T1300 solo vs T2300 dual

Im guessing youd get way better performance with the duo, especialy while running alot of things.

But I think it really depends on what you'll be doing.

Multitasking - yes
Virus checking while using the computer - yes
Games in the future - yes
CAD - yes if supported

You might as well spend the extra $100 for your computer to be "future proof." After all, you're probably already spending at least $1,000. Think of it an investment (the extra $100), especially if you would like to sell it in the future or need it for future activities and/or games.

CAD is (i believe) Computer asisted Design

And a common name for the CTRL+Alt+Del web comic.

I don't think you can futureproof a laptop at all with Vista on the horizon, espically in terms of games.

We'd need to know what you're doing on it. Really, processors are so fast nowadays that very little is limited by the speed of your processor.

I've got an Athlon 64 2.2GHz (the ancestor to the Turion) and am happy with it -- the processor is 3 years old and it still is competitive with modern laptop processors, matching most and beating many in speed, and not using that much power in the process.


The dual core 1.8 will be better only if you are doing multiple CPU-intensive things at once. For instance, it'll be better if you want to play a game AND rip a DVD at the same time. Most people don't really do this, though. Without taking advantage of the second core, a Turion 1.8 will do about as well at everything (faster at some things, slower at others), and should cost less than a Core Duo 1.8.


Basically, don't worry too much about the processor brand when you buy your laptop. Unless you do a few specific things, any modern processor will be fast enough for you. Make your decision based on other things, like screen quality, battery life, graphics capability if you game, hard drive, memory, etc.

As an example: I have a friend with a 900 MHz desktop computer. Being too poor to upgrade the whole system, he stuck a reasonably recent video card in it, and plays modern games just fine.

A Core Duo 1.83Ghz will tear a Turion 1.8 a new hole.. A 1.83 Ghz is more comparable to maybe a 2-2.2Ghz Turion..especially in multitasking..

Those last three words are the key.

If you're running multiple CPU-limited tasks at once, dual core blows single core out of the water -- that's what it's supposed to do. But in singlethreaded CPU-limited tasks, which is most of what people do with their computers that is affected by CPU at all, dual core gives no real advantage.

Intel Core Duo 2x1.66GHz compares about 2.0GHz Turion64/PentiumM in singlethread speed and will kill in multitasking and it will be upgareable to Core 2 Duo (Merom) processor in August which will be about 25% faster clock on clock than current Core Duo and 64bit for Vista...

Merom -> 64 bit emulation.
Don't know if AMD Turion 64 is the same.

Raptor

Please clarify. Emulation? Please post link.

Thanks.

Yes, merom will fit in same socket. People have put Meroms in Duo computers with no problems.

Here's what i've gathered from multiple reviews and word of mouth.

For single threaded applications/uses a faster single core will beat a slower dual core. BUT with multi threaded applications/uses, a slower dual core would blaze through a faster single core.

Now the questions are.... what constitutes single and multi threaded use, and how often will you get into either? I would hazard to guess that CAD design (especially 3D) would benefit from the Dual Core's abilities.

even if the CAD program doesnot support dual core, its still faster because the windows services can all be pushed onto the 2nd core while the CAD program has the 1st core to itself.