Intel Core Duo vs. Intel Core 2 Duo.

Hi Guys.

What would you recommend?

The Intel Core Duo (T2250) or Intel Core 2 Duo (T5200) ?

The T2250 has a processor speed of 1,73 GHz and the T5200 a processor speed
of 1,6 GHz.

They have the same Front Side Bus speed of 533 MHz, but do any of you know
the difference

in performance?



Regards Claus.

On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 22:04:48 +0100, Claus Holmelin Høyer wrote:

> Hi Guys.
>
> What would you recommend?
>
> The Intel Core Duo (T2250) or Intel Core 2 Duo (T5200) ?
>
> The T2250 has a processor speed of 1,73 GHz and the T5200 a processor
> speed of 1,6 GHz.
>
> They have the same Front Side Bus speed of 533 MHz, but do any of you
> know the difference
>
> in performance?
>
>
>
> Regards Claus.

The Core2 will be faster. I don't have figures for the Core2 vs Core Duo,
but the A64 is known to be faster then the Core Duo and the Core2 is
generally 30% faster than the A64 on a clock for clock basis. By
extrapolation the Core2 will at least that much faster then the old Core
Duo. Conservatively a 1.6GHz Core2 will be equivalent to a 2.1GHz Core
Duo, it's probably more than that.

The Core 2 Duo is the newest, cooler running, more efficient version of CPU.
BUT, you must have a very recent motherboard and BIOS in order to run it.
Older boards will not work.
The Intel Core Duo will work with some older boards, but runs very hot and
relatively inefficiently.

--
--------
DaveW
"Claus Holmelin Høyer" <fjern-> wrote in message
news:45e9e2f7$0$2095$ ...
> Hi Guys.
>
> What would you recommend?
>
> The Intel Core Duo (T2250) or Intel Core 2 Duo (T5200) ?
>
> The T2250 has a processor speed of 1,73 GHz and the T5200 a processor
> speed of 1,6 GHz.
>
> They have the same Front Side Bus speed of 533 MHz, but do any of you know
> the difference
>
> in performance?
>
>
>
> Regards Claus.
>
>

* DaveW:

> The Core 2 Duo is the newest, cooler running, more efficient version of CPU.
> BUT, you must have a very recent motherboard and BIOS in order to run it.
> Older boards will not work.
> The Intel Core Duo will work with some older boards, but runs very hot and
> relatively inefficiently.

What a BS. The Core Duo runs as cool and is as efficiently as the Core
2. What runs hot is the Pentium4/Pentium D...

Get a clue...

Benjamin

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> * DaveW:
>
>> The Core 2 Duo is the newest, cooler running, more efficient version
>> of CPU. BUT, you must have a very recent motherboard and BIOS in order
>> to run it. Older boards will not work.
>> The Intel Core Duo will work with some older boards, but runs very hot
>> and relatively inefficiently.
>
> What a BS. The Core Duo runs as cool and is as efficiently as the Core
> 2. What runs hot is the Pentium4/Pentium D...
>
> Get a clue...

Like Intel spec sheets and published tests? The core2 runs faster at any
given clock, and uses less power doing it. The older "core zero" CPUs
just flat run hotter. There never was a "core one" product.

Go read the Intel product description for Core2 and see what changes,
the products just don't compete for pwerformance or efficiency.

--
Bill Davidsen
He was a full-time professional cat, not some moonlighting
ferret or weasel. He knew about these things.

* Bill Davidsen:

>>> The Core 2 Duo is the newest, cooler running, more efficient version
>>> of CPU. BUT, you must have a very recent motherboard and BIOS in
>>> order to run it. Older boards will not work.
>>> The Intel Core Duo will work with some older boards, but runs very
>>> hot and relatively inefficiently.
>>
>> What a BS. The Core Duo runs as cool and is as efficiently as the Core
>> 2. What runs hot is the Pentium4/Pentium D...
>>
>> Get a clue...
>
> Like Intel spec sheets and published tests?

You mean the one you obviously never read (or just didn't understand)?

> The core2 runs faster at any
> given clock, and uses less power doing it.

Nope, it doesn't. Core and Core 2 (mobile Version) have the same TDP,
consume around the same amount of power and produce around the same
amount of heat. Hardly what someone would call "runs very hot and
relatively inefficiently"...

> The older "core zero" CPUs
> just flat run hotter. There never was a "core one" product.

You realize that the "Duo" in "Core Duo" stand for the number of CPU
cores, don't you? There is no "Core Zero" or Core One" simple because
it's not a numbering scheme. The single core is called "Core Solo".

> Go read the Intel product description for Core2 and see what changes,
> the products just don't compete for pwerformance or efficiency.

Better *you* get some facts first.

Comparison of CD and C2D:
<http://www.geekpatrol.ca/2006/09/imac-core-duo-and-core-2-duo-comparison/>
"As you can see, the Core 2 Duo is 10% faster than the Core Duo."

Another one:
<http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808&p=4>
"n tests that are more CPU limited, we have thus far seen that Merom
(Core 2 Duo) is at worst no slower than Yonah (Core Duo) and in most
cases it's 5 - 15% faster." The measured power consumption btw is
identical between CD and C2D with the same clock rate...

The only real difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo (mobile) is
that C2D is 64bit and a tad faster. That's all. The desktop version of
C2D is another story but in this case irrelevant (there never ever was a
CD version for the desktop, and comparing CD with a desktop C2D is just
plain silly). Lets talk about CD not competing in terms of performance
and efficiency again...

Benjamin