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.

What's better: Core 2 Duo with 1GB RAM or Core Duo with 2GB Ram

Discussion in 'Laptops' started by nunamus, Apr 26, 2007.

  1. nunamus

    nunamus Guest

    Price is about the same.
    The laptop is used solely for office work (MSWord, Excel, PPt, web).
     
    nunamus, Apr 26, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. nunamus

    SMS Guest

    Which operating system? Which speed CPUs are you comparing?

    I'd go with the Core 2 Duo. You can always upgrade the RAM later on, but
    you can't upgrade the processor.
     
    SMS, Apr 26, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Am Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:02:34 -0700 schrieb SMS:
    If I'm not mistaken the power consumption of the Core Duo is a bit lower
    than of the Core 2 Duo - so battery life might be better with the Core Duo,
    depending on the other specs of the machine in question here. Yet 2 GB of
    RAM sounds a bit like overkill for a simple Office machine.

    Andreas
     
    Andreas Schulze-Bäing, Apr 26, 2007
    #3
  4. nunamus

    SMS Guest

    It's overkill with XP. Not necessarily overkill with Vista.

    The Core Duo and Core2 Duo are both 65nm, so the power should be about
    the same, other than the larger cache size on the Core2 Duo.

    For an office machine, even Core Duo is overkill, if you're running XP.
     
    SMS, Apr 26, 2007
    #4
  5. nunamus

    Al Dykes Guest


    Unless Office 2007 is much more bloated than I expect, both are fine
    for speed and more than 1Gb *has* to be overkill for memory for what
    you are using the machine for.

    XP is still available, at least from Dell.
     
    Al Dykes, Apr 26, 2007
    #5
  6. nunamus

    nunamus Guest

    Good information.
    This computer will be dual-bootable, Linux/Ubuntu and Vista.

    I like keeping a ton of "stuff" open at one time, so I thought
    the extra memory would offset the processor differential.
     
    nunamus, Apr 27, 2007
    #6
  7. nunamus

    SMS Guest

    The extra memory would be good for stuff like Autocad or digital video,
    but for office type stuff that extra cache, and the couple of other
    differences in the CPU won't make any difference
     
    SMS, Apr 27, 2007
    #7
  8. There is not a huge difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo at the
    same clock and FSB speed ... about 15%, and the power difference is only
    low single digits. However, it's likely that the clock speeds and FSB
    speeds are not the same (although they could be). I don't see this as a
    really critical issue, but you can upgrade the memory much easier than
    the CPU (which may or may not be upgradeable at all).
     
    Barry Watzman, Apr 27, 2007
    #8
  9. nunamus

    dg Guest

    From my experience beta testing Office 2007 on XP as well as on Vista
    (beta RC 1 & 2), I'd suggest 1 GB as comfortable minimum for Office
    2007 on XP (running 512M with multiple applications open resulted in
    significant slow-downs changing between open windows / applications).
    Vista by itself needs a minimum of 1 GB for comfortable use; less than
    that and you'll soon start getting "out of memory" warnings when you
    open your first application. Office 2007 runs very smoothly on Vista
    with 2 GB of RAM. Very pretty if the machine is fully "Aero"
    compatible. RAM is very important to both Vista and Office 2007; I'd
    say substantially secondary to CPU speed. GPU is also very important
    to both, as it affects screen-draw.
     
    dg, Apr 27, 2007
    #9
  10. nunamus

    Dave Guest

    Here is some additional information I have on displays:

    I have been looking at laptops. Lots of deals on Dual Core and some on Core
    2 Intel processor based systems at Office Max, Frys, Staples, Circuit City,
    Bets Buy etc.

    One thing I have found out is that most of the store systems have the
    minimum resolution on the LCD displays. In the wide 15 inch format 1280 x
    800 seems common while in the wide 17 inch format 1440 x 900 is the rule.

    These are very nice displays but my eyes are pretty good (well I do need
    reading glasses) and I hate to scroll.


    For me WSXGA+ or WSXGA would be better. The hogher resolution displays when
    ordered are usually no more than $100 extra or 10 to 15 percent of the total
    purchase price.




    15 Inch Wide Screens
    ===================
    WXGA: 1280 X 800 (retail store models)
    WSXGA+: 1400 X 1050



    17 Inch Wide Screens
    ===================
    WXGA: 1440 X 900 (retail store models)
    WSXGA: 1630 X 1200
    WUXGA: 1920 X 1050
     
    Dave, Apr 28, 2007
    #10
    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.