Vista and Core2Duo Laptops

Blackstone

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 8, 2007
Messages
3,574
I am in the market for a new notebook computer. I want vista and I want a core2duo.

My desktop machine is a custom build with an E6600 @ 3.4GHz and a 8800GTX graphics card, so you know what kind of performance I am used to.

I am considering 14 and 15 inch inspiron models from dell. They offer an assortment of Core2Duos and here are the choices:


  • Intel® CoreTM 2 Duo Processor T7500 (2.2GHz,4MB L2 Cache,800MHz FSB)
  • Intel® CoreTM 2 Duo Processor T7300 (2.0GHz,4MB L2 Cache,800MHz FSB)
  • Intel® CoreTM 2 Duo Processor T7100 (1.8GHz,2MB L2 Cache,800MHz FSB)
  • Intel® CoreTM 2 Duo Processor T5450 (1.66GHz,2MB L2 Cache,667MHz FSB)
  • Intel® CoreTM 2 Duo Processor T5250 (1.5GHz,2MB L2 Cache,667MHz FSB)

With the 14 inch model, only the GeForce 8400M GS is available.

Assuming I build one with GeForce 8400M GS and 2GB of ram, and a 7200 RPM hard disk, the question is what CPU do I need to get an optimal vista experience?

I am used to Vista responding instantly to my commands from my desktop system, and I would like to replicate that performance as much as possible on the laptop. I am mostly concerned with e-mail, web surfing, video playback, and music playback. I do not intend this system be a mobile gaming platform.

Do I need the faster bus speed? Do I need the extra 2MB of cache? I want a fast system but I don't want to spend the extra cash if I'm not going to see performance gains.

Also note, my current laptop runs on a PentiumM at 1.6 Ghz.
 
If you're into that it should be easy to pinmod the 1.66ghz into a 2.0ghz... in any case 1.66ghz should be the least you should get, don't wanna go below what you had before (even though it's faster clock for clock). Anyways I don't think the difference between 1.66ghz and 2.2ghz is the difference between 'instant' and 'not instant', so it shouldn't really matter much.
 
The big difference between those processors is that the T7xxx ones are the new Santa Rosa core2duos. I currently have a Latitude D620 with a T5450 and a D630 with a T7500, and the difference is quite large. The extra cache and faster FSB make a huge difference, and this is in XP. Vista will be able to better utilize the extra hardware and should show an even bigger jump in performance.
 
I am mostly concerned with e-mail, web surfing, video playback, and music playback. I do not intend this system be a mobile gaming platform.

Why waste the money on upgrading your CPU if this is all your laptop will be used for? The lowest of those CPUs will more than handle those requirements smoothly.

If you expect desktop performance out of a laptop, you'll be over-spending quite a bit.
 
I agree with weasel. For those purposes you could probably get something with very low specs to run well in vista. Vista is set up so that it uses a lot of your system's resources constantly to make accessing things more instantaneous. You need the 2gb ram, but you probably don't need more than 1.66 ghz processor.
 
My $900 C2D Vista Premium 15" lappy with 1.5 cpu/2 GB Ram runs about the same as my desktop for most things (not for video coding and I don't game either). I want battery life more than a ballsy cpu I wont need on lappy. I would rather spend the money latter on a Nehalem or Penryn.
 
The big difference between those processors is that the T7xxx ones are the new Santa Rosa core2duos. I currently have a Latitude D620 with a T5450 and a D630 with a T7500, and the difference is quite large. The extra cache and faster FSB make a huge difference, and this is in XP. Vista will be able to better utilize the extra hardware and should show an even bigger jump in performance.

T5450 is Santa Rosa in spite of the 667... it's Socket P so there's no way it's in a Socket M D620.
 
Back
Top