Whats the difference between T3200 and T5800?

Both are 2.0, the T5800 however has twice as much cache.
Ah and the T3400, which is exactly the same as T3200 beside its 2.16 and not 2.0 processor.

Just wondering what's the real difference between the two[actually three of those.

Thanks.

 

Usually the chip with the most cache or higher clock speed is always faster than the others.

Performance wise, it goes like T5800 => T3400 > T3200

Higher cache is useful when you are doing something intensive, such as gaming or video coding or browsing with 500 firefox (lol)

Higher clock speed is useful for everything in general, however, you wont be able to notice the difference of 0.1ghz in real world performance. Even gaming wise it might not equates to 1 fps.

 

Core 2 Duo T5800 2000 2048 800

Pentium Dual-Core T3200 2000 1024 667
Pentium Dual-Core T3400 2166 1024 667

The T3400 is clocked 166MHz faster than the T5800 and the T3200.
The T5800 has twice the L2 cache of the T3200 and the T3400.
All three processors are based on the Merom-2M core, and should offer similar performance.

As mentioned, in some cases you may see small benefits from the T3400 or the T5800, based on application dependence on clock speed or cache, respectively. These will be small gains, though; for all practical purposes you can probably write off all three processors as being the same thing.

 

So money wise, its better getting the T3200 than the T3400 because I wont notice any difference?

 

Yep (ten characters).

 

You also need to look at the Front-Side Bus (FSB) - that makes a big difference in overall responsiveness. The FSB is essentially the data highway between the processor and the memory controller.

T3200
2.0GHz - 667MHz FSB - 1MB L2

T5800
2.0GHz - 800MHz FSB - 2MB L2

What laptop are you looking at? I would spend ~$50 to get the T5800 over the T3200, that's a good upgrade. There's no point to getting the T3400; as noted, the clockspeed matters but an extra 160MHz will not affect anything.

 

This upgrade will cost me about $100.
So I'm not that sure about this. Hehe

 

I dont think that is worth it. Unless you want every bit of speed you can get, juat get the T3200 and save $100.

 

That's debatable if you take these benchmark tests into account. In this guide the T3200 ranks 91st the T5800 56th and the T3400 53rd, although all the pre-mentioned factors matter, you'd really be negligent if you didn't take such a guide into account. By no means do I believe this guide to be 100% accurate but to be able to comply such a guide would take a high degree of accuracy.

 

Wow, mine ranked at 20

ok -DMD-, it really depends on your usage. If all you do is probably, checking email, chatting, mp3 or video, then T3200 is enough to suit your needs.

You can do light gaming with the T3200, but i doubt it comes with a good/performance graphic card anyway.

So for the 100 bucks, i dont think its worth it. My upgrade from T8300 to T9300 is only 50 bucks hehehe

 

Yeah the graphic card isn't much.
I have no idea why T3400 is rnked a lot higher than the T3200, it looks almost the same.
T3400 is ranked even higher than T5800. xD

 

Keep in mind though that T3200 does better than T5800 in Passmark's benchmarks. And Passmark is a pretty good CPU benchmark.

 

Everyone has his own list? XD
Doesn't mae it easy on me. lol
Any other opinions?