Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

P 4 3.0 GHz HT vs. Intel Core 2 Duo Prozessor T7200 2.0 Ghz

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 21, 2007 4:32:30 PM

Hi,

i am using currently a Intel Pentium 4 CPU w 3.0 GHz and HT Technology in my Windows XP Client PC w 2GB of RAM. Its really fast for me. Now i want to buy a new notebook with a "Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Prozessor T7200 (2,0 GHz, 4 MB L2-Cache, 667 MHz FSB)" CPU and 2 GB of RAM. But i dont know how fast a 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo CPU is. Has someone a link to an benchmark or a comparison. Thanks

ty
yayz
May 21, 2007 4:42:58 PM

Quote:
Hi,

i am using currently a Intel Pentium 4 CPU w 3.0 GHz and HT Technology in my Windows XP Client PC w 2GB of RAM. Its really fast for me. Now i want to buy a new notebook with a "Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Prozessor T7200 (2,0 GHz, 4 MB L2-Cache, 667 MHz FSB)" CPU and 2 GB of RAM. But i dont know how fast a 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo CPU is. Has someone a link to an benchmark or a comparison. Thanks

ty
yayz
Run through the various benchmarks HERE . I set the 641 to compare, as the slowest Core arch. CPU they have(E6400) will be a little faster than the 7200...so i adjusted the P4 up a bit to show a fairer comparison. :wink:
May 21, 2007 5:31:06 PM

Damn. That's not even a comparison. Now when are they going to update the charts?
Related resources
May 21, 2007 5:44:56 PM

do you have another site with a comparison?

thanks
yayz
May 21, 2007 6:00:31 PM

No, I'm searching for the laptop processor comparison. Go with what Tanker said though. Totally correct.
May 21, 2007 6:06:28 PM

I just went from a p4 3.0ghz HT to an E6300 (1.86ghz), both in a desktop, and the Core 2 is faster. didn't overclock or anything.
May 21, 2007 7:43:03 PM

Well, the T7200 may still die of boredom waiting for the P4 to catch up.

Dont get me wrong, the P4 still is fast as youve stated. I own a 530 myself and they are unchallenged among single cores, but C2D is just so many lightyears ahead.
May 21, 2007 7:45:10 PM

Quote:
I just went from a p4 3.0ghz HT to an E6300 (1.86ghz), both in a desktop, and the Core 2 is faster. didn't overclock or anything.


The T7200 has a higher clockspeed and double the cache of the E6300, which should offset its lower FSB. In some tasks, the T7200 would be faster, in others, the E6300 may nudge it.

But, as said, without a doubt, the T7200 will be faster. With a clean Windows install on the notebook and a 7200 RPM hard drive, it should easily be faster than your desktop in nearly every application. I don't know what kind of graphics you have in your current desktop, but chances are the notebook you get will have slightly weaker graphics. That being said, if it's a laptop with any sort of dedicated graphics, it will handle just about anything you'd want to do on a non-gaming notebook with absolute ease (including light gaming).
May 21, 2007 8:46:50 PM

If the P4 is fast enough for u then im sure you will be fine with the T7200, i am 100% sure it is a much better processor!

Best,

3Ball
May 21, 2007 10:05:11 PM

Typically, notebook hard drives are what make notebooks seem slower than desktops. Standard notebook hard drives run at 5400rpm, while standard desktop drives are at 7200rpm. Getting a 7200rpm drive for your notebook will help a lot, although it may substantially decrease your running time in battery mode.
May 21, 2007 10:41:25 PM

Quote:
do you have another site with a comparison?

thanks
yayz

The charts will work just fine for you; it won't hurt your result more than 2% if the P4 has a different number (but same frequency), or if you compare a CPU with +-100MHz, the real point is that you are comparing pears with hot dogs, my sports bicycle with a Ferrari; got the point?!
May 21, 2007 10:44:48 PM

P4s are NOT unchallenged among single cores, Single core Athlon 64s wipe the floor with them, and the only reason a single core Core 2 Solo doesnt own them is because there is no such thing :p 
!