T7400 versus t7600

After reading this

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=288

it seems like the t7600 is leaps better than the t7400 and t7200. What do you guys think? They are claiming much better performance and battery life....

 

I see no leap.It's just a maximum of 10% performance gain for $200.It's not cost effective right now.

 

Out of all notebook processors, the T7200 still offers the best performance/$ ratio. I probably wouldn't bother about either the t7400 or the t7600.

 

I got the t7600 but I still don't know how higher clock speed translates to better battery life...

 

They should use *almost* exactly the same battery life as they are the same nm size and use the same voltage. Unless a few seconds saved while performing processor-intensive tasks are worth the extra $$, I'd save the cash and invest in more memory or a faster hard disk.

 

Higher clocks generally require higher voltage to sustain, translating into more power used over the same period of time. Now if there's a subtle difference in chip architecture on the other hand...

 

One thing that makes the faster prozessors better with battery life is that when the CPU is busy and uses to 100% the faster CPU will finish the task faster and can clock down to power saving while the slower CPU is still working. Some can be true at 80% and so on. When the T7600 is using 80% the t7200 needs to clock at 90 or even 100% to keep up. During that time the T7600 uses less power.

The article makes it sounds like something was changed in the T7400 to the T7600. I think they are just comparing an early production sample T7400 with some bugs in the power consumption to a retail T7600 with the bugs fixed.