Which processor is sufficant enough for my needs?

Well I want to purchase a notebook in soon but I am not sure what processor will fit my needs.
I am wanting to use the notebook mainly for college (Microsoft office, view videos, and web browsing).

I am trying to decided between
the Intel® Pentium™ Dual Core T4400(2.2GHz/800Mhz FSB/1MB cache)
and
the Intel® Core™ i3-330M 2.13GHz (3M cache).

I don't want to buy a certain processor if it really doesn't need it.
The price between the 2 processors is about $100 in the 2 laptops.
I like cheaper so I am leaning toward the T4400 for that reason.
The i3 seems nice but I am assuming it is more power then I need.
I could be wrong. I am still real new to all these processors.
I will really appreciate all the help I can get.
Also if it makes a difference I am considering the Dell Studio 15.

 

They'll both work fine for whatever you want to do, especially if you're not gaming.

 

Indeed. Both will do the job.

 

The i3 might run cooler and so your notebook will be quiet.
Might even get you a better battery life.

Though would the difference be noticeable? I don't know..
Probably not worth $100.

Maybe with a dell coupon you could get $100 off?

 

If the price difference is small, might as well go with the i3. It might last you longer.

 

I say i3. More logical cores in the case that you decide that you want to use it for slightly more intensive things later on. Plus, the difference between the two in terms of price isn't all that much.

 

going from core 2 duo to core i3 will make little to no difference.

100$ is not worth the price for marginal performance increase.

you could spend that money for something else like an ssd, it will give you a much better performance and user experience, you dont have to wait for loading times, you have a longer battery life, no more noisy hdd thanks to no moving parts from ssd, much much reliable and runs cool

you could have intel x25-v for $119 No Tax + Free shipping
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/673115-REG/Intel_SSDSA2MP040G2R5_X25_V_40GB_SATA_Solid_State.html

[video] SSD vs HDD(western digital raptor 10K) RPM

 

If you plan on using XP Mode or Virtual Machines, the i3 is a must have. The T4400 does not support hardware virtualization, which means your virtual machines will run much slower.

Outside of that the i3 has enough extra cache that for some applications that will be a plus, and the processor supports hyper-threading so multi-tasking will be a hair better.

I'm not entirely sure, but I would be willing to guess that the i3 would get you a better battery life as well.

Knowing Dell, there are probably other differences in the laptop specifications than just the processor. What models are you looking at precisely? Maybe there will be something else that will help make that extra $100 worth it.

 

i forgot,

with core 2 duo, you could overclock and downclock the processor using setfsb. it will give you a much better performance if you need in the future, you could also undervolt core 2 duo using rmclock to save battery life, make your system more silent and run much cooler

with core i3 your stuck with 2.13ghz and no turbo boost, based on what i saw core i processor has very little overclocking headroom using setfsb from (4 cores from 1.6ghz to 1.79ghz) ( 1 core from 2.8ghz to 3.1ghz) with very little to no performance gain(only gains on synthetic benchmarks)
core i overclocking

based on the things you will do on your laptop(Microsoft office, view videos, and web browsing).

you cant go wrong with ssd, your system will be snappy, programs will load instantly, booting, rebooting and shotdown will be super fast, you dont have to wait ages when application crashes, much more reliable than hdd so you dont have to worry about your files becoming corrupted.

you dont need a fast processor based on what your needs,
you could even go with a netbook intel atom + nvidia ion + intel ssd( asus 1201n & intel x25v) based on your needs
spend your money wisely

 

The T4400 is sufficient for your needs, that much is certain. However I do agree that for a 100$ difference, it might be worth it to upgrade to an i3, but you certainly won't need ti given your uses.

Is the rest of the machine the same(is it even the same machine)?

 

C2D and the i3/5/7 series have negligible battery differences when comparing similar clock speeds. Given that the i3 has a couple million extra transistors for cache and hyperthreading, I'd think that it might even be worse.

 

Even the T4400 is more than you need.

Don't forget to use coupons and/or ask for discounts.

 

i would say i3... for future-proofing and in case u need extra power while seeing videos etc.

 

While the OP shouldn't bother to pay for the extra processing power because it's not needed, if there will be no discrete card in the laptop I'd go with the i3 for the more powerful Intel GMA HD integrated graphics.

 

Just so you guys know,A Core i3 330 is equal in performance to a T9600.

 

I thought it was more like a P8700? Anyways, regardless of its level of performance, it will hardly matter for MS office applications and internet browsing.

 

The problem then goes to flash and/or other internet applications. possibly also streaming must and/or video and other multitasking. The C2D is ample for single and even slight multitasking but the i3 is a much better choice. Also if the graphics are integraed the i3 is a better choise as already mentioned. The memory may be different too so you had best check that as well.

They talk here about overclocking, undervolting and other things to get out of the system performance you will already get with th i3. I say just get the i3 and be done with it!

 

Don't waste your money on the i3. The T4400 will do everything you need it to do just fine and save you $100.

 

intel core i3 330m doesnt support turbo boost
Intel® Core? i3-330M Processor (3M Cache, 2.13 GHz) with SPEC Code(s) SLBMD, SLBNF

also the integrated graphics on the core 2 duo pressumably(4500mhd) can already play 1080p videos smoothly so watching movies wont be a problem
YouTube - Flash 10.1 YouTube 1080p HD Video on 11.6" CULV Notebook - Works Great!

 

Agreed no turbo boost but the i3 core at the same clock is 10%-25% more powerful. You have to get The C2D core a rocking to get the same perfomance as the i3.

I am not just talking 1080P, Also aero effects and other 3D apps etc. Like Office 2010 and PowerPoint using Vertex and pixle shaders for transitions. Since the integrated solution is much faster than the GMA4500 it is without a doubt a better choice.

EDIT; I am not saying the T4400 is not sufficient, it is for todays apps. Soon it may not be though and then you may long for an i3 or better core.........

 

Hardly taxing applications, so there is really no benefit there.

Like what apps? When is a T4400 and 4500mhd not going to be enough to play videos, browse the web, and use microsoft office?

 

Considering a single core Pentium 4 or Pentium D is still doing fine on today's basic applications idk when a dual core T4400 will be unable to >.>

 

Save the $100 and go for the cheaper CPU. Though you should have put somewhere directly on the poll the cost since that's also a factor.

 

ok lets break this down

Q: is core i3 faster?
A: yes

Q: how faster the core i3 is?
A: 10%-25%

Q: is the performance improvement noticable in real life usage?
A: no

Q: is the $100 price difference worth the extra performance?
A: no

as i said, he better get the core 2 duo then spend his extra money on something else like an intel ssd, it will give him MUCH MUCH BETTER performance than you can ever imagine on a faster processor(based on his needs "Microsoft office, view videos, and web browsing") heck an intel atom + nvidia ion + intel ssd can do the job for his needs

he doesnt need a fast graphics for his needs, 4500mhd on core 2 duo is more than enough for his needs and can handle windows aero, microsoft office, and some old 3d games,

if he is serious about performance, he better spent the $100 to upgrade the video card to a dicrete one and get an (dell inspiron 15)core 2 duo t4400 + ati mobility hd 4330, it will give him a much better performance than the core i3 graphics

conclusion:
dont get the core i3, its a waste of money

if you want graphics performance get the core 2 duo and upgrade the graphics to ati hd mobility 4330(worth 100$ upgrade)
dell inspiron 15

if you dont need graphics performance, get an intel ssd for $119 no tax free shipping intel ssd

or save your $100 bucks because you dont need perfomance, just spent that money on something else like for a movie treat with your gf

 

For the record a T4400 is a Pentium Dual Core, not a Core 2 Duo.

But yes I agree with you

 

What Intel calls it isn't that important - what matters is it's a Core microarchitecture CPU, specifically a Penryn. The conclusions in that post are pretty good, though I'd suggest saving or investing the $100 instead of spending it as another alternative
One thing to note, though, is that with the Studio 15 the OP was looking at, the offered video upgrade is the HD 4570, which is far more worthwhile than the 4330. The one situation where GMA HD would be worthwhile is if battery life is a critical concern, but the added graphics power would still help.

Overall, though, the obvious choice is indeed to get the T4400.

 

Unfortunately, the 4570 is just a higher clocked 4330 and is still unsuitable to play any recent games, not that the OP mentioned he ever wanted to.

 

The difference in clock speed is very large indeed, 40% faster core and 30% faster memory. It's good enough for playing many games on low settings as a result.

 

Purely based on name, yes, you're correct. But that is precisely the clever marketing lingo that Intel uses to push people to buy more than what they need. The underlying architecture is the same, so the major differences between the T4400 and the "higher' Core 2 Duos are the additional enabled features such as VT support and higher clock speeds on the latter.

I would choose the T4400 for your uses.

 

The 2.2GHz T4400 will handle all multitasking the OP does just fine.

Heck my SU4100 at 1.3GHz even handles all my multitasking just fine (Office, 3 browsers, MSN, utorrent, music and video on a 26" 1920*1200 LCD).

There's no doubt the Core i3 is a better CPU, it's just enormous overkill for the OP who said he will be doing Microsoft office, view videos, and web browsing.

Well said. It's Intel's game and they play it very well.

 

Uh, wrong. The performance difference between the 4330 and the 4570 is massive. Don't underestimate it, it is pretty much on par with a DDR2 9600M GT, maybe just below, around about the 9500M GS/9600M GS level.

But I do agree with you on the fact that upgrading the GPU is a waste of money. OP doesn't play games, so what is the point.

 

Technically, he's right about the first part because it is a higher clocked 4330, but as I pointed out earlier there's a big difference because the difference in clock speeds is huge. There's no point discussing it, though, since the OP obviously doesn't need a better GPU anyway.

 

That is it, can you say when it won't be? So long as you plan no upgrade, no plugins and no futture software, yep the T4400 is fine...........

 

Oh I knew full well that the T4400 and other Pentium Dual Cores of that time are based on Core 2 architecture don't get me wrong; I just wanted to make sure the OP didn't get confused that's all

But can you? Honestly it's a question of belief. If we go by current trends then we can assess that MS Office and internet have become more straining over time, but not exponentially so that a basic computer cannot perform them. This is why even CULV machines and netbooks are able to suffice for some people. The OP seems to fall into this category of basic users so a T4400 is more than enough for him/her.

 

I got them two as close as I could in specs:

Dell Studio 1558- $724.00
COLORS- Black Chainlink
PROCESSORS- NEW 2010 Intel® Core™ i3-330M 2.13GHz (3M cache)
OPERATING SYSTEM- Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium, 64bit, English
MEMORY- 4GB Shared Dual Channel DDR3 at 1066MHz
HARD DRIVE- 320GB SATA Hard Drive (7200RPM)
VIDEO CARD- Intel® HD Graphics
HD DISPLAY- 15.6” High Definition (720p) LED Display with TrueLife™ and Camera

Dell Studio 1555- $649.00
COLORS- Midnight Blue
PROCESSOR- Intel® Pentium™ Dual Core T4400 (2.2GHz/800Mhz FSB/1MB cache)
OPERATING SYSTEM- Genuine Windows® 7 Home Premium, 64bit, English
MEMORY- 4GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 at 800MHz
HARD DRIVE- 320GB SATA Hard Drive (5400RPM)
VIDEO CARD- Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 4500MHD
HD DISPLAY- 15.6” High Definition (720p) LED Display with TrueLife™ and Camera

I guess it wasnt quite $100 but it was close.
At first the 1555 had less options compared to the 1558. I think thats what had it to about $100 more.

I am liking the 1555 more just because of the edge to edge screen option. I have always liked how the Macbook Pros looked with there edge to edge screen. Also because it is cheaper then the 1558. Whats weird is the 1558 does not give an option for the edge to edge screen.

I appreciate everyone help on this topic!

 

Well personally speaking for 100$ I'd get either a higher resolution screen(the so-called "900p" or "1080p" screens). That would be far more beneficial to you than any processor upgrade.

 

I completely agree.

 

Get the Core i3, not only do you get More Logical Cores, you get Intel HD Graphics
Make note Core i3 has lower power consumption than T4200 and has the performance of T9600 is slightly superior to P8600.
Usually I am the cheap skate guy but I think this time the cost is justifiable.
Anyway I believe the difference in cost of the laptops is artificially inflated.
I have seen Core i3 laptops and some of them are identical in pricing to the C2D laptops and some are even cheap due to SKU product comparison pricing.

 

Ok, sorry. My Dell Studio 15 with it could play company of heroes just fine, but far cry 2 was another story at 1600x900. It couldn't get a smooth framerate at complete minimum settings in online play.

No, but I do know that by that time even the i3 will be considered a relic.

 

i agree getting a higher resolution means more work space, you can cram more programs at the same screen and be more productive with higher resolution

it has been discuss over and over. core i3 is a massive overkill for his needs therefore T4400 is more than sufficient to handle the tasks he will do with his laptop(Microsoft office, view videos, and web browsing).

core i3 is a waste of money given the performance increase is marginal,

with the price difference, if the op is looking for performance( which he is not) he better get the T4400 and upgrade video card to a discrete ATI Mobility HD 4570 rather than waste the money on core i3 for little to no performance increase

as the other guys said, he better get the higher resolution upgrade. it will be far more beneficial to his needs or just save the $100 for his personal needs

 

In time every CPU will be a relic. Problem here is the T4400 is almost already there. Not this it isn't a relic that isn't usable today though.........

 

Not quite.

 

Completely disagree. The T4400 is a more powerful CPU than all of the computers in my house except my brother's Core i7 desktop and my T500, and the other computers are all running the tasks the OP described just fine. It'll run basic tasks just fine for years to come, much longer than the actual laptop will probably last with daily use.

 

Hm. $75 difference. I'd say the processor probably only makes for about a $50 difference, though, since I'd chalk up around $25 to DDR2 vs DDR3 RAM and a 5400 RPM compared to a 7200 RPM hard drive.

 

Generally I would consider the RAM together with the processor anyway, because when you compare benchmarks between CPUs, the difference between the DDR2 and the DDR3 is going to factor into those.
A 7200RPM HDD is worth something, though.

 

Well, I was comparing actual cost of the sticks, since it's pretty much a given that the RAM will always be faster than the CPU (benchmark wise). I wasn't giving a whole lot of weight to the price difference for the RAM anyway, maybe $5-$10.

 

The OP doesn't need the I3.

However...
The I-3 has some newer features, it also has a newer video processor. Are these needed, no. However, how about in a year?

Then there is resale value.
The I3 will hold value better, so in the end the price difference may be negligible, but I keep coming back to one simple fact...

Old T4400 or a new I-3 for nearly the same amount
Personally, you couldn't convince me NOT to take the I-3 in this situation. If we were talking $300 yes, for $70-$100 HECK NO, get the I-3.


Look the T4400 is likely maxed out on ram, even if it's not, putting 8 gigs in it is an expensive proposition and likely will be for many years since DDR2 is on the decline for use and the rise for costs. Besides that the T4400 is ready to retire (or should be), uses an older video card, etc... The I-3 is new, it will be capable of using more memory, which is going up in use and coming down in price. The I-3 system also has newer features as well, probably SATA2, and we already know it has virtualization. You WILL want that SATA 2 for an SSD later, and you WILL want 8 gigs of ram sooner or later (make sure you get Win7 64bit). Are you really going to short change any potential upgrades to save $70 on something like this? It's insane.

Just the cost of upgrading the memory in both makes the I-3 a better deal by far, have you checked what 2x 4gig ddr2 So-dimms run lately? $500-$800, and I wouldn't expect it to drop below $300 in the next 5 or even ten years, if it drops at all during that time. In 2 years that same memory in DDR3 will be under $200.

10% in a benchmark is not 10% in real life use.
In this case though, considering the age of the T4400, it very well might be.

Clock speeds are a TERRIBLE way to judge a processor, it's an even worse way to judge when you cross family lines.

 

What? That was on the topic of GPUs, comparing the 4330 and 4570, and they're the exact same GPU with different clock speeds.
While I do agree that clock speeds are meaningless when you're comparing two different architectures, it's entirely sensible to compare two GPUs with the same architecture based on clock speeds. Sure, you won't get 100% of the difference in clock speeds translating into FPS, but the difference between the 4330 and 4570 in actual performance is indeed quite large.

 

As I stated much earilier, the basic tasks of today with todays software, yes I fully agree. Also as stated it is ALMOST a relic, not there yet but in time it will be.

 

A relic is something that only has value as an item of historical nostalgia, something neither the T4400 nor i3 is probably within a decade of becoming. By the time internet explorer, microsoft office, and streaming videos require more than a T4400, Core 2 and Core i processors will be a distant memory.