U7600 vs. T7300

How big is the difference in performance between these two processors? the tasks to be performed include web surfing, MS office (lots of excel), chatting, movie and very light gaming. Is it very noticeable? I'm prefer HP ultraportable but they dont seem to have one with the T7300 but only the low voltage one. Thanks

 

I'm sure the speed difference will be noticeable - you are comparing 1.2GHz with 2GHz. See Intel for the detailed specs. However, this difference only comes into play when the CPU has to do something, so the occasional bursts of CPU activity will take a little longer with the U7600. With your proposed usage the CPU won't be spending much time under load.

However, the U7600 will give you much better battery time, if that is a feature you are also looking for.

John

 

HUGE VERY HUGE although a U7600 is new architecture it speed does not differs from older mobile celerons... T7300 on the other hand is in the tier of the mainstream processors and will cut trough anything. U7600 will have difficulty with everything you mentioned(if it is vista) except surfing and word processing.
I would anytime sacrifice under 2 hours of baterry life for a rapid performance cos the time you win on the long battery life that time you will lose while playing dvd's or games...

 

The U7600 is great for battery life.

 

It's hard to say since I've never used one. But I think it would be pretty noticeable in gaming. In Excel it could matter, depending on the complexity and size of the spreadsheet. I went from 1.5ghz single-cpu to 2.0ghz T7300 and large spreadsheets seem twice as fast now. U7600 is 2-processor but runs at only 1.2ghz.

But I bet the battery life is pretty amazing.

 

Seems to be a lot of misinformation about what the U7600 is. The U7600 is a C2D dual core and is no way close to a Celeron. It's just a a CPU with a C2D with a lower TDP. It has a lower operating voltage across all multipliers.

The T7300 is going to destroy the U7600 in processing power.

 

Regarding performance, I would refer to my Sony G11 review. That has only the single core U1500 and can run Vista (without the eye candy etc) and the other tasks indicated by the OP (provided the light gaming isn't much more challenging than Solitaire - maybe the HP has the X3100 which is significantly more potent than the Intel 950).

John

 

The review John is pointing out to is good indicator of performance and the difference between core solo UV 1500 and U7600 is minimal...

 

It definitely not minimal. Two cores compared to one... You can also get a L7500/L7700 (or is it 7800) in the Lenovo ThinkPad X61s.

 

What do you want the laptop for? If it's primary function is mobility and battery life take the U7600. If it's primary use is power like gaming and photoshop for example, take the T7300.

 

If you are not limited to only those two CPU, I suggest that you get a Low end T7xxx series or a T5xxx series

 

How would the L7x00 series compare? Like L7700 at 1.8GHz vs. T7100 at 1.8GHz?

 

I think they're pretty much the same, but the L7700 gets better battery life.

 

Dude, he's watching movies and chatting online...how intesive can those tasks be on a processor. All those tasks that he mentioned are MUCH more dependent on amount of ram and hard drive speed. None of those will even tickle the cpu, much less put any kind of strain on it...

I mean do you seriously consider Yahoo messeger, or AOL Instant messenger, or trillian, or ICQ, or MSN messenger heavy resource hogging applications.

I do agree that the "light gaming" will suffer with the U processor, but none of the others will have any problem.

 

If they're high-def movies then processor power is very important, especially if using a lower-end integrated video chipset that can't offload most of the decoding or processing. If standard-def movies, then a low-voltage U-series processor is much more than adequate.