NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Toshiba Notebook 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 - Page 2

post #21 of 27
7/29/06 at 10:09pm
I wonder how these core duos handle "my" version of multi-tasking? i.e.
5 browser windows
Outlook Express
3-5 MS Word windows
an instance of Excel
MS NoteIt pegged to the desktop
burning a CD / working with a pic in Photoshop
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 27
7/29/06 at 10:53pm
For that many browser windows I suggest mozuilla firefox or internet explorer 7 beta, but your computer should be fine, I tried it with my anti-virus and my spyware dectector both in full scan mode and the speed difference was almost unnoticed, played a game nd downloaded it was runnin smooth.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 27
8/1/06 at 8:54pm
Thread Starter 
Ok, so, i've been ripping some dvd's using Xilisoft and then encoding them to a Samsung proprietary format (.svi) for my mp3 player using Samsung's included encoding software. Both processes (both ripping and encoding) brought my CPU usage to 100%! Thereby making other tasks obviously slow. This is using my Core Solo 1.86.

So if I were to stick with the Core Duo 1.6, would this improve performance? Would my task manager also show 100% usage? Would I be able to multitask with more ease and less delay/lag? This is what I understand the core duo should benefit, but i'm just not sure it would at the lower clock speed.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 27
8/3/06 at 3:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by paleo
Ok, so, i've been ripping some dvd's using Xilisoft and then encoding them to a Samsung proprietary format (.svi) for my mp3 player using Samsung's included encoding software. Both processes (both ripping and encoding) brought my CPU usage to 100%! Thereby making other tasks obviously slow. This is using my Core Solo 1.86.

So if I were to stick with the Core Duo 1.6, would this improve performance? Would my task manager also show 100% usage? Would I be able to multitask with more ease and less delay/lag? This is what I understand the core duo should benefit, but i'm just not sure it would at the lower clock speed.

What I see on my machine is TWO cores..... One will at times be running 100%, the other idling allong.

Core Duo is the way to go.

Another thing since you mentioned the clock speeds, going down from 1.86 to a Core Duo at 1.6.... Well from everything I read the core duo at 1.6 is like a P4 at 3.2 gig

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
post #25 of 27
8/3/06 at 6:24pm
Thread Starter 
Well I once again had the opportunity to compare the 1.86 solo and the 1.6 duo side by side using the exact same software making the exact same episode of Seinfeld into a wmv file. As mentioned before, the Solo cpu was maxed to 100% throughout the entire process, and multitasking was laggy and choppy, but I could still get it done (played an mp3 on wmp, surfed the net, etc) but all kinds of lag.

With the duo, both cores peaked, but cpu showed fluctuations between 95-100% constantly going up and down and NO system lag whatsoever...played the mp3, surfed, opened windows, etc. Surely this piece of software could either handle both cores, or the duo core just helped with multitasking.

You are all right -- duo core is definitely the way to go. hands down!
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 27
8/3/06 at 9:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by paleo
Well I once again had the opportunity to compare the 1.86 solo and the 1.6 duo side by side using the exact same software making the exact same episode of Seinfeld into a wmv file. As mentioned before, the Solo cpu was maxed to 100% throughout the entire process, and multitasking was laggy and choppy, but I could still get it done (played an mp3 on wmp, surfed the net, etc) but all kinds of lag. With the duo, both cores peaked, but cpu showed fluctuations between 95-100% constantly going up and down and NO system lag whatsoever...played the mp3, surfed, opened windows, etc. Surely this piece of software could either handle both cores, or the duo core just helped with multitasking. You are all right -- duo core is definitely the way to go. hands down!
So as you see the $150 is money well spent.... Glad you have finally come over to the Core Duo side. BTW: Quad core is on the way... Seeing How Vista and Aero are going to be resource hogs maybe they'll have one core for Aero (the 3 d interface), one for the OS, and the other two for "apps".
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 27
8/3/06 at 10:41pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeAreNotAlone
So as you see the $150 is money well spent.... Glad you have finally come over to the Core Duo side.

BTW: Quad core is on the way... Seeing How Vista and Aero are going to be resource hogs maybe they'll have one core for Aero (the 3 d interface), one for the OS, and the other two for "apps".

Yeah, and it's a bit sweeter since that $150 turned out to be only $65 more so obviously I was coming over to the duo side!

I'm not too concerned about quad cores and vista. Whatever...that's down the road a little ways and XP suits me just great. What is all this 3D and vista supposed to be about anyway? Is it all just gonna be fancy stuff? Try not to laugh, but this duo core 1.6 is my new pc. Do you even wanna know what my old one was? Haha....AMD K62-500mhz....20 gig HD, 320mb ram, 16 meg voodoo3 2000 video...and I ran XP on it flawlessly at all settings toward "max performance". Good pc for websurfing, d/ling, burning cd's...but alas I had to let it go! I'm hoping this Satellite will last me good through the next 2 years of school.

Thank you all for all the knowledge and helpful info on duo core, etc. You are all a good bunch of dudes.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Toshiba Notebooks
NotebookForums.com › Forums › Notebook Manufacturers › Toshiba Notebook Forums › Toshiba Notebooks › Core Duo 1.6ghz VS Core Solo 1.86ghz