intel T7250 vs T7300

okay, so they're both use intel's 65nm fabrication process, both run @ 2 ghz, and are both on a 800fsb. the T7300 does have the leg up with its 4MB L2 cache over the T7250's 2MB, but, overall, is there any significant difference between these core 2 duos in real-world apps?

 

T7300 is faster by 50.

 

Here is a link that might help, it will put it in numbers (benchmarks). Looks like overall not much difference and I would say "real world" no unless you spend all your time encoding video and then only 10%.

Ha Ha! Nice.

 

Notebookcheck has a table which shows that the T7300 has a small performance lead over the T7250 (1687 vs 1648 for the CPU benchmark result in 3DMark06).

I also have a personal, unsubstantiated, theory that the smaller cache in the T7250 will leak less power and therefore give a small increase in battery time.

John

 

If you're looking at these two cpus on a potential new notebook, what a re the differences in price?

 

I feel like I see less and less T7300.

Is it just me or in most places has the T7250 taken over for the T7300?

Maybe it is cheaper to manufacture for intel, with little performance loss.

 

Very good point! It is true, why? Is it marketing? Or is it they are selling all the 7300's that did not pass QC? I think the later as it gives "Intel" a way to dump inferior products on the market thereby reducing inventory and at the same time increasing the value of their 4MB L2 chips! Sounds like a win-win for Intel. Business 101. Also Intel has a history of making chips off the same line and crippling one and selling cheaper. Not reducing production costs, actually increasing by having to disable parts. Increasing value buy limiting supply. Also they get to only sell 4MB L2 above 2Ghz, remember they made a 4Mb L2 1.8Ghz for desktop! In the old day Celrons were PIII's with half the L1 cache disabled, not saving in production costs, made on the same line the same way. I am not against this "free market" I think it helps to recognize. Next you will likely not be able to get anything below a 2.4Ghz w/4MB L2. Supply and demand controls cost, if a company can tweak for their their benefit, they will.

 

I recall that the T7300 got dropped from Intel's range last September and was replaced by the T7250.

I always assume that Intel wouldn't deliberately cripple a fully-functioning CPU but they have a big pile of CPUs which have failed tests for speed (so introduce a range of slower CPUs) or cache (so introduce a range of CPUs with less cache) or both (so have some slower CPUs with less cache).

Arguably, it's a win-win situation with Intel making money out of otherwise defective chips and the consumers getting CPUs suitable for many tasks at less cost. However, Intel seems to come out best and if it weren't for AMD I'm sure we would still be paying a lot more for the CPUs.

John

 

John, with all do respect, you set up a billion dollar production line. How many are you going to set up? Answer 1 and it will produce all. You get the benefit of all Your CPU's that don't pass the test can be converted to low end. Then what happens is " hmm, do I build a new plant in Malaysia to make these CPU's?" Hell no! Cheaper to get defects and cripple! This info is so old for desktops, of course it is the same fore mobile. I mean come on, what Intel is going to build a factory to build Celerions? That is not how it works! I have even seen that posted on this site PDC is just a crippled Core 2 Duo or Core Duo I am not surprised. I am not slamming Intel vs AMD, got to do what you gotta do!

 

I think we are in agreement over this. It's unlikely that Intel specifically set out to make the T7250 but found that it had a pile of T7300s (or faster) with part of the cache not working so they invented a new model with reduced cache size and a higher price than the slightly slower T7100.

Anyway, it is difficult to see the speed difference in normal usage.

John

 

Wow you're the cpu guru!

 

Back on subject!!!! No Difference!!! Enjoy your new CPU!!!