Core 2 Duo or Core i3
kao
-
epango Posted messages 37195 Registration date Status Membre Last intervention -
epango Posted messages 37195 Registration date Status Membre Last intervention -
Hello everyone,
I'm thinking about buying a laptop and I would like to know the difference between a Core 2 Duo processor and a Core i3, and especially which one is more powerful?? (I don't play games, I only do basic things: internet, office work, video, and a bit of photo editing)
I thank in advance all those who will take the time to respond to me.
I'm thinking about buying a laptop and I would like to know the difference between a Core 2 Duo processor and a Core i3, and especially which one is more powerful?? (I don't play games, I only do basic things: internet, office work, video, and a bit of photo editing)
I thank in advance all those who will take the time to respond to me.
Configuration: Windows XP / Internet Explorer 8.0
14 réponses
Core 2Duo or i3, which is more performant?
Interesting question although somewhat poorly phrased.
Indeed, Core 2Duo and i3 refer to two families of Intel CPUs...
The Core 2 Duo family includes all CPUs from E4xxx to E8xxx (Conroe and Wolfdale architectures). It appeared on the market in the summer of 2006. All CPUs in this range share the same socket: the LGA775.
The very recent Core i3 family currently includes only 2 models (i3 540 and i3 530), is based on a newer architecture called Westmere and fits into the LGA1156 socket, like the i5 and most i7 processors.
Comparing a very large family of CPUs ranging from low-end to high-end with another family focused on the low-end... but with a newer architecture is both ridiculous and interesting in the sense that the i3 offers great performance... for a still high price.
As for 'ranking' the two existing i3 models in the already complex ranking of Core 2 Duo... it's difficult! It mostly depends on usage.
The Core i3 has many advantages: an integrated graphics processor, very low power consumption, 7.1 audio and HD video support, all while heating very little!... Apart from the price and the poor 3D performance, it's almost too good! :)
--
Because the manuals don't say everything... But not nothing either, right!
Interesting question although somewhat poorly phrased.
Indeed, Core 2Duo and i3 refer to two families of Intel CPUs...
The Core 2 Duo family includes all CPUs from E4xxx to E8xxx (Conroe and Wolfdale architectures). It appeared on the market in the summer of 2006. All CPUs in this range share the same socket: the LGA775.
The very recent Core i3 family currently includes only 2 models (i3 540 and i3 530), is based on a newer architecture called Westmere and fits into the LGA1156 socket, like the i5 and most i7 processors.
Comparing a very large family of CPUs ranging from low-end to high-end with another family focused on the low-end... but with a newer architecture is both ridiculous and interesting in the sense that the i3 offers great performance... for a still high price.
As for 'ranking' the two existing i3 models in the already complex ranking of Core 2 Duo... it's difficult! It mostly depends on usage.
The Core i3 has many advantages: an integrated graphics processor, very low power consumption, 7.1 audio and HD video support, all while heating very little!... Apart from the price and the poor 3D performance, it's almost too good! :)
--
Because the manuals don't say everything... But not nothing either, right!
Hi,
The Core 2 Duo are old CPUs that are nearing the end of their life, while the Core i3 has just come out and is better suited for laptops than the Core 2 Duo. Which one is more powerful? You need to compare model by model.
A+
--
If you don't ask, you'll be ashamed once. If you don't ask, you'll be ashamed all your life. Chinese proverb.
The Core 2 Duo are old CPUs that are nearing the end of their life, while the Core i3 has just come out and is better suited for laptops than the Core 2 Duo. Which one is more powerful? You need to compare model by model.
A+
--
If you don't ask, you'll be ashamed once. If you don't ask, you'll be ashamed all your life. Chinese proverb.
The machine that has somewhat shaken up preconceived ideas about gaming configurations is the Dell Alienware M11x: its performance, while not exceptional, is quite honorable (the machine is made for gaming) despite its very modest processor (Core 2 Duo SU7300, hence low-voltage!). Nevertheless, this machine performs well in games. Why? Because of the following points:
- 1066 MHz memory instead of 800
- high-performing graphics card (GT 335M with 1 GB of GDDR3)
- last but not least, reasonable resolution (1366x768)
The high-performing graphics circuit being switchable, the machine still boasts a 6-hour battery life when used for office work + Internet!
In my opinion, this is the type of configuration to start with, expanding it as needs grow, and not focusing solely on the processor, which has little impact in modern games: the computing power of the GPU is much stronger.
Here are the CPU powers if you really care:
https://paulisageek.com/compare/cpu/
- 1066 MHz memory instead of 800
- high-performing graphics card (GT 335M with 1 GB of GDDR3)
- last but not least, reasonable resolution (1366x768)
The high-performing graphics circuit being switchable, the machine still boasts a 6-hour battery life when used for office work + Internet!
In my opinion, this is the type of configuration to start with, expanding it as needs grow, and not focusing solely on the processor, which has little impact in modern games: the computing power of the GPU is much stronger.
Here are the CPU powers if you really care:
https://paulisageek.com/compare/cpu/
I would like to remind you that (Wikipedia (Arrandale)):
The power of Arrandale processors does not increase either with their numbers or with their frequencies, according to the Passmark2 test, which measures the following performance with its CPU Mark:
Core i5 M 430 @ 2.27GHz: 2463
Core i5 M 520 @ 2.40GHz: 2321
Core i5 M 540 @ 2.53GHz: 2164
This doesn’t stop Dell from raising prices based on the number as if it were the case!
So be smarter than their marketing department if you buy from them ;-)
The power of Arrandale processors does not increase either with their numbers or with their frequencies, according to the Passmark2 test, which measures the following performance with its CPU Mark:
Core i5 M 430 @ 2.27GHz: 2463
Core i5 M 520 @ 2.40GHz: 2321
Core i5 M 540 @ 2.53GHz: 2164
This doesn’t stop Dell from raising prices based on the number as if it were the case!
So be smarter than their marketing department if you buy from them ;-)
For a desktop PC, you shouldn't opt for a Core 2 Duo anymore as the socket is nearing the end of its life and you won't be able to upgrade it much later. However, for a laptop, since the processors are very difficult or nearly impossible to change, it's different. A Core 2 Duo can definitely work for your usage because, despite getting old, it still offers good performance.
"For a desktop PC, you shouldn't choose a Core 2 Duo anymore because the socket is outdated and you won't be able to upgrade it much later."
Honestly, in the last 25 years, has it happened to many people here to change their processor without having to change the motherboard as well?
I still remember my hesitation between a 939 socket motherboard (more expensive) and a 400-something for my AMD. The seller's argument: "Invest the extra cost for the 939, even at the same frequency, because it's a socket that's built to last," which I did. Three months later, it was replaced by the AM2!
Assume you'll always have good reasons to change your motherboard at the same time as your processor. If only to avoid having a configuration that's too unbalanced.
Honestly, in the last 25 years, has it happened to many people here to change their processor without having to change the motherboard as well?
I still remember my hesitation between a 939 socket motherboard (more expensive) and a 400-something for my AMD. The seller's argument: "Invest the extra cost for the 939, even at the same frequency, because it's a socket that's built to last," which I did. Three months later, it was replaced by the AM2!
Assume you'll always have good reasons to change your motherboard at the same time as your processor. If only to avoid having a configuration that's too unbalanced.
Yes, but the socket 939 didn't last long and there aren't many options for it compared to socket 775. Look at the choices we have on the 775 like Intel Core 2 Duo, Quad, Pentium D, Celeron, etc. So we can easily change processors without having to change the motherboard.
I had a motherboard with a socket 939 and it's true that I had to change the RAM and the motherboard with it. But for laptops, we can't do that anyway.
I had a motherboard with a socket 939 and it's true that I had to change the RAM and the motherboard with it. But for laptops, we can't do that anyway.
"Core i5 M 430 @ 2.27GHz: 2463
Core i5 M 520 @ 2.40GHz: 2321
Core i5 M 540 @ 2.53GHz: 2164
"
These numbers may seem strange, unless you forget a few important principles in measurements and scientific experiments in general:
- an experiment is not significant if it is not repeated (we then take the average number at the end of the tests)
- in the specific case of power measurement, the CPU's environment also matters: CPU load, ambient temperature...
In other words, the given numbers do not provide a real picture of the power of the mentioned CPUs, as the measurement is unique, and the numbers are not different enough to be significant; they only give a "rough idea" that these three CPUs are very close in performance. That is the only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn from these numbers.
And still, I haven't even compared the CPUs in what differentiates them from each other, their PHYSICAL difference (apart from frequency, that is)..."
Core i5 M 520 @ 2.40GHz: 2321
Core i5 M 540 @ 2.53GHz: 2164
"
These numbers may seem strange, unless you forget a few important principles in measurements and scientific experiments in general:
- an experiment is not significant if it is not repeated (we then take the average number at the end of the tests)
- in the specific case of power measurement, the CPU's environment also matters: CPU load, ambient temperature...
In other words, the given numbers do not provide a real picture of the power of the mentioned CPUs, as the measurement is unique, and the numbers are not different enough to be significant; they only give a "rough idea" that these three CPUs are very close in performance. That is the only conclusion that can be reasonably drawn from these numbers.
And still, I haven't even compared the CPUs in what differentiates them from each other, their PHYSICAL difference (apart from frequency, that is)..."
"Ultimately, Dell's marketing was right to capitalize on the lack of critical thinking from its potential customers and to charge more for less powerful processors."
You seem to forget an important point in economics: the price of a product is sometimes - often - more related to the law of supply and demand rather than the more obvious (and fairer, from a certain perspective) law of "it's better, therefore more expensive"!
This aspect is very visible in the price of RAM sticks... and gasoline! ;)
--
Because the manuals don't say everything... but they don't say nothing either, right!
You seem to forget an important point in economics: the price of a product is sometimes - often - more related to the law of supply and demand rather than the more obvious (and fairer, from a certain perspective) law of "it's better, therefore more expensive"!
This aspect is very visible in the price of RAM sticks... and gasoline! ;)
--
Because the manuals don't say everything... but they don't say nothing either, right!
Hello,
actually, does the Core i3 have 2 cores like the Core 2 Duo? And when I was talking about comparison, I meant for example between a Core 2 Duo T5900 and a Core i3 330M.
Thank you.
actually, does the Core i3 have 2 cores like the Core 2 Duo? And when I was talking about comparison, I meant for example between a Core 2 Duo T5900 and a Core i3 330M.
Thank you.
hi
why pay more if you can get by with a C2D for office work and surfing the net (which any C2D can do very well... and the series actually starts with E2... if I'm not mistaken...)
to each their own philosophy...
why pay more if you can get by with a C2D for office work and surfing the net (which any C2D can do very well... and the series actually starts with E2... if I'm not mistaken...)
to each their own philosophy...
"Hey Papagol,
-Paganel, respect the nicknames, Webernard-
1) don't talk to me like that
-stay cool, he didn't insult you!-
2) you're talking nonsense
-I don't think so, no-
3) your simple click from where I am I can't follow it, I can't surf outside of CCM, you see...
-that might compromise your credibility a bit, if your source of info is unique...-
so, instead of thinking you're God the Father, come back down to your planet, be humble, and learn from others...
God with a capital G, dude!
--
Because the notices don't say everything...
But not nothing either, huh!"
-Paganel, respect the nicknames, Webernard-
1) don't talk to me like that
-stay cool, he didn't insult you!-
2) you're talking nonsense
-I don't think so, no-
3) your simple click from where I am I can't follow it, I can't surf outside of CCM, you see...
-that might compromise your credibility a bit, if your source of info is unique...-
so, instead of thinking you're God the Father, come back down to your planet, be humble, and learn from others...
God with a capital G, dude!
--
Because the notices don't say everything...
But not nothing either, huh!"
Hello,
I would like to know which processor is better for a laptop: the Intel Core 2 Duo T6600 at 2.2 GHz or the Intel® Core(TM) i3-330M (2.13 GHz).
Thank you.
I would like to know which processor is better for a laptop: the Intel Core 2 Duo T6600 at 2.2 GHz or the Intel® Core(TM) i3-330M (2.13 GHz).
Thank you.
He's stubborn, the rascal. You can't compare a Core 2 Duo with an i3; you could compare a 2CV with a Ferrari, and it's the same thing. The 2CV is like the Core 2 Duo, and the Ferrari is like the i3.
This comparison would hold if the performance difference between a Ferrari and a 2CV were 26.5% as here... which we would know about! :-D
And of course, we can compare a C2D and an i3: you just have to run the same applications on them, like here, and note their other differences like consumption. You shouldn't drown in a glass of water like that, otherwise you'll never get your engineering degree.
The marketing spiel that says the new generation is so much better than the previous one is something Intel rolls out every year, and they had already done it for the Pentium IV, which was a technological disaster. Outside of benchmarks, there is no salvation!
And of course, we can compare a C2D and an i3: you just have to run the same applications on them, like here, and note their other differences like consumption. You shouldn't drown in a glass of water like that, otherwise you'll never get your engineering degree.
The marketing spiel that says the new generation is so much better than the previous one is something Intel rolls out every year, and they had already done it for the Pentium IV, which was a technological disaster. Outside of benchmarks, there is no salvation!
Comparaison entre Core Quad, i3 et Core 2 Duo
Je veux bien comparer le Core Quad, l'i3 et le Core 2 Duo bas de gamme.
"Well, if the CPUs have the same architecture, the one with the highest frequency will be the most powerful... it's logical... "
The architectures are different. One must not confuse architecture and generation.
"I suppose that for your test, the smallest result means that the CPU is faster, or have you reversed the results? ^^ "
There is no need to suppose, but to inform oneself. This can be done with a simple click of the mouse:
https://paulisageek.com/compare/cpu/
But your reaction confirms that Dell's marketing ultimately succeeded in betting on the lack of critical thinking of its potential customers and charging more for less powerful processors. As Coluche said, as long as there are people to walk, we can’t say anything :-(
The architectures are different. One must not confuse architecture and generation.
"I suppose that for your test, the smallest result means that the CPU is faster, or have you reversed the results? ^^ "
There is no need to suppose, but to inform oneself. This can be done with a simple click of the mouse:
https://paulisageek.com/compare/cpu/
But your reaction confirms that Dell's marketing ultimately succeeded in betting on the lack of critical thinking of its potential customers and charging more for less powerful processors. As Coluche said, as long as there are people to walk, we can’t say anything :-(
Indeed, your benchmarks are incorrect. This ranking is accurate.
The i* are based on the same architecture, and we can compare them with the frequencies that align perfectly with Intel's nomenclature. Just because a site says something, it doesn't mean you should follow it blindly without any critical thinking.
The i* are based on the same architecture, and we can compare them with the frequencies that align perfectly with Intel's nomenclature. Just because a site says something, it doesn't mean you should follow it blindly without any critical thinking.
"This ranking is correct".
I don't know if it is correct, but it is certainly quite messy. What is a 3DMark doing in a performance calculation for a processor when its result mainly depends on the graphics card... which model is not specified? It's a complete nonsense.
"the i* are based on the same architecture"
Everything is "based" on the i386 architecture, in this case. For the rest, in the i7, you have dual-core and quad-core processors, so you can't in any way speak of an identical architecture in this case. You also have models equipped with turbo boost and others that are not. Intel regularly experiments with new techniques. Some are effective, others underperforming, like Netburst was, and ultimately abandoned. We'll see how turbo boost performs, but only in action. For now, it is not convincing.
The numbers of the processors mainly indicate Intel's hopes and its desire to promote certain models, whether they are performing or not. The important thing for this company is sales.
I don't know if it is correct, but it is certainly quite messy. What is a 3DMark doing in a performance calculation for a processor when its result mainly depends on the graphics card... which model is not specified? It's a complete nonsense.
"the i* are based on the same architecture"
Everything is "based" on the i386 architecture, in this case. For the rest, in the i7, you have dual-core and quad-core processors, so you can't in any way speak of an identical architecture in this case. You also have models equipped with turbo boost and others that are not. Intel regularly experiments with new techniques. Some are effective, others underperforming, like Netburst was, and ultimately abandoned. We'll see how turbo boost performs, but only in action. For now, it is not convincing.
The numbers of the processors mainly indicate Intel's hopes and its desire to promote certain models, whether they are performing or not. The important thing for this company is sales.
Hey Papagol,
1) Don't talk to me like that
2) You're talking nonsense
3) Your simple click from where I am, I can't follow it, I can't surf outside of CCM, you see...
So, instead of acting like you're God, come back down to your planet, be humble, and learn from others...
For the moment you have a -3, which is already quite telling, but it will surely drop even further to reach the depths of negative
And just to be a bit more serious, the 3 procs you mentioned are part of the "Arrandale" family, yes, all three of them, and therefore have the same architecture
There you go, now you have a choice:
- acknowledge your mistake and apologize
- continue in your delusion of 'I know everything and you're all idiots' and get nicely roasted, because trust me, I'm waiting for you at the turn (and God knows I love crushing fools)
1) Don't talk to me like that
2) You're talking nonsense
3) Your simple click from where I am, I can't follow it, I can't surf outside of CCM, you see...
So, instead of acting like you're God, come back down to your planet, be humble, and learn from others...
For the moment you have a -3, which is already quite telling, but it will surely drop even further to reach the depths of negative
And just to be a bit more serious, the 3 procs you mentioned are part of the "Arrandale" family, yes, all three of them, and therefore have the same architecture
There you go, now you have a choice:
- acknowledge your mistake and apologize
- continue in your delusion of 'I know everything and you're all idiots' and get nicely roasted, because trust me, I'm waiting for you at the turn (and God knows I love crushing fools)
"The 3 CPUs you mentioned are part of the "Arrandale" family, yes, all 3, and therefore have the same architecture"
Thank you for not confusing everything like that.
The architecture of Arrandale is x86-64.
Their microarchitecture is Nehalem.
Their family is Westmere.
While not bad at all, the 540M does not stand out extraordinarily from the classic Core 2 Duo P8700, which was indeed excellent:
Core 2 Duo P8700 (2.53GHz) | Core i5-540M (2.53GHz) | Arrandale Advantage
Idle 216 minutes 215 minutes None
Light Web Browsing 177 minutes 188 minutes +6%
Average Web Browsing 177 minutes 186 minutes +5%
Heavy Web Browsing 174 minutes 176 minutes None
Video Playback (x264) 132 minutes 134 minutes None
Heavy Downloading/Multitasking 144 minutes 147 minutes None
https://www.anandtech.com/show/2902/4
As we can see, Intel may be reducing its manufacturing costs with the 32 nm, but the advantage is simply for the company, not for the buyer.
Thank you for not confusing everything like that.
The architecture of Arrandale is x86-64.
Their microarchitecture is Nehalem.
Their family is Westmere.
While not bad at all, the 540M does not stand out extraordinarily from the classic Core 2 Duo P8700, which was indeed excellent:
Core 2 Duo P8700 (2.53GHz) | Core i5-540M (2.53GHz) | Arrandale Advantage
Idle 216 minutes 215 minutes None
Light Web Browsing 177 minutes 188 minutes +6%
Average Web Browsing 177 minutes 186 minutes +5%
Heavy Web Browsing 174 minutes 176 minutes None
Video Playback (x264) 132 minutes 134 minutes None
Heavy Downloading/Multitasking 144 minutes 147 minutes None
https://www.anandtech.com/show/2902/4
As we can see, Intel may be reducing its manufacturing costs with the 32 nm, but the advantage is simply for the company, not for the buyer.
The 3 CPUs you mentioned are part of the "Arrandale" family, yes, all 3 of them, and they do have the same architecture. Thank you for not getting everything mixed up like that. The architecture of the Arrandale is x86-64. Their microarchitecture is Nehalem. Their family is Westmere.
Listen, we can read too.
Tell me where I mixed something up in what I said, and you can act smart with your little corrections, I've been awake since 4 AM, so I'm not always seeing clearly when I type...
Now, if you explain to me the difference between the 3 processors you mentioned, which would make them get worse results despite being clocked at a higher frequency, all while having an identical architecture (unless I've missed something?), I'm open to discussion, but you don't have to speak in such a condescending way, we understand that you're just mindlessly copying articles (or snippets...) here and there...
So, explain to me where the difference would come from, but if possible, without making a stupid copy-paste.
PS: your last sentence shows once again that you say things without understanding what you're talking about; a finer engraving always brings an advantage, whether in energy efficiency, or in terms of cooling and thus overclocking, it's therefore also an advantage for the user...