P4 3.2ghz vs Core Duo T2050 (1.60ghz)

J

js1091

New Member
how would this match up? would the core duo really spank the 3.2 P4? Im looking for a laptop and im not sure if i should go with a used P4 3.0-3.4ghz computer versus a new Core Duo T2050. Thanks.

-Jeff
 
The Core Duo would be the best choice, it would outperform the P4 in virtually any test.

Also, the P4's are horrible mobile processors, since they suck up alot of power and create alot of heat.

Deffinetly go with the Core Duo.
 
id go with the core duo... but only because it would take up a LOT less power, longer battery life = better. my uncles got a P4 lappy 3.6ghz... and it underclocks itself to like 2.94ghz and even then he only gets like 1hour of battery life... but 90% of the time hes plugged in so...
anyways, the P4 might actually outperform in a few benchmarks... if it was a core 2 duo we were debating, then it would outperform in almost anything but core duo isn't quite as good... though still a very good processor.
 
fade2green514 said:
the P4 might actually outperform in a few benchmarks... if it was a core 2 duo we were debating, then it would outperform in almost anything but core duo isn't quite as good... though still a very good processor.
Click to expand...
I would agree that the P4 may outperform in a few select benchmarks, but the Core Duo would outperform in most of them.

And the differences between the Core Duo and Core 2 Duo are very small in terms of real work performance, especially games.
 
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2808&p=1
i thought those were some pretty big differences, considering the core 2 duo gets better battery life...
most of the games are the same, but it seems oblivion must be a bit more cpu intensive because the core 2 duo actually does do better...

either way were not debating a core 2 duo vs. a core duo, so performance is much better per watt with the core 2 duo. definitely get the core duo. the pentium 4 isn't even dual core... and wouldnt only perform better in select benchmarks...
basically, it comes down to this.
core architecture > netburst.
 
Note how I said real world performance, not in benchmarks. In some real world apps, the C2D does do better, obviously, but not's not going to be a ground breaking difference.
 
In the worst case a Core 2 Duo is as good as a Core Duo for very little battery life difference, best case ~15-20% (being generous, more likely 7-9%). That said, a Core Duo or Core 2 Duo will be better both in performance and battery life than a mobile P4. A Pentium M is another story. While the Duo will out perfrom the P-M (mostly from it being dual core, but even single it's better), battery life will be simiar.
 
yea. basically heres how i would rate them all...
Core 2 duo > Core duo > Turion 64 X2 > Pentium 4.
funny how this order applies for performance per clock, and power consumption as well.

of course, there are all different types like core solo and celeron m... but w/e
netburst was meant for desktops, and it didn't even do too well there. lol
i mean, the P4 isnt even dual core, so that makes the others a better choice either way.
 
Last edited:
fade2green514 said:
yea. basically heres how i would rate them all...
Core 2 duo > Core duo > Turion 64 X2 > Pentium 4.
funny how this order applies for performance per clock, and power consumption as well.

of course, there are all different types like core solo and celeron m... but w/e
netburst was meant for desktops, and it didn't even do too well there. lol
i mean, the P4 isnt even dual core, so that makes the others a better choice either way.
Click to expand...

I was going to say, you forgot a ton of other popular mobile chips, especially the Pentium M.
 
yeah, my budget is about $600 which is why i was looking at P4s, but ill probably end up going with a single core Pentium M or something. What speed Pentium M would be adequate for lots of multi-tasking?
 
js1091 said:
yeah, my budget is about $600 which is why i was looking at P4s, but ill probably end up going with a single core Pentium M or something. What speed Pentium M would be adequate for lots of multi-tasking?
Click to expand...

Really any PM will be sufficient, but I would try to look at one at 1.73Ghz+.
 
for multi-tasking id rather get a core duo 1.6ghz. dual core > single core for multi-tasking.
what type of multi-tasking did you have in mind though? lol
[-0MEGA-];432289 said:
I was going to say, you forgot a ton of other popular mobile chips, especially the Pentium M.
Click to expand...

yea, i was sort of comparing any dual core with the pentium 4 he wanted to compare... dual core > single core, especially since it doesnt use much more power, if any at all.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top