thinking about getting a new PC...

[Revolutionary]

so I'm wondering what are the differences between a Intel® Core™ Duo and an Intel® Core™ 2 Duo processor? what's the power difference if say both are 2.00 Ghz? and what is 2/4mb L2 cache for?

 

[felagund]

Lol, did you really have to go to the trouble of putting those TM signs in?
I think the Duo Core is the older generation of processor. Go for the Core 2 Duo. If both are 2Ghz, the core 2 duo will be faster at that speed. L2 Cache is not so important. A 4Mb cache will improve speeds a tiny bit, but not much unless you are running really demanding applications.

 

[3 EMS]

I think the biggest difference is that C2D have a 1066 fsb compared to CD,s 667 fsb. The Core Duos were socket M(mobile devices) and my C2d is socket 775. I'm sure the power requirement for a mobile processor is about the lowest you can find as they are always lookong for ways to extend battery life.

 

[Revolutionary]

Lol, did you really have to go to the trouble of putting those TM signs in?
I think the Duo Core is the older generation of processor. Go for the Core 2 Duo. If both are 2Ghz, the core 2 duo will be faster at that speed. L2 Cache is not so important. A 4Mb cache will improve speeds a tiny bit, but not much unless you are running really demanding applications.

I just copied and pasted the processor names

I think the biggest difference is that C2D have a 1066 fsb compared to CD,s 667 fsb. The Core Duos were socket M(mobile devices) and my C2d is socket 775. I'm sure the power requirement for a mobile processor is about the lowest you can find as they are always lookong for ways to extend battery life.

well its for a laptop so I could get a CD T2350 (1.86GHz, 2MB L2 Cache, 533MHz FSB) with 2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHZ, 2 DIMM

or, go C2D T7200 (2.00GHz, 4MB L2 Cache, 667MHz FSB) with 2GB DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHZ, 2 DIMM (about $200 more)

I hear processor FSB is wasted unless it matches memory mhz...

if there is little difference between the 2 in power for say gaming (Civ4 and like games not looking for a high end gaming machine ) and other media type stuff than I'm better off going cheaper and upgrading to a new system in the future when needed.

but if the difference is significant than it may be worth it

 

[3 EMS]

All the reading I've done tells me your correct about the FSB. The closer you can get CPU and memory to running at 1:1 ratio the faster your system will be. I'm not very knowledgeable about notebooks. For a desktop the difference in power draw between your two systems would be minimal.
Intel's website will probably tell you the power draws of those CPU's. And Tom's Hardware just ran a test that shows differences in memory power usages. It was pretty small even when overclocking but then I look at it from a desktop perspective. For all I know using an extra watt or two will kill your battery fast.

Overall I don't think there is that much of a performance difference(especially considering the extra expence) but there are games that are more CPU bound than others. Its there where you might notice a difference.