TomsHardware.com Core Duo Review

[macfreek57]

Here's an interesting article I found on Tom's Hardware about the new Intel chips…
Will Core Duo Notebooks Trade Battery Life for Quicker Response?

 

[steve_hill4]

Let's hope not. I would be happy for the MacBook Pro to have comparable battery life to the current PowerBooks, not less. I could happily sacrifice say 10 seconds to keep a longer battery life. Let's think, anything up to a minute now, reportably down to about 20 seconds. I would settle with about 45 seconds for a slightly longer battery or maybe set it to be user selectable.

 

[dmw007]

Hopefully, the difference in energy consumption between the Pentium M & Core Duo is negligible. However, some of the tests conducted by toms were a little disturbing.

 

[Archmagination]

Yeah that is a little disturbing, but what that review goes on to say is that the Core Duo(both proccessors) running at max only consumes 21watts.. that extra 17watt consumption is coming from somwhere else.

They go on to mention that it could from the 512mb graphics card or in their mind the more likely culprit is USB 2.0 conflict with the proccessor.. apprently they have been hearing rumors that there is a conflict that is causing extra power consumption with the Core Duo.

 

[dblissmn]

Anandtech also did a Core Duo review/preview and if their figures are anything to go by, the Core Duo system should be tying or slightly beating the previous generation Pentium M system at that clock speed (and note that a Core Duo at 2GHz is substantially faster than the previous generation Dothan chip at 2GHz). I wonder if there is a defect specific to the laptop model that Toms Hardware tested?

 

[sigamy]

I understand that battery life is very important and that we shouldn't just take whatever the chip makers give us but isn't there a bit of "no pain no gain" here? I mean, we all complain that the G4 is too slow, we all know there is no way a G5 was going into a laptop. So isn't this Core Duo the best available?

Seems to me if you want processing power, you give up on battery life. You want long battery life, go for a lower powered machine.

 

[unixfool]

I understand that battery life is very important and that we shouldn't just take whatever the chip makers give us but isn't there a bit of "no pain no gain" here? I mean, we all complain that the G4 is too slow, we all know there is no way a G5 was going into a laptop. So isn't this Core Duo the best available?

Seems to me if you want processing power, you give up on battery life. You want long battery life, go for a lower powered machine.

I agree. As the saying goes, "You can't have your cake and eat it, too."

 

[GfPQqmcRKUvP]

Hopefully, the difference in energy consumption between the Pentium M & Core Duo is negligible. However, some of the tests conducted by toms were a little disturbing.

I think the Core Duo on that graph is the high voltage one used in the iMac. I read that the Macbook's at 1.67 and 1.87 gHz are low voltage.

 

[BornAgainMac]

It is does use more power, I wish there was a slider control that you can use to reduce the power usage when needed. Then when you plug your laptop in the wall, you slide it on maximum speed.

 

[Catfish_Man]

It is does use more power, I wish there was a slider control that you can use to reduce the power usage when needed. Then when you plug your laptop in the wall, you slide it on maximum speed.

Check the energy saver prefs. It has a [Highest | Automatic | Lowest] dropdown menu for processor performance.