core duo or solo ?

Hello guys,

what do you think about the core solo 1.83 GHz and core duo 2300E in term of performance ?

thanks all

 

core solo for more basic things like word processing, spreadsheets, internet, etc...duo for more things

 

Unless there is a significant price advantage I say Duo.

 

You really won't see much of a speed increase if you only perform basic everyday tasks. However, if you do more than that the Duo is the only way to go. Plus having a duo will pretty much guarantee that you will run more things at once, because you can with little to no slowdown.

 

and what about the difference in performance between core solo 1.8ghz and amd sempron 3400+ (1.8ghz) ?

 

i dont think there is much, but the intel is better i think

 

The Core Solo is a relic deserving of ire and ridicule. It has no business being on the market. It's a budget chip masquerading in mainstream clothes.

There's very little reason not to get a dual core machine anymore. For crying out loud, Averatec just announced a sub-$900 ultraportable with a Core Duo in it.

For comparison's sake, by the way: the Core Solo should be faster than the Sempron, and offer better battery life.

But either way, find an inexpensive Turion 64 X2 or Core Duo machine. The Core Solo's not worth it.

 

and besides the core solo afaik is just a core duo that went funny during the manufacturing process and only has one of the cores working properly, so they disable the other core and rebadge it as a solo...but i agree with what the others say, unless there's a huge difference in price...get the core duo...

 

but why does intel have core solo if they already have the celeron, is there a big difference bewtween the two?

 

Considering that the difference in the price between "DUO" and "SOLO" is no more than 50$ I don't think that "SOLO" is worth talking about.

I personally think that "DUO" advantages are worth more than 50$ and I really don't see the "SOLO's" place on the market either now or future.

 

Do yourself a favor and get a Core Duo. You would surely regret the purchase of a computer with a Core Solo because it is too slow.

 

Too slow? For most purposes, it is literally impossible to find a processor that is "too slow" today. True, for some tasks, a dualcore CPU is nice, and for some tasks, you actually *need* a fast CPU. But come on, calling a single-core CPU "too slow"? Especially when you don't know what it's going to be used for?

 

Actually in tests Solo was fatser in doing simpler tasks but Duo Did better in more multitasks.
All this in to consideration Solo and Duo blotz P4 and Celeron by alot!

 

A duo is better for having lots of applications open at once. If you are using word, listening to music and on IM @ once (which is what i do a lot) then a duo is better.

But a fast single sore CPU should suffice, get it if its cheap enough but i would recommend a Duo in any case.

 

erm, that's terribly old thread...

 

I was surprised to see this thread resurfacing, but since it did I may as well add my $.02.

Core Solo chips have gotten a bad rap, sure they only have half the cores of a core duo, but it's still the core arcitecture - and that's pretty decent.

Dual core chips are great at multi-threaded aps, or at running several single threaded aps. If you don't do a lot of either of those (any many people don't), then a core solo may be alright for you. Core solo's will outperform the last generation of Pentium-M's, Celeron's, and all but the dual core AMD Turions. Core Solo's will also perform some single threaded applications faster (and more efficiently) then a dual core.

Personally, I think Intel should drop the current generation of celeron's and rebadge the current core solo's as a celeron, but's that's me. If you can afford the extra $50 or so for a dual core chip, go for it. If you can't (or don't want to) then a core solo is a far better chip than any celeron, or older generation mobile chips.

 

Core Solo have the Centrino Badge

 

celeron is a budget processor whereas core solo isn't, and its actually intended to replace the Pentium M

 

Actually, the current Celeron M 400 series are based on the Yonah core, so wish granted. They are quite fast.

The Pentium M is all but nonexistent in the market these days; there are a few straggler notebooks left behind with it but they will soon be gone. Intel and the ODMs/manufacturers want them gone.

Well, let's clarify this a bit. If you have a Core Solo at 1.86GHz and a Core Duo at 1.83GHz, they will both have near identical performance in a single-threaded app. A dual-core Turion will not outperform a Core Solo clocked at a similar speed (or even slightly faster) in a single threaded app.

This is an old thread but the information is still useful.

 

My best laptop here is only a core duo t2300 here, its much better than any of the other solo ones I've got. Even compared with my p4 2.8 with HT. I love it when I can play games while burning DVDs no lag at all and when when IE crashes with 99% cpu usage.

I really don't like it when the computer slows down when its loading up a program or encoding etc. I haven't had this problem since I got this laptop from my work. Now I really want to get a core 2 duo !

 

All and all are talking about seeminglessly start multiple apps. Well, that is 0.1% of your real life.

If you have a test run in TMpgenc XPress encoder, you will see how 2 cores out perform single core.

Man, it is so fast. DivX, HD-MPEG2 are produced real fast. WMV9 is still considerably slow, but definitely >40% faster than single core.