1. You may have noticed things look a little different around here - we've switched to a new platform (XenForo) and have some new forum styles and features. This how-to guide will help you find your way around. If you find anything that looks strange, post it in this thread.

Core Duo 1.6ghz VS Core Solo 1.86ghz

Discussion in 'Toshiba' started by Paleo, Jul 24, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Paleo

    Paleo Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    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!
     
  2. jetstar

    jetstar Notebook Deity

    Messages:
    7,036
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    The Core Duo outperforms the Core Solo by far, especially for multitasking.
    The $150 increase is well worth it.
     
  3. Zero

    Zero The Random Guy

    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    As you have said, you run many programs at one time. Therefore Core Duo will probably be the processor of choice. You may think that the Solo is faster. Well, yes it may be slighly faster, but its certainly not noticible.

    Futhermore, the Duo can handle multiple programs, better than Solo. It also comes with a larger hard disk, and as you have pointed out, you download stuff, so that may come in handy.
     
  4. miner

    miner Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Messages:
    7,143
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    205
    I have to agree. Get the Duo, the extra core will help out even in single threaded apps since the OS overload can be handled by the other core while your single threaded applications run on the other. Moreover the difference between the 1.6GHz Duo and the 1.86GHZ Solo will be negligible in single threaded applications and is more than powerful enough to handle web surfing anf such mundane things.
     
  5. Paleo

    Paleo Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Very excellent...thanks for your replies! Looks like the core duo would be more appropriate for my usage and warrants the extra $150. I guess the 20gig HD is just a bonus.
     
  6. Paleo

    Paleo Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    I got the Duo and noticed that it runs way HOTTER than the Solo I returned.
     
  7. Paleo

    Paleo Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    I 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
     
  8. rkj__

    rkj__ Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    I had the exact same decision to make recently. I went with the duo, because i often have several programs open, and get annoyed when things start to lag. I have not had the ability to make any fair comparisons though to solo core notebooks. Everybody just seems to reccomend that multitasking = duo, so i went with that.
     
  9. Zero

    Zero The Random Guy

    Messages:
    2,720
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    55
    I think the reason why so many people recommend the Duo is because its the pretty much the same price as the Solo, but it has 2 cores. In a year, or maybe more, programs will be able to handle more cores, and it'll be better if you've got yourself a multi-core processor by then, because single cores, just won't cut it.
     
  10. Paleo

    Paleo Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Yeah but by then, even the duo won't be fast enough (1.6 will be too slow), so since we're talking about the future, i'd stay with the Solo. But for present needs, not future...prices are going to keep going down, so i'd say buy the cheapest one that will make your present needs satisfied. Core 2 Duo is coming out (or already out recently) and quad's are on their way. I have no plans to upgrade to Vista any time soon and i've already proven for myself that the Solo 1.86 is faster for MY needs. There are some pretty good explanations on why Solo is better than Duo for the next while on Google.
     
  11. gethin

    gethin Notebook Evangelist

    Messages:
    401
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    I'd like to say that the program you used obiously couldnt utilise two cores then. Because one that can will show that the duo will be almost 2 times as fast as the solo
     
  12. Paleo

    Paleo Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    This is just the thing...there are not many that can at this point. So the advantage IMO goes to a core solo presently. But if you wanna buy for the future and pay a bit more, then the duo is the way to go, IF you can afford an equivalent clock speed, meaning duo 1.8+gig....not a 1.6 since it will run single execution programs a little slower than a 1.86...which is actually noticeable in my case.
     
  13. rkj__

    rkj__ Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Well, it's good that you have found what works best for you. Some people don't really understand the difference, and just get told that Duo is the future/better. Some users just don't take advantage of the second core, so you may as well carry out the one task you are running at a higher speed.

    I don't regret getting the duo for myself though.
     
  14. jeffmd

    jeffmd Notebook Evangelist

    Messages:
    510
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    31

    If you actually use good software, you can find encoders that support multiple cores. tmpg express will compress to mpeg2(dvds) and utilise both cores.
     
  15. Paleo

    Paleo Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Why, because of multitasking? You notice your system's performance is much better when running a bunch of stuff at once?
     
  16. rkj__

    rkj__ Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Like i said, i have not been able to make a fair comparison, i can only base things on what i know about processor cores. For example, i like to still be able to use my computer when doing a scan of some sort (virus/adware). On my P4, it really slows down. As mentioned, i do multitask, and would rather it be able to do several things in good time, rather than having a higher clock speed.
     
  17. Paleo

    Paleo Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Makes sense! Nothing worse than lag!
     
  18. zadillo

    zadillo Notebook Virtuoso

    Messages:
    3,735
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    105
    Can someone more technical explain why the Core Solo would be faster even in non-multicore aware apps? As I always understood it, the Core Solo and Core Duo cores are identical, just that the Core Duo has two cores and the Core Solo has one. So, it seems like even if you're using software that doesn't take advantage of both cores, shouldn't software using one of the cores on the Core Duo perform identically to the Core Solo?
     
  19. rkj__

    rkj__ Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    139
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    I believe that would hold true if you were comparing a solo and a duo with the same clock speed. However, in this comparison, the solo is clocked at 1.86ghz, whereas the duo being discussed is at 1.6ghz. If both solo and duo were clocked at the same speed (1.6 for example) your understanding would be correct. They would both perform single tasks at the same speed.
     
  20. Paleo

    Paleo Notebook Consultant

    Messages:
    182
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    30
    Yes, so the duo would essentially perform single thread apps at a slightly reduced performance. It's all about trade offs.

    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page