processor questions

how do you compare the older pentium processors to the new Core duo processors from intel? is the Core Duo 1.6Ghtz faster than a Pentium 4 3.0GHtz? or do the numbers really make the difference

 

Nope, numbers now don't make a difference anymore, a higher clock speed doesn't always mean better. I'm pretty sure a 1.6 ghz Core Duo will have the same or better performance as a 3.0 ghz Pentium 4, at least far better battery life and power efficiency of course.

 

thanks, what i was trying to get at is the game im looking to play "recommends a 3.0Ghtz Pentium 4" and the notebook i want to buy here shortly has a 1.6. what i really want to get is the 2.16 which seems very fast. so im still comparing

 

I'm quite sure that the 1.6 or 2.16 ghz processor will work just fine with your game.

 

clockspeed only means something when the CPU are of the same family, otherwise it's hard to tell

 

I agree with CrappyGPU. a 1.6 GHz Core Duo is much faster then a 2.0 Sonoma...

Charlie

 

Really? What I have been reading rates the 2.0 Ghz Pentium M faster in gaming over the 1.6 Duo but slower in business apps such as winstone ect...

 

Basically, the easiest way to read it is something like this:
Requirements of 3.0GHz or less means "Will run on any CPU".
Requirements of 3.8GHz means "Needs a pretty decent CPU".
(An even easier way is to ask yourself "Is my CPU less than three years old?" If it is, you can disregard any CPU reqs.

 

Any modern processor will do you right.

The difference between 1.6 and 2.16 GHz is not worth the cash in most situations.

 

Anything processor that is current will run any game out. Processors are quite a bit ahead of applications right now, so its not something to worry about. And I noticed you said you wanted the 2.16Ghz Core 2 Duo. I'll advise against that however, as that is a waste of money unless you will be performing completely cpu dependent applications, and even so you'll only save a few seconds. If you have the money, then you should get the 2.0ghz T7200, which will be your best bet, as it is the cheapest one with the 4mb L2 cache, which will be the biggest gain in performance.

 

In short, don't fret for instance if a games requires you to have at least a 3.0 ghz CPU when you have a 2.00 ghz Core Duo.

 

I have a 2.16GHz CPU in my notebook, and dual 3.06GHz cpu's (P4 based Xeon's) in my desktop. The notebook runs rings around the desktop processor-wise. A 1.6GHz notebook chip should easily be equal to 3GHz P4's, if not surpassing them.

 

What about AMD Turion 64 X2 TL-50 1.6Ghz? Please, can anyone compare it somehow.

I really would like to invest a little more money to get TL-52 as it has doubled L2 Cache but these few laptops I got in my mind happens to have TL-50 (as I live in dark cold north Europe I dont have that huge list of choice in this budget and if I would get some Intel C2D processor it would mean cheaper GPU; though its already some X1600 with 64-bit 128mb memory and as Chaz told me it sucks, its like a little better than 7400 go but looks like I really dont have that much choice.

But anyways would appreciate some comments as I cannot say how much I have time before that final moment when I gotta choose THX!

 

Funny you should ask, as I have the AMD Turion X2 TL-50 1.6 ghz in my Compaq Presario V3019US.
I'm afraid I can't give too much info on it as I run very simple tasks on my laptop, not really testing out the processor at all.

I can say that it runs fairly cool, with a few small spots on the notebook running hotter than normal. However, when I run such a simple game like Sim City 3000 on it, after a while, a good part of the notebook gets really hot, searing hot that it will burn my bare legs if on it.