Question re: clock speed of dual core CPU

[schrodinger's cat]

Ok, I've googled myself silly, and I just can't seem to find an answer
to this question. I'm in the market for a new notebook, and naturally I
want to upgrade from my current system, including getting a faster
processor, more RAM, etc. The notebooks I'm most interested in have
Intel Core 2 processors, typically the T5600 or T7200. My question is
this: if the T5600, for example, is rated at 1.83 GHz, does that figure
apply separately to each core, or is it a total for both cores combined,
meaning each core by itself would only run at .915 GHz? My current
processor is an AMD Athlon 1 GHz, and it doesn't seem to me that these
new CPU's would give me much in the way of a performance boost if each
core is only half the listed speed, especially since most of my working
apps are older programs that probably don't much utilize
multi-threading.

I would also be interested in opinions as to whether the T7200 at 2.0
Ghz with 4 MB cache is worth the extra cost over the T5600 at 1.83 GHz
with 2 MB cache. I don't do gaming, and very little in the way of
multi-media editing. I guess what I would like to know is what kind of
percentage increase over my current speed could I expect from both the
T5600 and the T7200, so that I can determine if the difference between
the two is worth a couple of hundred bucks to me. Thanks.

 

[Nate Edel]

processor, more RAM, etc. The notebooks I'm most interested in have
Intel Core 2 processors, typically the T5600 or T7200. My question is
this: if the T5600, for example, is rated at 1.83 GHz, does that figure
apply separately to each core, or is it a total for both cores combined,
meaning each core by itself would only run at .915 GHz?

Speed ratings are per core on all the current Intel and AMD dual and quad
core chips.

processor is an AMD Athlon 1 GHz, and it doesn't seem to me that these new
CPU's would give me much in the way of a performance boost if each core is
only half the listed speed, especially since most of my working apps are
older programs that probably don't much utilize multi-threading.

Well, two things:
1) *Each core* of a Core 2 Duo (or Athlon 64 X2 or single core Athlon 64 for
that matter) is going to be clock for clock faster than an old
Athlon/Athlon XP. Depending on what you do, this could be a fairly
moderate margin or a huge one.

2) For non-gaming stuff, there is almost always a pretty big *perceived*
responsiveness improvement from a second core (or second processor)
because many OS tasks get offloaded to other threads, even if you are not
heavily using.

I would also be interested in opinions as to whether the T7200 at 2.0
Ghz with 4 MB cache is worth the extra cost over the T5600 at 1.83 GHz
with 2 MB cache.

How big is the price difference now, and how much is the laptop?

It was about $140 when I got mine last fall, and on a $1300-1400 laptop, that's
not a huge difference, but it would be a much bigger one if the difference
was on a laptop that would otherwise be $700 vs $840.

I don't do gaming, and very little in the way of multi-media editing.

I wouldn't bother. You're likely to be quite pleased with the T5600

I guess what I would like to know is what kind of percentage increase over
my current speed could I expect from both the T5600 and the T7200, so that
I can determine if the difference between the two is worth a couple of
hundred bucks to me.

If the difference is a couple of hundred bucks, don't bother.

Also, you might want to wait a couple of months for the new Santa Rosa based
laptops to hit the channel - they're just coming out now; official "announce
date" is May 9 but several manufacturers are jumping the gun.

They'll have similar processors, but the slightly higher bus speed should
help some and they some other nice tweaks (ie Robson flash cache) to support
Windows Vista. They may also help push down prices a bit on older models.

 

[schrodinger's cat]

Speed ratings are per core on all the current Intel and AMD dual and quad
core chips.

Nate, much thanks for this and all the other useful information you
provided. I have been reading about the Santa Rosa chip, and I would
love to be able to wait for it. Unfortunately, my old laptop has been
acting kind of squirrely, with apps locking up, the screen flickering on
and off, and files taking forever just to load. There are times when I
click on the Start button on the task bar and then have to wait 30 or 40
seconds for the Start menu to pop up. I believe either my soldered-in
RAM chip, my video chip, or my power supply (or possibly some
combination of them) is starting to fail, so I may need a new laptop
before the Santa Rosa systems are widely available.