Differences between Intel Dual Core processors?

[trium 0]

hi fans,
 
i have 2 pcs with socket 775 cpus
 
one with core 2 duo e4400 @ 2 ghz (conroe or allendale); max tdp 65 watt (from juli 2007)
 
one with pentium dual core e5200 @ 2,5 ghz (wolfdale); max tdp 65 watt (from sept 2008)
 
both have the same 200 mhz fsb, l2 cache 2 mb, ddr2...
 
german wikipedia/List of Intel-Core-Processors
 
 
 
 
the infos dont really help me...
 
what are the differences between those 2 intel-cpus and which one is better? (without ghz)

[mta 0]

they are so similar, I'd be happy with a coin flip result to decide.

 

E5200; http://ark.intel.com/products/37212/Intel-Pentium-Processor-E5200-2M-Cache-2_50-GHz-800-MHz-FSB

E4400; http://ark.intel.com/products/29753/Intel-Core2-Duo-Processor-E4400-2M-Cache-2_00-GHz-800-MHz-FSB

 

for me the E5200 has a 45nm die compared to 65nm for the E4400, so the E5200 is the 'newer' architecture so would have a slight speed benefit you'd think.

[Hav0c 0]

they are so similar, I'd be happy with a coin flip result to decide.

 

E5200; http://ark.intel.com/products/37212/Intel-Pentium-Processor-E5200-2M-Cache-2_50-GHz-800-MHz-FSB

E4400; http://ark.intel.com/products/29753/Intel-Core2-Duo-Processor-E4400-2M-Cache-2_00-GHz-800-MHz-FSB

 

for me the E5200 has a 45nm die compared to 65nm for the E4400, so the E5200 is the 'newer' architecture so would have a slight speed benefit you'd think.

 

Does the architecture not mostly have to do with power consumption rather than speed ?

[trium 0]

ive read that the Core 2 Duo has an new improved and more efficient architecture.

the Pentium Dual Core in opposit is based on the Pentium 4...

 

 

i have used speccy

 

core 2 duo have 33°C (with reduced corespeed 1200 mhz per core --> 6x200)

pentium dual core have 42°C (with reduced corespeed of 1200 mhz per core --> 6x200)

[mta 0]

Does the architecture not mostly have to do with power consumption rather than speed ?

true, I guess my point was referring more to the fact the 45nm processor is the newer architecture, so on that basis, I would think it the better gear with all other things being equal.

but I'm not that much of a geek to have any in-depth knowledge.

[Hav0c 0]

true, I guess my point was referring more to the fact the 45nm processor is the newer architecture, so on that basis, I would think it the better gear with all other things being equal.

but I'm not that much of a geek to have any in-depth knowledge.

 

I am in the same boat as you with the in-depth knowledge aspect .

 

 

 

ive read that the Core 2 Duo has an new improved and more efficient architecture.

 

the Pentium Dual Core in opposit is based on the Pentium 4...

 

 

i have used speccy

 

core 2 duo have 33°C (with reduced corespeed 1200 mhz per core --> 6x200)

pentium dual core have 42°C (with reduced corespeed of 1200 mhz per core --> 6x200)

 

33°C and 42°C is not that bad if you think about it.  CPUs can handle a lot more than that.

My current CPU (i7-3770 22nm) was running at 70°C for a while after gaming for a weekend none stop on a stock standard Intel cooler. She was fine but I just changed my CPU cooler to a Cooler master 212x and now she is running in between 33°C - 45°C. Depending what I am doing with her.

 

The new Intel is 14nm if not mistaken and that did make a massive improvement on power consumption and speed.

If I have to choose between  45nm and 65nm I will go with the 45nm purely due to power usage as more power a thing use the hotter it will get. Anything else is a bonus.

[trium 0]

thank you for your opinions

[Tasgandy 0]

For those interested: "Intel's 14nm revolution: why you should care"

 

http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/intel-s-14nm-revolution-everything-you-need-to-know

 

 

Intel's 14nm manufacturing technique. The Broadwell-Y (Core M) products are a little slower than older chips but use far less power, allowing for the latest in super-thin, light and sometimes passively cooled (no fans) machines.

Meanwhile Broadwell-U (Celeron, Pentium, Core i3/i5/i7) chips provide a boost in performance for little to no increase in power consumption.