Celeron Dual-Core T1600 VS Celeron 560

Hi guys,

My old Notebook a Celeron 560 based Compaq got burnt down ... spilled whiskey on the keyboard LOL ... here were I am at the moment (3rd world country) i got quoted minimum 400US to fix the thing... so I rang my brother in Australia and he sent me over a new laptop at his choosing which turned out to be a new Celeron dual-core T1600 ...

now my Q's are ...

current new laptop has a dual-core Celeron T1600 running at 1.66Ghz, 667Mhz FSB, 1MB L2 shared Cache memory ... it runs on a GL40 based mobo and 3GB of 66Mhz DDR Dual Channel Memory ... and the integrated Intel 4500M graphics chipset (which since adding a extra 1GB of system memory had now become 1309MB of shared graphics memory, 64mb of that dedicated as per windows info)

I still have salvaged many parts from my old notebook which experienced the whiskey episode LOL ... mainly interested in the CPU ... why ????????????

I run a few older games eg. Simpsons Hit & Run ... Sonic Heroes .... Chronicles of Nardia ..... Lego Indiana Jones ... Need for Speed Underground 2 ... these are my favourite games and i currently can run them at acceptable frame rates (did no benchmarking) just as I feel and see it ... at 1024x768 with all 3D settings on LOW no problems ... my BIG Q is this .......

if i install and run my other laptops Celeron 560 single core CPU will i get better gaming performance ? I know this GPU is limited so any extra kick would certainly help ... heres the specs of both CPU's ...

CURRENT
---------

Intel Celeron Dual-Core T1600, 1.66GHz, 667Mhz FSB, 1MB L2 Cache Shared

OTHER CPU
-----------

Intel Celeron Single Core 560, 2.13Ghz, 533MHz FSB, 1MB L2 Cache

I've read and heard alot of games running better on single core CPU
s so im wondering if the extra MHz of this CPU would make a improvement ... ???

I cant really see a difference in my current laptop compared to my old single core celeron even though I have a extra 1GB on this one ... ? any thaughts ? what would you do ?

cheers for all the input guys ....

 

It's a hard call, maybe this will help
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Mobile-Processors-Benchmarklist.2436.0.html

 

thanks for the info great site ... still unsure though ...

 

I think the dual core would be better because it has a faster FSB

 

As far as I can tell, both of those processors use the Core architecture (not Core 2). I don't think the extra FSB quite makes up for the significantly lower clock speed, so in tasks that can only use 1 core, the 560 will be better. When you need more than 1 core, the T1600 wins out because it has 2, but not by as much as one would think because those two cores have to share the 1MB cache.

There isn't much difference between them, but unless you never need more than 1 core, I would go with the T1600. However, my perspective may be somewhat limited because I could never understand why anyone would buy one of these processors -- the phenomenon is essentially the polar opposite of people paying $500 for that last 100MHz, but at least the latter get bragging rights while in this case performance is actually significantly impaired to save a few bucks.

 

The person above is wrong all celeron 5XX CPUs are 64 bit merom core CPUs core architecure is yonah which is 32bit. Oh and Any dual core celerons are 64bit merom cores which is core 2 architecure. By the way what kind of video cad did your old system have?

 

no hes not both CPUS as i stated the 560 celeron and the T1600 Dual-Core Celeron... are both 64bit capable!!!

NOW to add more confusion and options :S i have my hands on a Intel Core Duo T2250, 1.73GHz, 533MHz FSB, 2MB L2 Cache .... ???


so i have 3 options now ....... what should i stick with ????

the downside of the T2250 is its not 64 bit capable but i dont run a OS thats 64 anyway ...... so what to pick guys ? i have this new chip the T2250 for the week if i want it i gotta buy it 30US ... (used) + i have the T1600 (currently in my new notebook) or the 560 celeron from the salvaged laptop ??? need some solid opinions quick..... cheers guys!!!

 

both are 64bit capable CPU's .... my previous system had a X3100 intel GMA vs 4500M in the current system

 

You are right, they're both 64-bit. This comes from Intel itself: go here, select the two processors for comparison and tell it to compare. Both of them are 64-bit Meroms so I was wrong about them being Core rather than Core 2 -- they're Core 2, but they're both Core 2 so my point remains unchanged (there is no difference in architecture between them).

If you don't need 64-bit support, the T2250 is better than either of the other two.

 

So you think i should slap in the Core Dup T2250 ? and be done with it ?? im just a bit scepticale about the 533Mhz FSB vs the 667MHz on both of those Celerons + the 560 has 2.13GHz ahead... i guess the only thing the T2250 has ahead is the 2MB of L2 cache VS both ... :S such a difficult choice ? what should i do ?

 

Stick with the T1600, at least it has EIST, so you can undervolt it easily (unlike the Celeron M 560).

And the T2250 - forget about that, thats Socket M, it won't even fit into the socket of your motherboard.

You can compare performance of both the T1600 and M560, 'cause it mainly depends upon how well the games can utilize multiple cores.

 

the link u stated HERE doesn't allow comparisons ... ?

 

Just got that site working ... the comparison site which Althernai posted previous ... thanks for the info... unfortunatley Andy both of those CPU's according to Intels site dont support EIST (or simply intel speed step tech)

 

heres the NO speedstep info ...

 

gotta love Windows 7 snipping tool feature lol ... just thaught i would throw that in ...

 

Hmm.... weird.

You can see if RMClock lets you undervolt the T1600 or not.

Anyway, just benchmark the performance of both CPUs, and the one's that faster for "your" needs, use that CPU.
CPU performance and usage varies from one application to another.

 

Wrong a core 2 duo is 25% faster per clock then a core duo.

 

I am using a T1600. According to Intel's site it should support EIST. But I am unable to get it work in Windows or Linux. I don't know if it's a BIOS problem.
The performance of T1600 is not bad really. With 167Mhz (667FSB) x 10 it acutally is better than most 133Mhz Bus speed CPU, although T1600 only has 1M L2-cache and the main frequency is 1.66GHz.

The only thing I don't satisfy with this celeron is that I can't get EIST working! Battery runtime is so short.

The lack of EIST is already a good reason for me to find a second hand replacement CPU for it. But I cannot sure if it's a BIOS problem or the misinformation from intel.

 

I cannot undervolt it by RMClock. I can only "throttle" the Bus speed down to to ~20Mhz (20.8 x 10 = 208.5). Throttling is for preventing overheat only and doesn't extend battery life at all.

 

That's not true. FSB makes great difference. T2250 is 133Mhz(533FSB) x 13 = 1.73Ghz and T1600 = 166Mhz(667FSB) x 10 = 1.67Ghz. Furthermore, T2250 is a Core microarchitecture. T2250 shouldn't exceed T1600 in all terms even though it has a larger 2MB cache. If I were you I would only choose T2250 for two reasons: EIST (better battery life) and VT (for virtualbox).

 

I cannot either and ive tried 3os with the system, XP, Vista, Win7 ...

RMClock wont allow to either as well. oh well.

so im thinking my decision will be the T2250 does anyone know if it will fit in the GL40 ? is it the same socket as the T1600 ? Cheers!

 

The T2250 is a Socket M CPU, whereas the T1600 is a Socket P CPU.

The CPU socket on the motherboard is incompatible with the T2250, and the chipset and BIOS will not support the T2250 as the CPU core is different and a generation old.

 

Yes, but they're both Core 2 processors so it doesn't matter. I thought the T2250 was as well (Intel really needs to name different generations differently), but as Andy pointed out, it is not and it doesn't belong in this discussion because it won't even fit in the motherboard.