Is the T7200 Faster than the E6300???

[dark34]

Hey fellas I decided to get a new laptop and went with the T7200. It runs at 2 gigs and has the nice 4 megs of Cache, but I am wondering if it is as fast as the E6300?

Someone from work said that the laptop processors even the T7600 is slower, but judging from specs I would think that the T7200 is about as fast as the E6400.

Can anyone post some links or just tell me if I am right or totally off base.
Thanks : )

 

[carlhungis]

I don't think so. I could be wrong though. Isn't the T7200 a Core Duo as opposed to the E6300 which is the Core 2 Duo? I would guess... again, could be wrong... that the E6300 is the superior chip.

 

[dark34]

No it is still a core 2 duo


Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T7200 (2.00GHz, 4MB L2 Cache, 667 MHz FSB)

 

[BMFM]

Core Duo's are numbered T5000's.

Core 2 Duo's are numbered T7000's (for notebooks of course).

EDIT:
Correction, Core Duo's are in fact numbered T2000's.

And the T5000's are also Core 2 Duo's.

 

[carlhungis]

Thanks, I was just about to ask that. I bought my wife a Core Duo laptop a few months ago, and I couldn't remember the numbering. T7200 just looked so familiar that I assumed.... and you know what that means.

 

[dark34]

This still does not answer my question : ( Can anyone tell me if it is faster or have any benchmarks?

Thanks again

 

[cyborg_ninja-117]

This still does not answer my question : ( Can anyone tell me if it is faster or have any benchmarks?

Thanks again

I think it would be slower because of the FSB.

 

[Pippero]

It is faster in most benchmarks, thanks to the clock speed and 4MB of cache.
In a couple of tests it's even faster than the E6400.
The C2D architecture is not really bandwidth starved, but of course the mobile CPU suffers a bit with media encoding.
For a direct comparison:
GamePC

 

[Doughbuy]

I would say that if they were the same clockspeed, the T7200 would be slower, marginally however. Mobile procs are designed to consume less power, not to mention laptops themselves aren't designed for speed necessarily. But Intel also believes in the fact that a higher-wattage proc that can finish tasks faster and go into an idle state is better than a lower wattage proc that takes longer to finish a task.

Either way, is there really a point to this question? You're comparing a desktop proc to a mobile one...

 

[cozwin]

well i think the only diffrences are slower fsb and bigger cache and tbh cache never makes a hell of alot of diffrence

 

[dasickninja]

To tired and too sick to read everything, but has anyone commented on the effect of a mobile socket vs a desktop socket?

That being said, hey there are two Ninja's in one thread! XD

 

[Pippero]

Guys, i've posted a link to a direct comparison, not speculation.
The only serious drawback of the mobile CPU is price.
Concerning his motivations, what if he wants to build a super cool and silent PC?
A HTPC?

 

[dasickninja]

Xeon Conroes.

 

[Pippero]

And what would be the advantage over Merom?
Don't they only work with those expensive server boards with FBDIMM?
What's their TDP and power consumption compared to Merom?

 

[Dan1317]

Don't they only work with those expensive server boards with FBDIMM?

No, they are LGA 775 socket. Read Ninjas blog about them if you have more questions

 

[dasickninja]

I mean the 3XXX Xeons. They are direct relatives to the Core 2 Duo chips. They work in any good P965 or 975 motherboard and run at an average of 2 to 5C cooler than the Core 2's.
From what Dario and I've tested of the, they also run at lower voltages than the Core 2's. Lower voltages, less heat. Less heat, less need for big fans, and you can rely on passive cooling.

 

[Pippero]

Yes, but Meroms use less than half the power of Conroes... and the slower FSB is not really a bottleneck for most applications.

 

[dasickninja]

But isn't Socket M is more expensive? The Xeons are only $10 to $20 more on average than a normal Core 2.

 

[Guest]

Just to add, the notebook will be slower in most task, primarily because of the slower HD, probably slower ram and slower graphic card.

For CPU intensive task it can match 6400 in media encoding, thanks to the 4meg, otherwise as stated, the FSB doesn't impact much, the cache will account for ~3% increase in perf, up to 10% in encoding. So in the end, when comparing C 2 D, mhz is king.

In the end merom is an incredible NoteBook CPU.

 

[Pippero]

It is, of course.
Wow, so only 10 to 20$ more for a server CPU?
Those Xeons seem pretty interesting...

 

[dasickninja]

Yep. I bumped the original thread back to the top so you could take a look at the info and tests.

 

[tool_462]

Xeon is probably my next chip. Waiting a bit to see how the new low end Conroe's are going to overclock. Well I presume. Any info on multipliers yet? /threadjack

 

[Guest]

There are 2 processor families in C2D on desktop - Conroe and Allendale. The E6300 and E6400 are Allendale, E6600 and X6800 are actually Conroe. C2D on mobile have two families, too. The T5500 and T5600 (I think) and the T7200 and up.

Allendale and T5XXX are 2MB blocks of cache while the Conroe and T7XXX are 4 MB blocks of cache. That is the only big difference architecturally. Buses, yeah, different there 667 for Merom and 1067 for Conroe. Real world difference? Unknown. Power draw...

BUT, C2D on mobile doesn't have an Allendale code-name equivalent; it seems Merom is more generic.

But the faster-clocked lappy chips will likely outpace a slower desktop chip, that what I'd bet on.

 

[dasickninja]

No [/end thread jack]

 

[djkrypplephite]

Meroms are clock-for-clock identically as fast as Conroes.