NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Toshiba Forums › Toshiba Notebooks › Core Duo 1.6ghz VS Core Solo 1.86ghz
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Core Duo 1.6ghz VS Core Solo 1.86ghz

post #1 of 27
7/24/06 at 12:38pm
Thread Starter 
I'm trying to decide between buying the A100-OFH (Core Duo 1.6) or A100-SK4 (Core Solo 1.86). They are exactly the same except for the processor and the Duo also has 20gig more HD. The price difference is $150.

My usage is web browsing, downloading bitTorrents (mp's, videos, movies), listening to music, copying CD's, copying DVD's (ripping, encoding, etc. using DVD Shrink), and some office productivity software. No games or graphical intenstive programs. When I do download files or encode DVD's I like to do other things in the background (mostly web browsing).

So, from what I know, duo core shines for encoding and multi-tasking. I was leaning toward this processor for the extra money since I want DVD encoding times to be as quick as possible (not sure just how much faster compared to the Core Solo). BUT, I have also heard that the core duo is actually SLOWER in straight forward simple processes like web surfing, etc. This is why i'm confused as to which processor to purchase.

Furthermore, I don't know how to compare the 2 because they are different speeds.

Any advice/recommendations/help is truely appreciated.

Thanks!
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 27
7/24/06 at 12:44pm
spend the $150 .... no question about it.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 27
7/24/06 at 2:38pm
Yeah... Take the Core Duo...
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 27
7/24/06 at 4:44pm
thirded. Take the duo + bigger HDD. Even if you're not using multithreaded tasks, you'll see benefit when running multiple tasks at the same time and, of course HDD space is always good to have (especially video/music encoding which can take up a good amount of space.

If you're only doning a simple task like web surfing you will not notice any difference between a core duo or solo even with the marginally different clock speeds as surfing is very light on the cpu. Maybe if all you do is encode a video (which is a cpu speed intense task) using an older program that's not able to use multiple cores, you might see a very slight benefit from the solo becasue of it's higher clockspeed. But being only 0.26 GHz difference, it won't be much.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 27
7/24/06 at 11:15pm
Thread Starter 
Thanks guys! I do use DVD Shrink so I wonder how much faster it will be with the duo? Now that I think about it, I rarely even SEE Core Solo's for sale anywhere....everything seems to be duo!
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 27
7/25/06 at 2:40am
hey guys i also have the same question. I am in the market for a nice new 14in portable notebook. I am college student and am buying this to replace my pos celeron notebook. I need more batterylife, i was thinking of the new solo core t1300 but im not sure im going to be dissapointed and want the Duo core.

what should i do? does anyone have experience with the solo and dual core version? I had in mind the new m105-s3021 t1300 solo core with batt life 5.7h
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 27
7/25/06 at 6:42am
In simplistic terms, my understanding of the duo and solo cores performance wise is: the solo is comporable to the Celeron and the duo is comporable to the Pentium. If you are complaining about a POS celeron you have now, dont go for the solo
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 27
7/25/06 at 11:42am
Thread Starter 
I exchanged my Solo for the Duo. I have not tried encoding DVD's but so far I noticed that it runs way HOTTER. Not sure which would have better battery life.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 27
7/25/06 at 12:44pm
As per the celeron and pentium chips, the duo will run hotter than the solo and, I would imagine that the solo would have better battery life than the duo, depending upon what applications or what you are doing on battery power
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 27
7/25/06 at 5:25pm
i had always thought the solo core was and upgraded version of the pentium M while the duo core was in a class of its own, being able to process much more efficiently. But i heard the only draw back of this processor is that it sucks alot of power.

my current celeron only lasts 1h 20min, freaking sad, wont even last me through one lecture. I'm afraid if i buy the duo core im only going to have like a 2hr batt life which defeated the purpose of buying a new laptop in the first place.

Thanks for all comments, very helpful.

i would still like to know what the average battery life for the duo core users on their 14/15 displays
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 27
7/25/06 at 8:58pm
Thread Starter 
Well, I haven't tested the battery life but i'm sure it's probably not much different. The encoded the exact same dvd as with the Solo and it was maybe a little faster (5-10mins)...so I guess it depends on your needs. I'm not sure if i'm delusional, but it seems like webpages aren't loading as fast as with the Solo though. Overall, for my personal use, I don't think the Duo warrants the extra $. Ofcourse, I may be singing to a different tune come the future....but then again, quad cores will be out!
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 27
7/25/06 at 9:24pm
votes on the Duo... followed up on your thread over @ RFD... welcome to NBF Paleo (:!
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 27
7/25/06 at 11:00pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by alkaholikc
votes on the Duo... followed up on your thread over @ RFD... welcome to NBF Paleo (:!

Knowledge is power
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 27
7/26/06 at 4:55am
thanks paleo you experience is very helpful. I think I'm set on the duo core, the solo core seems like it will be obsolete in a year or so.

Now im just on the fence of which laptop to buy. At first i was thinking the toshibas m105 series, but i was dissapointed at the quality when i saw it at best buy. Even my hp dv1000 had smaller dimension and weighed the same. I dont know if i should just bite the bullet and get the sony SZ series for twice the amount of a toshiba. I have a feeling if i get the toshiba im going to want a new laptop in a year (average lifetime of my past laptops). If i get the sony i would probably keep it longer.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 27
7/26/06 at 1:46pm
Thread Starter 
I just did an encoding comparison between the two using the exact same DVD, software, everything. Get this - the 1.86 Core Solo was TWO minutes faster than the Core Duo! Wow!

I also notice everything being just a tad faster with the Solo...windows opening, etc. I haven't ran 2 programs simulaneously so I figure that's where the Duo would shine. But overall, i'm pretty impressed with the Solo compared to the Duo
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 27
7/26/06 at 7:15pm
The two minutes & slight speed differences are becasue DVD shrink is not optimized to use both cores and the solo you mentioned in the previous post has a slightly faster clock speed. But those two minutes are out of how many, about 60-90? so the difference doesn't seem that significant, at least not to me. As I understand it, there will not be much difference in battery since IIRC the duo will shut one of the cores off when on battery (depending on the power management settings) and throttle down (just as teh PM). Core solo and celeron are not the same thing. There are still celerons being pumped out which are like the previous generation of celerons, but with a faster FSB and more cache (IIRC). The big difference between the the celeron and the solo would be the throttling abilities.

The Core solo is basically a revamped PM (with the 667MHz FSB) and the duo is a dual core version of the solo. So yea, if you were to try photoshoping while running DVD shrink that's where you will really notice the difference.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 27
7/26/06 at 9:05pm
Thread Starter 
The Core Duo encoded the DVD in 30 mins. and the Coro Solo took 28 mins. I know it's not a huge diff, but just pointed out all the hoopla that you hear that duo core shines for encoding, which it doesn't at this point.

Yes, it would shine for multi-tasking, but for average user multitasking, a 1.86Core Solo is more than enough (my FSB is 533). When I encode, the multitasking i'll do is listen to mp3's and surf the net, or maybe office productivity software. I mean, why would you want to do something very intensive while encoding? I guess some people would have to...I dunno.

Either way, I think for my needs the only way a duo core would be better, is if it beat the clock speed of 1.86.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 27
7/26/06 at 9:35pm
If Shrink were updated to support dual core processors properly, then you would actually see that encoding time drop from 30 to between 15 and 20 minutes (probably closer to 15 than 20) since it would encode with both cores. But I doubt that's going to happen since it hasn't been updated in quite a while now.

But yea for an everyday user it probably wouldn't make much difference. enjoy what you have, I know I 'm still very happy with my "old" banias laptop.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 27
7/28/06 at 6:56pm
my toshiba A100-JH2, 1.67 Core Duo, has a battery life that goes from 3hrs to 3h30mins If im playing games it lasts for about 3hrs so its doin good
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 27
7/28/06 at 8:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by g00nter
The two minutes & slight speed differences are becasue DVD shrink is not optimized to use both cores and the solo you mentioned in the previous post has a slightly faster clock speed. But those two minutes are out of how many, about 60-90? so the difference doesn't seem that significant, at least not to me. As I understand it, there will not be much difference in battery since IIRC the duo will shut one of the cores off when on battery (depending on the power management settings) and throttle down (just as teh PM). Core solo and celeron are not the same thing. There are still celerons being pumped out which are like the previous generation of celerons, but with a faster FSB and more cache (IIRC). The big difference between the the celeron and the solo would be the throttling abilities. The Core solo is basically a revamped PM (with the 667MHz FSB) and the duo is a dual core version of the solo. So yea, if you were to try photoshoping while running DVD shrink that's where you will really notice the difference.
Core Duo is the way to go Of course what do I know.... I remember when the new 286's were considered fast. (which it was compared to a 8088)
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Toshiba Notebooks
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Toshiba Forums › Toshiba Notebooks › Core Duo 1.6ghz VS Core Solo 1.86ghz