E6750 Conroe Vs. E7200 Wolfdale

[arcticap]

Which is the "better" cpu?
Would there be any noticiable difference in a business machine running XP Pro?
What's virtualization technology support?

Core Conroe
Multi-Core Dual-Core
Name Core 2 Duo E6750
Operating Frequency 2.66GHz
FSB 1333MHz
L2 Cache 4M shared
Manufacturing Tech 65 nm
64 bit Support Yes
Hyper-Threading Support No
Virtualization Technology Support Yes
Multimedia Instruction MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, EM64T
Voltage 0.85V – 1.5V
Thermal Power 65W

Newegg.com - Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 Conroe 2.66GHz 4M shared L2 Cache LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor - Processors - Desktops




Core Wolfdale
Multi-Core Dual-Core
Name Core 2 Duo E7200
Operating Frequency 2.53GHz
FSB 1066MHz
L2 Cache 3MB
Manufacturing Tech 45 nm
64 bit Support Yes
Virtualization Technology Support No
Voltage 0.85V – 1.3625V
Thermal Power 65W

Newegg.com - Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 Wolfdale 2.53GHz 3MB L2 Cache LGA 775 65W Dual-Core Processor - Processors - Desktops

The Wolfdale busness machine has NVIDIA GeForce 7050 graphics and the Conroe business machine has Intel GMA X3100/358MB [both integrated].

The Wolfdale unit costs about $50 less and offers a media reader, while the Conroe unit only has a 160 hard drive (about 50% smaller) but has a much better warranty.

Does the higher price of the Conroe CPU basically mean that it's a better CPU with better stock performance characteristics?

Which would would be more future proof if upgrading to Vista or for some gaming?

Thanks!

 

[veg1992]

Well the e7200 is faster clock per clock, but at the cost of 1mb less cache, but I think the Wolfdale is a better build

 

[arcticap]

Wow! I just read a good article comparing many different cpu's using many various benchmarks, including the very 2 CPU's that I'm asking about.
Apparently the Conroe is better for gaming, but not in every other aspect. The L2 cache isn't all that critical.
The article concluded by saying:

Of course, it is not faster than Core 2 Duo E8000, losing about 10% to it, but it is significantly faster than Core 2 Duo E6550 and is just a little behind Core 2 Duo E6750.

X-bit labs - Wolfdale for Economical Enthusiasts: Core 2 Duo E7200 Review (page 12)

The whole article was really great in helping me to understand some of the differences between the 2 CPU's.
I'll need to sleep on it some more to decide which is the better machine to get, but the 7200 doesn't lose much to the E6750 besides gaming, and even wins a few.

If anyone wants to read the whole well written article, it's here:

X-bit labs - Wolfdale for Economical Enthusiasts: Core 2 Duo E7200 Review

About virtualization, I'm still not sure that I understand what that's all about, but I did read this:

Intel Virtualization Technology (VT) Explained | Hardware Secrets

Thanks Vernong1992, I'm still interested in any opinions offered.

 

[Nagasama]

well, the L2 is critical if all you do is game

 

[veg1992]

Well if you overclock the e7200 way more than the e6750 does, that makes a bigger difference

 

[Nagasama]

indeed.

 

[Hussein19891]

well, the L2 is critical if all you do is game

At the same time 1MB of cache difference won't be anything significant. The X2's only have like 1MB of L2 cache and still manage to handle games.

The E7200 is 45nm technology while I m guessing the E6750 is 65nm technology. So the E7200 will be faster clock for clock by about 10%.
Basically speaking the E7200 will outperform the E6750 even at stock clock.

 

[Prototype]

E7200 > E6xxx

 

[Nagasama]

45nm > 65nm
red beans > rice