Core Duo 1.6ghz VS Core Solo 1.86ghz

I'm trying to decide between buying the A100-OFH (Core Duo 1.6) or A100-SK4 (Core Solo 1.86). They are exactly the same except for the processor and the Duo also has 20gig more HD. The price difference is $150.

My usage is web browsing, downloading bitTorrents (mp's, videos, movies), listening to music, copying CD's, copying DVD's (ripping, encoding, etc. using DVD Shrink), and some office productivity software. No games or graphical intenstive programs. When I do download files or encode DVD's I like to do other things in the background (mostly web browsing).

So, from what I know, duo core shines for encoding and multi-tasking. I was leaning toward this processor for the extra money since I want DVD encoding times to be as quick as possible (not sure just how much faster compared to the Core Solo). BUT, I have also heard that the core duo is actually SLOWER in straight forward simple processes like web surfing, etc. This is why i'm confused as to which processor to purchase.

Furthermore, I don't know how to compare the 2 because they are different speeds.

Any advice/recommendations/help is truely appreciated.

Thanks!

 

The Core Duo outperforms the Core Solo by far, especially for multitasking.
The $150 increase is well worth it.

 

As you have said, you run many programs at one time. Therefore Core Duo will probably be the processor of choice. You may think that the Solo is faster. Well, yes it may be slighly faster, but its certainly not noticible.

Futhermore, the Duo can handle multiple programs, better than Solo. It also comes with a larger hard disk, and as you have pointed out, you download stuff, so that may come in handy.

 

I have to agree. Get the Duo, the extra core will help out even in single threaded apps since the OS overload can be handled by the other core while your single threaded applications run on the other. Moreover the difference between the 1.6GHz Duo and the 1.86GHZ Solo will be negligible in single threaded applications and is more than powerful enough to handle web surfing anf such mundane things.

 

Very excellent...thanks for your replies! Looks like the core duo would be more appropriate for my usage and warrants the extra $150. I guess the 20gig HD is just a bonus.

 

I got the Duo and noticed that it runs way HOTTER than the Solo I returned.

 

I did an encoding comparison between the two using the exact same DVD, software, everything. Get this - the 1.86 Core Solo was TWO minutes faster than the Core Duo! Wow!

I also notice everything being just a tad faster with the Solo...windows opening, etc. I haven't ran 2 programs simulaneously so I figure that's where the Duo would shine. But overall, i'm pretty impressed with the Solo compared to the Duo

 

I had the exact same decision to make recently. I went with the duo, because i often have several programs open, and get annoyed when things start to lag. I have not had the ability to make any fair comparisons though to solo core notebooks. Everybody just seems to reccomend that multitasking = duo, so i went with that.

 

I think the reason why so many people recommend the Duo is because its the pretty much the same price as the Solo, but it has 2 cores. In a year, or maybe more, programs will be able to handle more cores, and it'll be better if you've got yourself a multi-core processor by then, because single cores, just won't cut it.

 

Yeah but by then, even the duo won't be fast enough (1.6 will be too slow), so since we're talking about the future, i'd stay with the Solo. But for present needs, not future...prices are going to keep going down, so i'd say buy the cheapest one that will make your present needs satisfied. Core 2 Duo is coming out (or already out recently) and quad's are on their way. I have no plans to upgrade to Vista any time soon and i've already proven for myself that the Solo 1.86 is faster for MY needs. There are some pretty good explanations on why Solo is better than Duo for the next while on Google.

 

I'd like to say that the program you used obiously couldnt utilise two cores then. Because one that can will show that the duo will be almost 2 times as fast as the solo

 

This is just the thing...there are not many that can at this point. So the advantage IMO goes to a core solo presently. But if you wanna buy for the future and pay a bit more, then the duo is the way to go, IF you can afford an equivalent clock speed, meaning duo 1.8+gig....not a 1.6 since it will run single execution programs a little slower than a 1.86...which is actually noticeable in my case.

 

Well, it's good that you have found what works best for you. Some people don't really understand the difference, and just get told that Duo is the future/better. Some users just don't take advantage of the second core, so you may as well carry out the one task you are running at a higher speed.

I don't regret getting the duo for myself though.

 

If you actually use good software, you can find encoders that support multiple cores. tmpg express will compress to mpeg2(dvds) and utilise both cores.

 

Why, because of multitasking? You notice your system's performance is much better when running a bunch of stuff at once?

 

Like i said, i have not been able to make a fair comparison, i can only base things on what i know about processor cores. For example, i like to still be able to use my computer when doing a scan of some sort (virus/adware). On my P4, it really slows down. As mentioned, i do multitask, and would rather it be able to do several things in good time, rather than having a higher clock speed.

 

Makes sense! Nothing worse than lag!

 

Can someone more technical explain why the Core Solo would be faster even in non-multicore aware apps? As I always understood it, the Core Solo and Core Duo cores are identical, just that the Core Duo has two cores and the Core Solo has one. So, it seems like even if you're using software that doesn't take advantage of both cores, shouldn't software using one of the cores on the Core Duo perform identically to the Core Solo?

 

I believe that would hold true if you were comparing a solo and a duo with the same clock speed. However, in this comparison, the solo is clocked at 1.86ghz, whereas the duo being discussed is at 1.6ghz. If both solo and duo were clocked at the same speed (1.6 for example) your understanding would be correct. They would both perform single tasks at the same speed.

 

Yes, so the duo would essentially perform single thread apps at a slightly reduced performance. It's all about trade offs.

Ok, so, i've been ripping some dvd's using Xilisoft and then encoding them to a Samsung proprietary format (.svi) for my mp3 player using Samsung's included encoding software. Both processes (both ripping and encoding) brought my CPU usage to 100%! Thereby making other tasks obviously slow. This is using my Core Solo 1.86.

So if I were to stick with the Core Duo 1.6, would this improve performance? Would my task manager also show 100% usage? Would I be able to multitask with more ease and less delay/lag? This is what I understand the core duo should benefit, but i'm just not sure it would at the lower clock speed.

 

When you open the task manager, it actually shows two graphs as a result of the dual cores. The hightened level on the left side was the result of a Norton quick scan. As you can see, the graph on the right shows much lower values, which allowed other simple tasks to be carried out with ease.

 

ok so even though one of the cores is showing significant activity, your CPU shows 0%?

 

No no, the screenshot was taken just after the scan ended. If you look closely, the graph does zero at the very end.

 

Just another fyi, i did a full sysem scan, and both cores showed significant activity.


The sysetm did not seem to lag during the process of the scan. On my pentium 4 desktop, i often made a point of doing scans when i was not using it, because it did get slowed down.

 

Sweet. but forgive my ignorance, what is a system scan?

sounds like duo core is definitely the way to go for multitaskers which is what everyone has been saying all along.

 

Sorry for not being clear. I used norton anti-virus and scanned my entire system for virus/spyware threats.

 

What exactly is a 1.66ghz core duo not going to be fast enough for in the forseeable future? If we're talking the future, we're talking multithreaded apps and for them you're going to be seeing comparable performance to a P4 4.5ghz -5ghz+. If any program in the next 3 years requires that sort of processing power to function at an acceptable level then its going to be a piece of garbage bloatware or some high powered corporate/scientific app that the average consumer wouldn't even dream of running.

The 1.66ghz Core Duo has more than enough power to last the average consumer a very long time because you're going to be receiving a kind of free and very significant upgrade in performance as time goes on (when more multi threaded apps appear). Couple this with a base single threaded performance that is more than capable and you have quite a future proofed CPU.

 

I understand what you are saying, but the very presence of these types of processors, will result in programs being made that the a consumer will use, but those programs will require alot of processing power, and probably more and more cores.

 

You make good points. I just meant that since core 2 duo is out and quad's on their way, that someone purchasing now might be better off with a core solo and saving the money, since either way they will probably have to upgrade down the road. I had no idea that a duo core would be equivalent to a P4 4-5ghz for multithreaded apps!

Since it seems like ALL laptops are going duo, and single core only remain in a few...that I suppose duo core is the way to go.

The Toshiba laptop is a 1.6ghz duo core, not a 1.66 by the way, not that there is probably much difference. Too bad that they didn't throw the 667 FSB in instead of the 533 FSB...but at least they did with the model up - 1.83ghz duo.

 

Perhaps they are dissapearing quickly, but when i was shopping, i considered quite a few models that had an AMD Turion 64.