But what about the Core 2 Duo line of processors recently released, known in technology circles as "Merom"? Intel says they are up to 20 percent faster than the current generation of mobile chips, but are they really as good as it is outside? Tired, disillusioned with the world and with a total lack of anything better to do,processor chart we decided to break for avid readers.
The first thing you need to know about the Core 2 Duo is that it is very different from the Core Duo. The main difference is that the faster chips that range,Intel the T7xxx series, use 4MB of Level 2 cache 2 MB instead of the standard.processor chart The entry-level chips use 2MB, but all the Core 2 Duo CPU processors have the advantage of support EM64T 64-bit - although we will not see the full benefit of this until Windows Vista rolls around .
For our tests,Intel we got our hands on three laptops, two of which were Rockdirect. The first rock laptop uses an Intel T2600 2.33GHz CPU - the fastest Core Duo range - while the second uses the new Core 2 Duo T7400 2.13GHz family. The third handset is a reference sample of non-retail boast a Core 2 Duo T7600. The three laptops use the same Intel 945PM chipset, 1GB DDR2 533 MHz, and a NVIDIA GeForce Go 7900 GTX graphics graphics card.
As a test, we ran the application of synthetic benchmark PCMark 2005 to test their ability to basic services. We also run 3DMark 2005 to test the graphics capabilities and Mobile Mark 2005 test features such as autonomy and mobile performance in general. We also tried Cinebench 9.5, a free diff tool to make 3D systems to the test.
According PCMark 2005, there is a big difference between the three processors. The Core 2 Duo is about 5 percent faster, which is not worth writing home about. Cinebench 9.5 showed more of a difference - the Core 2 Duo washer spec was 11 percent faster than the Core Duo system in our single CPU test,Intel and 8.5 percent faster in multi-CPU test.
Not surprisingly, we do not perceive much difference between the three processors when testing 3D game.processor chart They returned almost identical score in 3DMark 2005 and virtually the same frame rates in FEAR As expected,processor chart the main obstacle here is the graphics card. The Core 2 Duo is likely to be better than the Core to run CPU intensive games (like the ones that show a large number of non-player characters on screen simultaneously) Duo, but in most situations involves two processors are very similar.
The primary figures of battery life are interesting to read. The three laptops lasted more or less the same amount of time when playing a DVD movie,Intel and they ran out of juice within minutes of each other when browsing the web via Wi-Fi free. We can only conclude that this is a good thing, because the Core 2 Duo has better performance without losing battery life.
In the final analysis, we must conclude that the performance delta between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo is relatively low in most cases,processor chart but there are obvious differences when running processor-intensive applications. When you use the computer for simple everyday tasks like writing Word documents that you will notice the advantage to zero with a Core 2 Duo. However, the new CPUs come into their own during the execution of the most demanding tasks, such as 3D rendering.processor chart Here it surpasses its predecessor by a remarkable margin.Intel but hardly surprising has always impressed with his mobile processor.Intel The Pentium M aging continues to be a solid foundation for laptops or desktops (such as our latest PC silent feature). The successor to the M processor - the Core Duo (Yonah code) is an engineering marvel that helped push the Centrino brand to new heights.
But what about the Core 2 Duo line of processors recently released, known in technology circles as "Merom"? Intel says they are up to 20 percent faster than the current generation of mobile chips, but are they really as good as it is outside? Tired, disillusioned with the world and with a total lack of anything better to do, we decided to break for avid readers.
The first thing you need to know about the Core 2 Duo is that it is very different from the Core Duo. The main difference is that the faster chips that range, the T7xxx series, use 4MB of Level 2 cache 2 MB instead of the standard. The entry-level chips use 2MB, but all the Core 2 Duo CPU processors have the advantage of support EM64T 64-bit - although we will not see the full benefit of this until Windows Vista rolls around .
For our tests, we got our hands on three laptops, two of which were Rockdirect. The first rock laptop uses an Intel T2600 2.33GHz CPU - the fastest Core Duo range - while the second uses the new Core 2 Duo T7400 2.13GHz family.processor chart The third handset is a reference sample of non-retail boast a Core 2 Duo T7600. The three laptops use the same Intel 945PM chipset, 1GB DDR2 533 MHz, and a NVIDIA GeForce Go 7900 GTX graphics graphics card.
As a test, we ran the application of synthetic benchmark PCMark 2005 to test their ability to basic services.Intel We also run 3DMark 2005 to test the graphics capabilities and Mobile Mark 2005 test features such as autonomy and mobile performance in general. We also tried Cinebench 9.5, a free diff tool to make 3D systems to the test.
According PCMark 2005, there is a big difference between the three processors. The Core 2 Duo is about 5 percent faster, which is not worth writing home about. Cinebench 9.5 showed more of a difference - the Core 2 Duo washer spec was 11 percent faster than the Core Duo system in our single CPU test, and 8.5 percent faster in multi-CPU test.
Not surprisingly, we do not perceive much difference between the three processors when testing 3D game. They returned almost identical score in 3DMark 2005 and virtually the same frame rates in FEAR As expected, the main obstacle here is the graphics card. The Core 2 Duo is likely to be better than the Core to run CPU intensive games (like the ones that show a large number of non-player characters on screen simultaneously) Duo, but in most situations involves two processors are very similar.
The primary figures of battery life are interesting to read. The three laptops lasted more or less the same amount of time when playing a DVD movie, and they ran out of juice within minutes of each other when browsing the web via Wi-Fi free.Intel We can only conclude that this is a good thing, because the Core 2 Duo has better performance without losing battery life.
In the final analysis, we must conclude that the performance delta between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo is relatively low in most cases, but there are obvious differences when running processor-intensive applications.Intel When you use the computer for simple everyday tasks like writing Word documents that you will notice the advantage to zero with a Core 2 Duo. However, the new CPUs come into their own during the execution of the most demanding tasks, such as 3D rendering. Here it surpasses its predecessor by a remarkable margin so surprising.
