• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Core Duo 1.83 GHz, efficiency

F

foges

Senior member
Im in the process of choosing a notebook and i am wondering if 1.66 ghz core duo is enough or should i go for the 1.83 ghz, or is even that too little, is there any real difference? i dont do a lot of gaming, but i hate slow computers.

Will 1.83 ghz be to little in a years time or so?

How does the 1.83 ghz core duo compare to an amd desktop processor in power?

What is the difference between the core 2 duo and core duo??

Thanx
 
There is little real world difference. Get minimum 1GB RAM, good 5400/7200rpm hard drive, and any dual core & you will be happy.

My rule of thumb is to purchase everything else you need in a notebook, including warranty, and spend the rest on CPU.

Core 2 Duo offers between 5-20% performance improvement with minimal to no power consumption increase.
 
Thanx, I am absolutely getting 1 GB ram. I am looking at the tecra A6, but my only problem in buying that one is that the dell equivalent is 300 CHF cheaper and is core 2 duo, whilst the the tecra is only core duo. The tecra has an x1400 graphics card though, the dell only has an integrated graphics. ach, i hate the dell design, its so ugly. Anyone have any mods for dell notebooks to make them look appealing?
 
Have you looked at HP laptops? The DV6000 and DV2000 are both very well designed, affordable, and customizeable.

If I don't go with a Macbook I'll wind up getting a DV6000T in a few months. Both come with C2D chips now! 😛
 
i looked at the hp's, but i get more value for money with the toshiba, unless the 7200 Go or 7400 Go are a lot better than the x1400. How are the mobile turion processors btw? for example the TL-50?

PS: the 6000 series' screen is too large for me (15.4")
 
I just configured an HP DV2000T with C2D 7200, 1GB of RAM, a 100GB SATA HDD, DVD burner, and GF Go 7200 for $1150 after rebates (instant and mail in). That's a 14.1" screen with BrightView.

I have a hard time finding anything more cost efficient than that laptop right there.

Regarding the Turion X2. As big an AMD fanboy as I am, I just can't find any reason to recommend them over a C2D chip. This round belongs to Intel.
 
Originally posted by: foges
i looked at the hp's, but i get more value for money with the toshiba, unless the 7200 Go or 7400 Go are a lot better than the x1400. How are the mobile turion processors btw? for example the TL-50?

PS: the 6000 series' screen is too large for me (15.4")
Click to expand...

MR X1400 > 7400Go >>> 7200Go > Integrated Graphics
 
As rules of thumb,
a C2D at 1.86Ghz will give you the same performance as a CD at 2Ghz,
and the Turion X2s are a hair better than the CDs at the same clock speed.

C2D has slightly less battery life at idle than a CD (but the idea is that it lasts longer when working because it gets things done faster and goes back to low-power sooner), and I really don't know how the X2s compare in power usage.

EDIT: BTW, Intel's GMA 950 IGP is to be avoided like the plague, I'd take a CD with an x1400 over a C2D with Intel's IGP. For comparision, an x1100 has twice as much gfx horsepower as the GMA 950.
 
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
As rules of thumb,
a C2D at 1.86Ghz will give you the same performance as a CD at 2Ghz,
and the Turion X2s are a hair better than the CDs at the same clock speed.

C2D has slightly less battery life at idle than a CD (but the idea is that it lasts longer when working because it gets things done faster and goes back to low-power sooner), and I really don't know how the X2s compare in power usage.

EDIT: BTW, Intel's GMA 950 IGP is to be avoided like the plague, I'd take a CD with an x1400 over a C2D with Intel's IGP. For comparision, an x1100 has twice as much gfx horsepower as the GMA 950.
Click to expand...
The C2D comparison is reasonable, but keep in mind AT MOST you will see ~15% performance increase and in other situations zero percent. As mentioned battery life is little to no different.

Turion 64 X2's just don't compare in power consumption IMO, not competitive at all:
http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/detail.php?id=48

GMA950 is AWESOME if you don't game. Low power, gets the job done. Personally on primary-portable system I would want GMA950. For instance, on two exact same systems (I mean identical, everything except GPU's) going from ATI MR X1300 to GMA 950 adds 2 hours of battery life. And the X1300 is one of the lower power discrete GPU's.
 
Hmm, I had no idea that even the x1300s sucked so much juice. I was looking at it purely from the standpoint of future hassles. The GMA950 will aggravate you more than an x1300 or x1400 as time goes on and system requirements rise.

I believe there are a few laptops that have a switch for two different graphics options, eg switching between an IGP and a GeForce Go 7900 for battery life and games, respectively. You have to restart them to make the switch, but I know someone mentioned them on these forums some time ago.
 
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: foges
i looked at the hp's, but i get more value for money with the toshiba, unless the 7200 Go or 7400 Go are a lot better than the x1400. How are the mobile turion processors btw? for example the TL-50?

PS: the 6000 series' screen is too large for me (15.4")
Click to expand...

MR X1400 > 7400Go >>> 7200Go > Integrated Graphics
Click to expand...

If i recall the 7400go is better than the MR x1400, though the difference is pretty insignificant. Both are essentially overclocked counterparts of their lessers (7300go and the x1300). You wont do much gaming either way so go for whatever is cheaper.
 
Originally posted by: Rockinacoustic
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Originally posted by: foges
i looked at the hp's, but i get more value for money with the toshiba, unless the 7200 Go or 7400 Go are a lot better than the x1400. How are the mobile turion processors btw? for example the TL-50?

PS: the 6000 series' screen is too large for me (15.4")
Click to expand...

MR X1400 > 7400Go >>> 7200Go > Integrated Graphics
Click to expand...

If i recall the 7400go is better than the MR x1400, though the difference is pretty insignificant. Both are essentially overclocked counterparts of their lessers (7300go and the x1300). You wont do much gaming either way so go for whatever is cheaper.
Click to expand...

Based on this review: text

The 7400Go only scores 1950 in 3dMark05 while the MR X1400 scores 2273. If anything, it is the MR X1400 that is slightly better than the 7400Go, but if it came down to picking one or the other, I certainly agree with going for the cheaper of the two.
 
If you're looking at Dell, make sure you check out the Outlet. Much better deals there if you're patient and persistent.
 
Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
As rules of thumb,
a C2D at 1.86Ghz will give you the same performance as a CD at 2Ghz,
and the Turion X2s are a hair better than the CDs at the same clock speed.

C2D has slightly less battery life at idle than a CD (but the idea is that it lasts longer when working because it gets things done faster and goes back to low-power sooner), and I really don't know how the X2s compare in power usage.

EDIT: BTW, Intel's GMA 950 IGP is to be avoided like the plague, I'd take a CD with an x1400 over a C2D with Intel's IGP. For comparision, an x1100 has twice as much gfx horsepower as the GMA 950.
Click to expand...
The C2D comparison is reasonable, but keep in mind AT MOST you will see ~15% performance increase and in other situations zero percent. As mentioned battery life is little to no different.

Turion 64 X2's just don't compare in power consumption IMO, not competitive at all:
http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/detail.php?id=48

GMA950 is AWESOME if you don't game. Low power, gets the job done. Personally on primary-portable system I would want GMA950. For instance, on two exact same systems (I mean identical, everything except GPU's) going from ATI MR X1300 to GMA 950 adds 2 hours of battery life. And the X1300 is one of the lower power discrete GPU's.
Click to expand...

my dv2000t (6-cell) has around 2hours of battery life and it has a GMA950...are you saying with the X1300 i'll be unplugged for 10 minutes before i run out of batteries?

OP, i have a Core Duo processor with 1gb and the GMA950. i see no bottlenecks and i use it for basic usage. unless you game, the GMA950 is perfect (just make sure you have 1gb of ram). if you are going to game, from what i hear i wouldn't even go with a 7400Go or X1400. i think the X1600 is the minimum for gaming. if you have a rig at home you play games on, don't make your laptop a gaming one. games aren't all life is about so i would strong recommend against getting a laptop to game on if you have a computer you can game on
 
Originally posted by: alimoalem
Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
As rules of thumb,
a C2D at 1.86Ghz will give you the same performance as a CD at 2Ghz,
and the Turion X2s are a hair better than the CDs at the same clock speed.

C2D has slightly less battery life at idle than a CD (but the idea is that it lasts longer when working because it gets things done faster and goes back to low-power sooner), and I really don't know how the X2s compare in power usage.

EDIT: BTW, Intel's GMA 950 IGP is to be avoided like the plague, I'd take a CD with an x1400 over a C2D with Intel's IGP. For comparision, an x1100 has twice as much gfx horsepower as the GMA 950.
Click to expand...
The C2D comparison is reasonable, but keep in mind AT MOST you will see ~15% performance increase and in other situations zero percent. As mentioned battery life is little to no different.

Turion 64 X2's just don't compare in power consumption IMO, not competitive at all:
http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/detail.php?id=48

GMA950 is AWESOME if you don't game. Low power, gets the job done. Personally on primary-portable system I would want GMA950. For instance, on two exact same systems (I mean identical, everything except GPU's) going from ATI MR X1300 to GMA 950 adds 2 hours of battery life. And the X1300 is one of the lower power discrete GPU's.
Click to expand...

my dv2000t (6-cell) has around 2hours of battery life and it has a GMA950...are you saying with the X1300 i'll be unplugged for 10 minutes before i run out of batteries?

OP, i have a Core Duo processor with 1gb and the GMA950. i see no bottlenecks and i use it for basic usage. unless you game, the GMA950 is perfect (just make sure you have 1gb of ram). if you are going to game, from what i hear i wouldn't even go with a 7400Go or X1400. i think the X1600 is the minimum for gaming. if you have a rig at home you play games on, don't make your laptop a gaming one. games aren't all life is about so i would strong recommend against getting a laptop to game on if you have a computer you can game on
Click to expand...
No, I said on two specific, identical systems, one equipped with GMA950 and one with MR X1300, the GMA950 system has two hours more battery life. This was not a hypothetical, it is based on real testing of two specific, mass-production notebook computers.
 
Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Originally posted by: alimoalem
Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Originally posted by: ADDAvenger
As rules of thumb,
a C2D at 1.86Ghz will give you the same performance as a CD at 2Ghz,
and the Turion X2s are a hair better than the CDs at the same clock speed.

C2D has slightly less battery life at idle than a CD (but the idea is that it lasts longer when working because it gets things done faster and goes back to low-power sooner), and I really don't know how the X2s compare in power usage.

EDIT: BTW, Intel's GMA 950 IGP is to be avoided like the plague, I'd take a CD with an x1400 over a C2D with Intel's IGP. For comparision, an x1100 has twice as much gfx horsepower as the GMA 950.
Click to expand...
The C2D comparison is reasonable, but keep in mind AT MOST you will see ~15% performance increase and in other situations zero percent. As mentioned battery life is little to no different.

Turion 64 X2's just don't compare in power consumption IMO, not competitive at all:
http://www.laptoplogic.com/resources/detail.php?id=48

GMA950 is AWESOME if you don't game. Low power, gets the job done. Personally on primary-portable system I would want GMA950. For instance, on two exact same systems (I mean identical, everything except GPU's) going from ATI MR X1300 to GMA 950 adds 2 hours of battery life. And the X1300 is one of the lower power discrete GPU's.
Click to expand...

my dv2000t (6-cell) has around 2hours of battery life and it has a GMA950...are you saying with the X1300 i'll be unplugged for 10 minutes before i run out of batteries?

OP, i have a Core Duo processor with 1gb and the GMA950. i see no bottlenecks and i use it for basic usage. unless you game, the GMA950 is perfect (just make sure you have 1gb of ram). if you are going to game, from what i hear i wouldn't even go with a 7400Go or X1400. i think the X1600 is the minimum for gaming. if you have a rig at home you play games on, don't make your laptop a gaming one. games aren't all life is about so i would strong recommend against getting a laptop to game on if you have a computer you can game on
Click to expand...
No, I said on two specific, identical systems, one equipped with GMA950 and one with MR X1300, the GMA950 system has two hours more battery life. This was not a hypothetical, it is based on real testing of two specific, mass-production notebook computers.
Click to expand...

the way you stated it makes it sound like you are making a generalization. what i was saying is i, with my laptop that uses the GMA950, get barely over 2 hours. so according to your statement, if it were possible to add a MR X1300 to my laptop, i would get roughly 10 minutes of battery life.

i admit to not having a vast knowledge of power consumption for laptops but i do know that a dedicated graphics card does not account for over 90% of the power consumption, especially when performing simple tasks like web browsing. if you were comparing a notebook that gets 8 hours on an integrated graphics solution and 6 hours with a MR X1300 instead, i'm simply pointing out that your wording may be misleading to some.
 
Thanx for the help. I guess the toshiba isnt really more economical, but i like it more because it has a better processor and a better graphics card, plus my best friends dad is the official importer of toshiba here in the country, so i can most probably get a deal through him.

That would make the final specs:
14.1" screen
Core duo 1.83 T2400
1GB ram
X1400
100 GB HD
DVD +-RW

what games will i be able to play on such a system. Im not expecting much, but i know it can do more than just hearts. 😀
 
Originally posted by: foges
Thanx for the help. I guess the toshiba isnt really more economical, but i like it more because it has a better processor and a better graphics card, plus my best friends dad is the official importer of toshiba here in the country, so i can most probably get a deal through him.

That would make the final specs:
14.1" screen
Core duo 1.83 T2400
1GB ram
X1400
100 GB HD
DVD +-RW

what games will i be able to play on such a system. Im not expecting much, but i know it can do more than just hearts. 😀
Click to expand...


Go with the good deal. Remembering the good deal later will make you smile.
 
Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
No, I said on two specific, identical systems, one equipped with GMA950 and one with MR X1300, the GMA950 system has two hours more battery life. This was not a hypothetical, it is based on real testing of two specific, mass-production notebook computers.
Click to expand...

Link?
 
Originally posted by: alimoalem
the way you stated it makes it sound like you are making a generalization. what i was saying is i, with my laptop that uses the GMA950, get barely over 2 hours. so according to your statement, if it were possible to add a MR X1300 to my laptop, i would get roughly 10 minutes of battery life.

i admit to not having a vast knowledge of power consumption for laptops but i do know that a dedicated graphics card does not account for over 90% of the power consumption, especially when performing simple tasks like web browsing. if you were comparing a notebook that gets 8 hours on an integrated graphics solution and 6 hours with a MR X1300 instead, i'm simply pointing out that your wording may be misleading to some.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry that confused you, but there are two individual, exact-same notebook computers with the only difference being the GPU's and the battery life on the GMA 950 is two hours longer. I cannot share the make/model/specs of these laptops, but the data is real. And no, you cannot apply it to saying your laptop would be the same.

Let's see...

Battery: 56.16Whr

Core Duo T2300E, 14" XGA, GMA950, etc: 5.2 hours (Avg power consumption 10.8W)
Core Duo T2300E, 14" XGA, ATI MR X1300, etc: 3.1 hours (Avg power consumption 18.1W)
 
Originally posted by: foges
Thanx for the help. I guess the toshiba isnt really more economical, but i like it more because it has a better processor and a better graphics card, plus my best friends dad is the official importer of toshiba here in the country, so i can most probably get a deal through him.

That would make the final specs:
14.1" screen
Core duo 1.83 T2400
1GB ram
X1400
100 GB HD
DVD +-RW

what games will i be able to play on such a system. Im not expecting much, but i know it can do more than just hearts. 😀
Click to expand...

I hear WoW is quite do-able with those specs, but to really answer the question we need to know your native screen res.
 
You should be alright with that res and specs, but do post in the video section to get more of an expert opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top