Dual-core vs Core Duo

Factual Questions
1

I just checked out a Gateway laptop at Best Buy with Vista and a Dual-core Intel chip.

It went for around $750 and was quite fast when opening and operating applications (IE, Word, etc). I was a bit surprised by the speed, given the rumors about the sluggishness of Vista.

My only issue is that it does not have the latest chip, which is a Core-Duo. However, is this really an issue?

If you are not a hard-core gamer and not a video producer, is there any noticeable speed difference between these two chips?

Isn’t most of the delay when opening applications and doing a lot of things on a computer limited by the hard disk access speed and various bus speeds, and not by the CPU speed itself?

Or is Vista so CPU-intensive that Core-Duo makes a difference?

2

Hiya.

There are generally 5 main bottlenecks in a computer - Memory, Disk, CPU, Network and now Video.

In normal day-to-day operation, memory and disk are probably the greatest factors. It’s unlikely that you will always peg your cpu at 100% - most of the time it’s idle waiting on you. With Vista I would include video as a key component, based on the rather GPU intensive eye-candy.

In order of priority, a Vista capable machine needs the following.

Memory,
Video,
Memory,
Video,
Memory,
Fast Disk,
CPU,

3

damn - my computer ran off with my reply and I missed the edit window. Please ignore the above post.

Hiya.

There are generally 5 main bottlenecks in a computer - Memory, Disk, CPU, Network and now Video.

In normal day-to-day operation, memory and disk are probably the greatest factors. It’s unlikely that you will always peg your cpu at 100% - most of the time it’s idle waiting on you. With Vista I would include video as a key component, based on the rather GPU intensive eye-candy.

In order of priority, a Vista capable machine needs the following.

Memory,
Memory,
Memory,
Video,
Fast Disk,
CPU,
Network.

As you can see, memory is pretty key to all of this. I’d rate CPU as a tie with Disk.

Core-Duo and Core2-Duo are basically branding - in the old days we used to have SMP (symmetric multi-processing) which was two or more CPUs running together. Now you have multiple CPU cores in the same package.

Any recent CPU (single or multiple core) will give you a pleasant Vista experience. You may notice the difference between a single and dual core, but you will definitely notice the difference between 512 MB RAM and 2GB.

I’d go with a mid-range CPU (consider ignoring the 2 most expensive CPU options and go for the 3rd) and bump up the RAM. You can make a vast difference to your user experience by loading up on RAM.

You also need a capable video card. Vista introduced DirectX10 (DirectX is the display technology - what features are available in hardware - fast, opposed to what needs to be emulated in software - slow). The majority of DirectX10 video cards are still rather expensive - the cutting edge always is. I’d consider an older but still capable DirectX9 card. Again, more memory on the card is always good - aim for at least 256MB but 512MB is best.

This is based on an average user. If you spend hours in Mathematica or Photoshop then CPU becomes much more important, but you didn’t mention this so I’m guessing its not the case.

In essence, any recent CPU should be ok but memory is the killer.

trm

ps Feel free to mail me if you want to discuss in more detail.

4

RAM is definitely key, especially with Vista, which is a massive pig, suggesting 2GB to run smoothly and effectively. (Well, as smoothly and effectively as Vista is capable of, anyway.) CPU and video are also important here; CPU because Vista does a lot more in the background (mostly a battery of DRM checks and balances), and video to make proper use of the Aero interface. (This can be disabled though, if you’re not partial to the eye candy.)

Dual- and quad-core CPUs are generally faster because they are capable of true parallel processing – they are able to do two or more things simultaneously. Just because they are capable, however, doesn’t mean that they always do; software still has to be written to be multi-core-aware, otherwise all of its processing will be done on just one core. Vista is, of course, and there are plenty of software packages that are as well – mostly stuff that’s pretty CPU intensive, such as encoding and video editing software and such, so not every program is going to run faster on a dual core CPU. Most of the time they don’t need to though, so it’s not really an issue, but Vista will certainly enjoy a performance boost.

You don’t need to get the latest and greatest unless your intentions are to engage in activities that are routinely CPU-intensive. You can save a pile of greenbacks by going three or four notches down the line while still getting great performance.

5

If you’re really interested in seeing the performance difference between the two, you can get an idea from :
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=432&model2=437&chart=193

This is a guess at the clock speed/model numbers, though. The ‘dual-core Pentium’ is most likely a Pentium D 9xx series (an 8xx series for that price is not a great bargain). You can see that the performance difference is not all that much for most benchmarks, and I think you’ll be happy with the cheaper laptop for what you’re doing. The only question may be how long you plan on keeping it, but at least a dual-core will have greater longevity as more software is rewritten. You’re also right that disk & memory speed will affect you about as much as a better processor, though.

6

Power consumption is an issue, too. A Intel Dual-Core processor will use more power per unit of processing than an Intel Core-Duo - these are very efficient processors.

I add my voice to the Memory mantra, but Dual-Core processors are next on the list. Running a computer safely requires lots of utilities (firewall, Antivirus etc) running. On a dual-core system, you can run more with less impact on interactivity.

And (for performance) think about getting an XP laptop, not Vista (or downgrading). I am so frustrated with the Vista on my wifes laptop. It is appallingly slow on a Dual-Core, 2Gb system (particularly for things like connecting to the wireless network and file operations).

Si