# Intel Core 2 Duo T6670 vs SU7300



## premierxxx

Hi. I keep seeing computers which cost pretty much the same, but some have T6670 and others have SU7300. This is not a question about these particular processors, rather the T**** vs SU****, in wild card format if you will. 

Question is which one is faster? Why the SU**** processors are in 1 GHz range and computers with them cost the same as those with T**** processors, which are in 2 GHz range? 


Am I correct in assuming that SU7300 is newer than T6670? How come they are making processors with such a low clock speed?  I would expect clock speeds to go into 3, 4, and 5 GHz range now, but I see them go back to 1 GHz range. Isn't this a case of more money for less?


----------



## newgunner

The SU7300 is a low power dual core processor. It is not as fast as a T6670. The main difference is the SU7300 is used in laptops that offer longer battery life (upwards of 12 hours or so they say) which is why they are priced similar to a more powerful laptop that only has 2-3 hours on a single charge. These processors are made for basic use and not for heavy computing.

About the ghz barrier. Getting 3ghz stock clock speed isn't ridiculous, however when you get up into 4 and higher heat and cooling solution becomes a major factor. To cut down costs the cooling solution is only acceptable at best which results in stock clocks that are lower than what the processor is actually capable of.

My 2 cents. Correct me if i'm wrong or if i missed something.

PS: 12 hours laptop (reasonably 10 hour internet usage i'd guess, still ridiculously long life on a single charge): http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16834220602


----------



## premierxxx

Ahh haaa, that makes sense, thank you so much. I already have T6500 CPU on my laptop, and when running Vista 64-bit with all the programs installed, it's about at the point at which anything slower and I would say this computer does not fit year 2009 as a brand new computer. Interestingly enough 32-bit Vista ran faster in my opinion, there was less 'lag' when launching programs. And you are right, 10 hours of up time is way too much. I could see someone using those 10 hours on a flight that is 14 hours long, but then again there are power outlets on a plane. 

Thank you for clarifying the issue for me.


----------



## newgunner

No problem. 

However i'm actually a fan of the long battery life. Sorry if i made it seem otherwise hehe. Especially when it comes to that laptop because of it's ability to switch between the discrete G210M gpu (for more graphics intensive activities) and the less power hungry GMA4500. I also forgot to mention that the laptop linked above uses a larger battery than most (that i know of) of it's competition to achieve such longevity on a single charge.


----------

