Conclusion

With 23 processors in this comparison, this is becoming quite a useful comparison. We can already see where processor clock speed was more important than the number of cores, and vice versa. We can also see where the processor itself didn't really matter much at all. We also saw the effect that the new 45nm Core 2 processors' larger L2 cache and higher FSB speed had on performance.

The results of the E7200 with its smaller 3MB L2 cache also showed us that the 45nm Core 2 processors are fundamentally faster than their 65nm predecessors. The E7200 was faster than the E6750 in two of the benchmarks, even though it has a smaller L2 cache and lower core and FSB speeds. For more details on this processor, be sure to read our review of the Intel Core 2 Duo E7200 processor.

Ultimately, your choice of an Intel Core 2 processor should not depend on how deep your pockets are. Granted, Intel would love it if you spring for their high-end models (or even the new, ultra-fast Core i7 processor!) but that will not always translate into better performance. You should always choose your processor according to your usage pattern (e.g. gaming, 3D rendering, media encoding).

We will continue to improve on the comparison by adding more processors. However, further development of this guide depends greatly on our resources which are limited to begin with. If you have a Core 2 processor you no longer use, you can help us by loaning or donating it to us for our tests. And if you find the guide useful, tell your friends!

Questions & Comments

Please feel free to post your questions or comments here!

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support out work by visiting our sponsors, participate in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donate to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!