-for-clock than the Core chips.

There really is no reason not to get a C2D today.

 

Well, what about the fact that, afaik, the CD chips are now significantly less expensive than the C2D chips? This is a problem that I'm currently mulling over in trying to decide what laptop to buy, since I know I don't need a lot of processing power (I basically just run "office"-type programs), and they're pretty much dead even in terms of power efficiency and, hence, battery life. However, I also want to be able to use this machine for at least a good 3+ years down the road, and I'm not sure if I would ultimately regret having a CD-based processor in the future (though it may be a moot point if I end up getting a MacBook, which I'm considering).

Just food for thought.

 

how long to be able to use the machine depends on what applications you're gonna use. Like internet surfing there will never be an internet explorer that will requires core 2 duo to run.

personally I'd think the core duo would run well in most or even all application for even 6 years from now, only exceptions are games.

 

Speed difference is barely a concern between the 2 processors. For that reason I would go for the T5500 as it supports 64bit, and is slightly more efficient.

 

So for games get a core 2 duo then? I will probably be gaming some, like the Command and conquer games if they ever come out with a new one. Do you think that games are going to be using 64-bit processors in the near future then?

 

In windows xp t2400 will be faster, but in vista where 64bit will be supported t5500 will propobly be faster, but not sure for how much. In todays aplications t2400 will be faster then t5500 so if it is cheaper go for t2400.
Battery life will be about the safe for those processors in the same system.

 

About vista, what if im playing command and conquer generals in vista but since it is a 32-bit game, will the game run faster on vista?

 

32 bit is still gonna last long until 64 bit become a standard processor, like the pentium 4

I do believe 64 will help for games in the future since both intel and amd are just making 64 bit from now on and games will support it in the future, while current games don't.

I just check prices between those 2 cpus they seem to be much same isn't? you might as well just get the core 2 duo then since it beats core duo in everyway except consumes a bit more power but not much to notice.

core 2 duo would be better for games since it's better than core duo

 

yeah, i think it would be worth the extra $80 to upgrade it to a core 2 duo.

 

No doubt...
T5500 OF COURSE!

BTW, i think standard desktop processors now's pentium D / pentium E or Athlon 64 X2