core duo v. core 2 duo

is there a major difference between these two processors?, If so, what is it?
Thanks

 

Well, depending on the benchmark, for a given clock speed (power consumption) the Core 2's are between 5-20% faster.

Perhaps more important is that Core2's are 64-bit, which will become more important in a year or two or whenever Vista finally comes out. If you're a Linux user, the latest kernel also supports 64-bit. My roommate runs Fedora on his AMD dual-core, 64-bit chip and it really screams, and C2D's are unquestionably faster than their current AMD counterparts.

Core Duo's are still awesome; Core2's are a little faster and more than a bit more "future-proof".

For what it's worth, most laptops that run Core can be upgraded to Core2's after a BIOS update.

 

You'll see the biggest gains doing CPU intensive stuff. Webpages or burning discs won't go any faster.

 

Read the service manual for your notebook before you think about upgrading its CPU. HP went out of their way to make it difficult.

Between the CD and C2D, definitely buy the C2D and preferably a 4MB L2 cache version. If you're going to bother with Vista at all you might as well go straight to the 64-bit version and at the very least the notebook will have better resale value.

Intel Core chips lose some of their edge over AMD in 64-bit mode, AMD having designed x86-64 after Intel swore it couldn't be done.

 

I concur with brianstretch. If you can afford a system with C2D, especially the 7x00 series that featrures 4MB cache, you will definitely see a performance improvement, even when running 32-bit Windows and applications, since you'll be working with 4MB L2 cache. Also, you will be more "future-proof" with 64-bit processing, though how badly you will actually need this in a notebook is up for some serious debate. That said, the original Core Duo's were great notebook processors, and I think still use slightly less powr. Some models can be had for a real bargain right now, if money is a major constraint.

Either way, enjoy your new notebook.

 

There is no debate. 64-bit is simply not necessary for your desktop system.

 

There are proven performance gains when using a 64-bit OS, which Vista will support from the start. So no, not "necessary," but nice to have.

 

Sounds like a debate to me. BTW, I didn't mean to start one -- just trying to provide advice to the original poster.

 

I concur that unless you're running FEA/CFD or other engineery things you likely won't notice a difference in performance in 64 vs 32 bit. In fact, you'll have problems finding drivers for 64-bit.

However, in a year or two, a 64-bit processor will be nicer to have than a 32-bit only processor, which is part of the reason I'm sticking out for my C2D nc8430 instead of just saying 'screw it' and canceling and ordering the same config with a Core Duo. Not because it'll run amazingly better now, but so I don't feel the need to upgrade the laptop (or at the processor) when I upgrade to Vista just so I can run it in 64-bits.

 

Thanks, I appreciate all the advice. Assuming Ive done the math right,
the difference between my 8000t and the 9000t (configurations below)will end up being 100 dollars and change, so I think Im going to go for it.

dv8000t - Windows MCE, Core Duo 2Gig processor, 1GB RAM, 100GB 7200 RPM HDD, std monitor and wireless, TV Tuner, OS recovery CD and extra Battery = $1602 before rebate

dv9000t - Windows MCE, Core 2 Duo 2Gig processor, 1GB RAM, 100GB 7200 RPM HDD, std monitor and wireless, TV Tuner, OS recovery CD and extra Battery = $1712.31 before rebate

I am usually wary about getting brand new technology but the core 2 duo seems to be worth it as I run CAD type applications.

 

If you run CAD type applications, drop the RAM down to the lowest amount you can get and then upgrade to 2GB from someplace like NewEgg.

 

ajfink -- was planning on upgrading the RAM at some point, the 1GB is a free upgrade right now, so i figured why not

 

Oh, good stuff, then.

 

About Vista - won't there be a 32-bit version too? I read that the 32-bit one will not support blu-ray and dvd-hd playback. That seems pretty weird, considering that HP offers DVD-HD drive with the dv9000, and it much play the movies if they're selling it.

 

HD-DVD and Blu-Ray only working in 64-bit Vista is a false rumor.

The 32-bit version of Vista currently works much better than the 64-bit version.

You won't be able to do anything on 64-bit that you can't on 32-bit. (Actually, the reverse may be true.)

Most people currently use the 32-bit version of Vista, even if they are running on a 64-bit system.

 

Originally Microsoft was going to only support Blu-ray and HD DVD playback on 64-bit Vista but they backed down after people complained. However, codecs react VERY well to x86-64 mode (tested on my 64-bit Linux machine with HD Quicktime movie trailers and VLC) so running 64-bit Vista anyhow is a good idea. There's a lot more to AMD64 mode than just breaking the 4GB barrier such as doubling the number of general registers.