SU2300 vs SU9400

[Mwing]

Friend is helping me getting a sony vaio tt in japan, there are 2 models higher end has SU9400 cpu, 2 more gb of ram, 250gb hdd instead of 160gb and fingerprint reader.

The difference in price is roughly 30000 yen ($325 USD)

I dont care much on the finger print reader, nor the more hdd space, ram is not expensive to upgrade myself, so it comes down to cpu choice:

SU2300 1.2ghz 1mb cache
SU9400 1.4ghz 3mb cache

Is it worth the price difference to have more cache? i use this laptop for work, remote desktop, some database programs, hd video, email, internet browsing with many tabs, some online flash games.

 

[TimeKeeper]

According to Passmark record I downloaded... to be fair, I have both ACER w/ Intel graphic.
Acer 1410 SU2300 1M L2 (win7-64) CPU Mark: 1003.2
Acer 3810t SU9400 3M L2 (win7-64) CPU Mark: 1164.7

Is it worth the different? I don't know, I just got a HP DM3 SU4100 for less than $500 and I tends to think buying UCLV laptop is like buying a "second car".

 

[Mwing]

nice, user comment!!!

hm 10% shouldnt be noticeable in real life, decision made

thanks for your quick reply timekeeper, u save my time on searching numbers on both cpu hehe

 

[Bateluer]

Its hard to find reliable benchmarks for the CULV chips, unfortunately.

 

[Maximilian]

Friend is helping me getting a sony vaio tt in japan, there are 2 models higher end has SU9400 cpu, 2 more gb of ram, 250gb hdd instead of 160gb and fingerprint reader.

The difference in price is roughly 30000 yen ($325 USD)

I dont care much on the finger print reader, nor the more hdd space, ram is not expensive to upgrade myself, so it comes down to cpu choice:

SU2300 1.2ghz 1mb cache
SU9400 1.4ghz 3mb cache

Is it worth the price difference to have more cache? i use this laptop for work, remote desktop, some database programs, hd video, email, internet browsing with many tabs, some online flash games.

Hell no, that SU2300 is very capable dont let the celeron name throw you off it can hold its own vs the SU7xxx and SU9xxx easily, there isnt much difference between them.

 

[Brainonska511]

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html

You can use that website.

SU9400/SU2300
3dMark06: 1187/1000
SuperPi 2Mil: 77/103

There doesn't seem to be too much difference performance wise, except that the SU2300 has 2MB less cache.

 

[Maximilian]

http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html

You can use that website.

SU9400/SU2300
3dMark06: 1187/1000
SuperPi 2Mil: 77/103

There doesn't seem to be too much difference performance wise, except that the SU2300 has 2MB less cache and is not 64-bit capable.

It is 64 bit capable:

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=42779

 

[Brainonska511]

It is 64 bit capable:

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=42779

Oh. Guess NotebookCheck had it wrong.

 

[Spicedaddy]

The Celeron SU2300 also supports VT while most SU chips don't. (useful for XP Mode)

 

[Mwing]

hm they both have a tdp of 10w does that mean the power consumption is same? i thought the lower clock speed and less cache would use less power no?

 

[Hacp]

TDP=maxTDP. Don't worry most of the time they are going to be operating at .8ghz with half a core shut off. I think the relation between TDP and clock speed is frequency*constant*volts^2.

 

[Headfoot]

That extra 2mb of cache may come in handy for the database usage scenario but beyond that the difference is relatively small.