What's better: Core 2 Duo with 1GB RAM or Core Duo with 2GB Ram

Price is about the same.
The laptop is used solely for office work (MSWord, Excel, PPt, web).

nunamus wrote:
> Price is about the same.
> The laptop is used solely for office work (MSWord, Excel, PPt, web).

Which operating system? Which speed CPUs are you comparing?

I'd go with the Core 2 Duo. You can always upgrade the RAM later on, but
you can't upgrade the processor.

Am Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:02:34 -0700 schrieb SMS:

> nunamus wrote:
>> Price is about the same.
>> The laptop is used solely for office work (MSWord, Excel, PPt, web).
>
> Which operating system? Which speed CPUs are you comparing?
>
> I'd go with the Core 2 Duo. You can always upgrade the RAM later on, but
> you can't upgrade the processor.

If I'm not mistaken the power consumption of the Core Duo is a bit lower
than of the Core 2 Duo - so battery life might be better with the Core Duo,
depending on the other specs of the machine in question here. Yet 2 GB of
RAM sounds a bit like overkill for a simple Office machine.

Andreas

Andreas Schulze-Bäing wrote:
> Am Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:02:34 -0700 schrieb SMS:
>
>> nunamus wrote:
>>> Price is about the same.
>>> The laptop is used solely for office work (MSWord, Excel, PPt, web).
>> Which operating system? Which speed CPUs are you comparing?
>>
>> I'd go with the Core 2 Duo. You can always upgrade the RAM later on, but
>> you can't upgrade the processor.
>
> If I'm not mistaken the power consumption of the Core Duo is a bit lower
> than of the Core 2 Duo - so battery life might be better with the Core Duo,
> depending on the other specs of the machine in question here. Yet 2 GB of
> RAM sounds a bit like overkill for a simple Office machine.

It's overkill with XP. Not necessarily overkill with Vista.

The Core Duo and Core2 Duo are both 65nm, so the power should be about
the same, other than the larger cache size on the Core2 Duo.

For an office machine, even Core Duo is overkill, if you're running XP.

In article <4631136d$0$27160$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>nunamus wrote:
>> Price is about the same.
>> The laptop is used solely for office work (MSWord, Excel, PPt, web).
>
>Which operating system? Which speed CPUs are you comparing?
>
>I'd go with the Core 2 Duo. You can always upgrade the RAM later on, but
>you can't upgrade the processor.


Unless Office 2007 is much more bloated than I expect, both are fine
for speed and more than 1Gb *has* to be overkill for memory for what
you are using the machine for.

XP is still available, at least from Dell.


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001

Good information.
This computer will be dual-bootable, Linux/Ubuntu and Vista.

I like keeping a ton of "stuff" open at one time, so I thought
the extra memory would offset the processor differential.

nunamus wrote:
> Good information.
> This computer will be dual-bootable, Linux/Ubuntu and Vista.
>
> I like keeping a ton of "stuff" open at one time, so I thought the extra
> memory would offset the processor differential.

The extra memory would be good for stuff like Autocad or digital video,
but for office type stuff that extra cache, and the couple of other
differences in the CPU won't make any difference

There is not a huge difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo at the
same clock and FSB speed ... about 15%, and the power difference is only
low single digits. However, it's likely that the clock speeds and FSB
speeds are not the same (although they could be). I don't see this as a
really critical issue, but you can upgrade the memory much easier than
the CPU (which may or may not be upgradeable at all).


nunamus wrote:
> Price is about the same.
> The laptop is used solely for office work (MSWord, Excel, PPt, web).

>From my experience beta testing Office 2007 on XP as well as on Vista
(beta RC 1 & 2), I'd suggest 1 GB as comfortable minimum for Office
2007 on XP (running 512M with multiple applications open resulted in
significant slow-downs changing between open windows / applications).
Vista by itself needs a minimum of 1 GB for comfortable use; less than
that and you'll soon start getting "out of memory" warnings when you
open your first application. Office 2007 runs very smoothly on Vista
with 2 GB of RAM. Very pretty if the machine is fully "Aero"
compatible. RAM is very important to both Vista and Office 2007; I'd
say substantially secondary to CPU speed. GPU is also very important
to both, as it affects screen-draw.

On Apr 26, 9:39 pm, nunamus <nuna...@online.us> wrote:
> Good information.
> This computer will be dual-bootable, Linux/Ubuntu and Vista.
>
> I like keeping a ton of "stuff" open at one time, so I thought
> the extra memory would offset the processor differential.

"nunamus" <nunamus@online.us> wrote in message
news:59c99vF2kk9b9U1@mid.individual.net...
> Price is about the same.
> The laptop is used solely for office work (MSWord, Excel, PPt, web).

Here is some additional information I have on displays:

I have been looking at laptops. Lots of deals on Dual Core and some on Core
2 Intel processor based systems at Office Max, Frys, Staples, Circuit City,
Bets Buy etc.

One thing I have found out is that most of the store systems have the
minimum resolution on the LCD displays. In the wide 15 inch format 1280 x
800 seems common while in the wide 17 inch format 1440 x 900 is the rule.

These are very nice displays but my eyes are pretty good (well I do need
reading glasses) and I hate to scroll.


For me WSXGA+ or WSXGA would be better. The hogher resolution displays when
ordered are usually no more than $100 extra or 10 to 15 percent of the total
purchase price.




15 Inch Wide Screens
===================
WXGA: 1280 X 800 (retail store models)
WSXGA+: 1400 X 1050



17 Inch Wide Screens
===================
WXGA: 1440 X 900 (retail store models)
WSXGA: 1630 X 1200
WUXGA: 1920 X 1050