T6600 v i5-430m

[elon76]

t6600 v i5-430m
Hello,
i'm trying to decide between a t6600 hp (only $400 w/ my store credit) and a dell i5-430m ($800)( both w 4gb ram n 17"). While these are super common procs per what i see on store shelves yet i cannot find any of the usual charts to show just how much faster one may be than the other and when they are even...which i'm guessing may be the case quite often. i don't play games but i do have java dev work to do and look forward to 64bit windows 7 n using 4-6gb of ram finally!

given the $ outta pocket diff, i was leaning towards the 6600 and bumping it to 6GB and adding/swapping in a new $230 intel x25 SSD for less than that core i5...so that's why i really wanna SEE some app benchmarks and i bet a lot of people do too. both these laptops are at diff stores so i will get stuck w store credit or 15% restock fee to test myself . HELP!

Tom's should really have some numbers for these already, not just the i7's, imho. can anyone help with some PC-Mark CPU test numbers or something? thanks in advance! wish tom's would post some results. i don't trust the single number per cpu in cpubenchmarks.com, which i already looked at, to really tell the story.

heres a summary from what that site said (i prefer intels for the hackintosh option):
name score:
AMD Turion 64 X2 Mobile TL-64 1014 396

Intel Core2 Duo T6600 @ 2.20GHz 1578

AMD Turion II Ultra Dual-Core Mobile M620 1643

AMD Turion X2 Ultra Dual-Core Mobile ZM-85 1261

Intel Core i3 M 330 @ 2.13GHz 2078

Intel Core i5 M 430 @ 2.27GHz 2486

Intel Core i7 720QM @ 1.60GHz 3274

 

[saaiello]

Like it says in the numbers I5 will be about twice as fast due to its hyper-threading ability and also has Turbo. TURBO will overclock it to 2.9ghz when its needed.

 

[elon76]

thanks for the reply. that i5 number is double my current tl-64 and 50% better than t6600.
the i5-430m only clocks up to 2.53. it's still got two cores, ableit a bit faster than 2.2ghz t6600 and probably threads some % better than t6600 i'm sure.... that's why i was hoping for some more numbers from a wider test. If the real world gap proved to be alot smaller... then i'm leaning to the t6600 + X25 SSD + more ram which will def rock n not cost much.

any thoughts or perf scores or experience anyone can add?

 

[saaiello]

Clock for clock compared to a core 2 in comparison would be like running a core 2 at 3.2 ghz. In buying new CPUs you can not judge them just on there clock speeds anymore. Also like i said the I5 is hyper threaded so its like running a quad core. In real world setting the I5 crushes the core 2.

 

[elon76]

i think the i7 may be overkill for my needs but the perhaps the i5 is just right, even w/o a SSD. thanks. still, i'd love to see some thorough benchmarks from Tom's or someone.

 

[r_manic]

Best answer selected by r_manic.

 

[elon76]

i'm still curious about this topic and to see some real benchmarks. I have a
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 @ 2.40GHz with a score of 2950 according to that benchmark site.
why does the 3ghz version that is 25% faster than my 2.4ghz get a score that is 50% higher? By your reasoning above which many, including myself, would go along with the 3ghz being the same chip and all should only get a 25% higher score.
Intel Core2 Quad Q9650 @ 3.00GHz with a score of 4558 is 50% higher, not 25%.

what do you say about that? thanks.