.06 ghz makes a difference?

I was talking to some people at a different notebooks forum, and this guy was getting mad at me. He said that .06 ghz makes a huge difference in a processor! He said that the core 2 duo 1.6 ghz is much worse then the core 2 duo 1.66 ghz. Is this true? He said some thing about the FSB, how it was much faster in the 1.66 ghz... please explain to me why it would be better... i need to know the truth! Is it worth spending $50 more for the 1.66 ghz core 2 duo?
-MATT

 

If they're both Core 2 Duo processors then the difference won't be noticible. If the 1.6 is just a Core Duo then there will be a slight difference. The difference is only .06GHz or 60MHz which is nothing and pretty much any Intel Core processor is fast enough to run pretty much anything currently on the market.

 

got mad because you asked about a proccessor... over .06 ghz most benchmarks will not reflect that at all!!!

 

There are other differences; namely, as you mentioned, in the FSB speed - it's only 533MHz (if I recall correctly) in the T5200, but its 667MHz in the T5500. As an aside, the T5600, in addition to being another 170MHz faster than the T5500, has Virtualization, which is not present in the T5500 or T5200. Whether or not any of this amounts to a "huge difference" - well, no, it doesn't. The T5200 is probably plenty fast enough for your needs, unless you intend to run VMWare or something.

 

I thought the difference wasnt in the clock speed, but the FSB?

EDIT: Found something.
Wikipedia

 

Well...I agree .06Ghz will not make that big of a difference. And to get mad over something like that LOL. Well in a core duo you would be losing 120mhz (60*2 cores) but still that is nothing in the big picture.

 

If all other factors are identical, you won't notice it, no.

But if the 1.66 has bigger cache, faster FSB or anything else like that, it may be quite noticeable.

But not something to get mad over either way...

 

I'm moving this to the hardware subforum.

 

yeah he got really pissed and cussed at me. If you want to see it, then go here:

http://www.notebookforums.com/post2522472.html#post2522472

Please check it out, and if you have time, register and reply!

Yeah he said excacly what "lowlymarine" said, but he said it makes a HUGE difference... check it out!
-MATT

 

hahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahahah
well im not gunna fight him too much, cuz i dont really no too much about that....
but ill encourage you to join and reply to him, and tell him why he is wrong!

 

I dont think he got all that mad.
I also think what he said about the FSB made sense - dont know whther its true or not (the 667 starving th C2D), but it makes sense, the way he argued for it by saying intel is coming out with 800 soon.

EDIT: From the wikipidia entry:
"In complex image, audio, video, gaming, and scientific applications where the data set is large, FSB speed becomes a major performance issue. A slow FSB will cause the CPU to spend significant amounts of time waiting for data to arrive from system memory."

I would go for the 667 one.

 

same here

i think he just liked using exclamation points a bit too much



you can get an asus s96j with a better video card for around the same price here, comes with the 667 fsb


here is a list of asus resellers