Notebookcheck Logo

Intel Core 2 Duo T6770 vs Intel Core i5-580M

Intel Core 2 Duo T6770

► remove from comparison

The Intel Core 2 Duo T6670 is a laptop processor based on the Penryn core. It offers only 2 MB level 2 cache and is therefore slower than other 2.3 GHz clocked Core 2 Duo CPUs.

Intel Core i5-580M

► remove from comparison Intel 580M

The Intel Core i5-580M is a high end dual core CPU for laptops and clocks (due to the Turbo Mode) from 2.66 to 3.33 GHz. Each core is based on the Nehalem (Westmere) micro-architecture. Hyperthreading enables the Dual Core CPU to handle 4 threads at once (for a better usage of the pipeline). Compared to the Core i7-620M, the 580M only has 3 MB Level 3 Cache.

A feature of the new Core i5-580M is the integrated graphics card called GMA HD and memory controller for DDR3-800/1066. Both are on a separate die that is still manufactured in 45nm whereas the CPU die is already manufactured in the new 32nm process.

The performance of the Core i5-580M should be a bit beyond the Core i7-620M and therefore the second fastest dual core CPU for laptops in 2010. Compared to the older Core 2 Duo models, the i5-580M should be faster than the T9900. Therefore, the Core i5-580M is a high end dual core cpu which should handle all daily work and gaming tasks. Only the quad core i7 CPUs can be noticeably faster at tasks that require four or more threads (e.g. rendering).

The 32nm cpu cores of the Westmere generation can also process some new instructions to accelerate AES encryptions.

The integrated Intel Graphics Media Accelerator HD (GMA HD) graphics card is known to be clocked up to 500-766 MHz and should be clearly faster than the old GMA 4500MHD. A GeForce 9400M (ION) should still be a faster (especially as Nvidia and ATI cards have a better driver support than Intel up to now). According to rumors, the GMA core will also use the Turbo Mode regulate the clock speed.

The power consumption of 35 Watt TDP (max.) counts for the whole package and therefore it is clearly better than the 35 Watt TDP of the Core 2 Duo T-series (CPU alone). Due to the Turbo Boost, the Core i5 is likely to use the whole TDP of 35 Watt under load and therefore can use more power than a similar specified Core 2 Duo. In Idle mode, the i5 uses clearly less power than the Core 2 Duo CPUs.

ModelIntel Core 2 Duo T6770Intel Core i5-580M
SeriesIntel Core 2 DuoIntel Core i5
CodenamePenrynArrandale
Series: Core i5 Arrandale
Intel Core 2 Duo T9900 compare3.06 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo T9800 compare2.92 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo P9700 compare2.8 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo T9600 compare2.8 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo P9600 compare2.66 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo T9550 compare2.66 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo T9500 compare2.6 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo SP9600 compare2.53 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo P9500 compare2.53 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo T9400 compare2.53 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo P8800 compare2.66 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo T9300 compare2.5 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo P8700 compare2.53 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo SP9400 compare2.4 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo P8600 compare2.4 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo T8300 compare2.4 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo SP9300 compare2.26 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo P8400 compare2.26 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo P7570 compare2.26 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo P7550 compare2.26 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo T6770 « 2.3 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo SL9600 compare2.13 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo P7450 compare2.13 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo T6670 compare2.2 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo T6600 compare2.2 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo T8100 compare2.1 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo P7370 compare2 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo P7350 compare2 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo T6570 compare2.1 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo T6500 compare2.1 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo SL9400 compare1.86 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo SL9380 compare1.8 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo T6400 compare2 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo SL9300 compare1.6 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo SU9600 compare1.6 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo SU9400 compare1.4 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo SU7300 compare1.3 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core 2 Duo SU9300 compare1.2 GHz2 / 2 cores
Intel Core i5-580M « 2.67 - 3.33 GHz2 / 4 cores3 MB L3
Intel Core i5-560M compare2.67 - 3.2 GHz2 / 4 cores3 MB L3
Intel Core i5-480M compare2.67 - 2.93 GHz2 / 4 cores3 MB L3
Intel Core i5-540M compare2.53 - 3.07 GHz2 / 4 cores3 MB L3
Intel Core i5-460M compare2.53 - 2.8 GHz2 / 4 cores3 MB L3
Intel Core i5-520M compare2.4 - 2.93 GHz2 / 4 cores3 MB L3
Intel Core i5-450M compare2.4 - 2.66 GHz2 / 4 cores3 MB L3
Intel Core i5-430M compare2.26 - 2.53 GHz2 / 4 cores3 MB L3
Intel Core i5-560UM compare1.33 - 2.13 GHz2 / 4 cores3 MB L3
Intel Core i5-470UM compare1.33 - 1.87 GHz2 / 4 cores3 MB L3
Intel Core i5-540UM compare1.2 - 2 GHz2 / 4 cores3 MB L3
Intel Core i5-520UM compare1.06 - 1.87 GHz2 / 4 cores3 MB L3
Intel Core i5-430UM compare1.2 - 1.73 GHz2 / 4 cores3 MB L3
Clock2300 MHz2666 - 3333 MHz
FSB8004800
L2 Cache2 MB512 KB
Cores / Threads2 / 22 / 4
TDP35 Watt35 Watt
Technology45 nm32 nm
Architecturex86x86
Announced
L1 Cache128 KB
L3 Cache3 MB
Transistors382+177 Million
Die Size81+114 mm2
max. Temp.105 °C
SocketBGA1288, PGA988
FeaturesTurbo Boost, Hyper Threading, Enhanced Speedstep, integrierte GMA HD 500-733MHz, Dual Channel DDR3 memory controller
$266 U.S.
Manufacturerark.intel.com

Benchmarks

Cinebench R11.5 - Cinebench R11.5 CPU Multi 64 Bit
100%
1 580M +
min: 2.41     avg: 2.5     median: 2.5 (3%)     max: 2.5 Points
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (32bit)
100%
1 580M +
min: 3511     avg: 3545     median: 3519 (21%)     max: 3606 Points
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Multi (32bit)
100%
1 580M +
min: 7591     avg: 7700     median: 7666 (6%)     max: 7842 Points
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Multi (64bit)
100%
1 580M +
min: 7549     avg: 8744     median: 9273 (6%)     max: 9411 Points
Cinebench R10 - Cinebench R10 Rend. Single (64bit)
100%
1 580M +
min: 3535     avg: 4095     median: 4374 (5%)     max: 4377 Points
3DMark 06 - CPU - 3DMark 06 - CPU
100%
1 580M +
min: 3126     avg: 3174     median: 3174 (7%)     max: 3222 Points
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 1M *
100%
1 580M +
min: 13     avg: 13.3     median: 13 (3%)     max: 14 s
Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 2M *
100%
1 580M +
min: 32     avg: 33     median: 33 (1%)     max: 34 s
Super Pi Mod 1.5 XS 32M - Super Pi mod 1.5 XS 32M *
100%
1 580M +
min: 769     avg: 781     median: 773 (3%)     max: 801 s
SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS) - SiSoft Sandra Dhrystone (MIPS)
100%
1 580M +
43800 MIPS (21%)
SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS) - SiSoft Sandra Whetstone (MFLOPS)
100%
1 580M +
31750 MFLOPS (24%)
Windows 7 Experience Index - Win7 CPU
100%
1 580M +
6.9 Points (88%)
3DMark Vantage - 3DM Vant. Perf. CPU no Physx
100%
1 580M +
min: 8375     avg: 8458     median: 8457.5 (7%)     max: 8540 Points

Average Benchmarks Intel Core i5-580M → 0% n=

- Range of benchmark values for this graphics card
- Average benchmark values for this graphics card
* Smaller numbers mean a higher performance
1 This benchmark is not used for the average calculation

Add one or more devices and compare

In the following list you can select (and also search for) devices that should be added to the comparison. You can select more than one device.

restrict list:

show all (including archived), 2024, 2023
v1.27
log 16. 09:22:48

#0 checking url part for id 468 +0s ... 0s

#1 checking url part for id 992 +0s ... 0s

#2 not redirecting to Ajax server +0s ... 0s

#3 did not recreate cache, as it is less than 5 days old! Created at Sun, 16 Jun 2024 05:37:17 +0200 +0.001s ... 0.001s

#4 composed specs +0.029s ... 0.03s

#5 did output specs +0s ... 0.03s

#6 getting avg benchmarks for device 468 +0.004s ... 0.034s

#7 got single benchmarks 468 +0s ... 0.034s

#8 getting avg benchmarks for device 992 +0.004s ... 0.038s

#9 got single benchmarks 992 +0.015s ... 0.053s

#10 got avg benchmarks for devices +0s ... 0.053s

#11 min, max, avg, median took s +0.05s ... 0.103s

#12 return log +0.07s ... 0.173s

Please share our article, every link counts!
> Expert Reviews and News on Laptops, Smartphones and Tech Innovations > Benchmarks / Tech > Processor Comparison - Head 2 Head
Redaktion, 2017-09- 8 (Update: 2023-07- 1)