1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Intel Core Duo vs. Intel Core 2 Duo.

Discussion in 'Intel' started by Claus Holmelin Høyer, Mar 3, 2007.

  1. 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.
    Claus Holmelin Høyer, Mar 3, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. 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.
    General Schvantzkoph, Mar 4, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Claus Holmelin Høyer

    DaveW Guest

    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, Mar 5, 2007
  4. * DaveW:
    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 Gawert, Mar 5, 2007
  5. 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, Mar 8, 2007
  6. * Bill Davidsen:
    You mean the one you obviously never read (or just didn't understand)?
    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"...
    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".
    Better *you* get some facts first.

    Comparison of CD and C2D:
    "As you can see, the Core 2 Duo is 10% faster than the Core Duo."

    Another one:
    "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 Gawert, Mar 11, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.